republic &laquo; WordPress.com Tag Feed http://wordpress.com/tag/republic/ Feed of posts on WordPress.com tagged "republic" Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:43:01 +0000 http://wordpress.com/tags/ en <![CDATA[The Evil Democracy]]> http://umfreedom.wordpress.com/?p=69 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:46:10 +0000 blazodan http://umfreedom.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/the-evil-democracy/

I am always blown away to hear of our country’s unfailing support of democracy around the world. Not only do we support democracy so vehemently, we are willing to topple elected governments in order to install a “glorious” democracy among other countries. While these goals sound noble, even while having disastrous consequences, it is important to point out that not even the United States was meant to be a democracy, at least not the kind people speak of today.

If you asked any American what kind of government we have today, what would be their answer? More than likely, democracy would be the first word from their lips. This may be somewhat true in today’s America, but sadly it was not the intent of the founding fathers. The word democracy is not even found in the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution clearly affirms that every state in the union is guaranteed a Republican form of government. Benjamin Franklin described democracy as, “two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.” Alexander Hamilton said, “Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship.” John Adams is quoted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Clearly the founding fathers had something against democracy, and rightfully so.

While some people can argue the point, the fact is that most see democracy as a majority rule type of government. In other words, mob rule; whatever the majority wants, must be right. Therefore if 70% of people feel that Christianity should be the only allowed form of religion in America, that would be considered right and placed into law. Same situation if the majority felt that no religion should be practiced. Obviously, just because the majority agrees, that doesn’t make it right.

A republic form of government has leaders elected by majority that are bound by a set of rules. Those rules cannot be breached, as it is against the law of the land. Therefore, there are some things the majority cannot touch, no matter how well intentioned they may believe they are. Some people could say that the type of democracy we have is also bound by laws. To which I would pose the question, “For how long?” We already have groups who want to ban guns. We have groups who want to institute universal healthcare. We have groups who would like to give the president Congress’s power of declaring war. We have groups what would like the government to illegally tap our phone lines. All of these are unconstitutional, and illegal in the United States of America. So how much longer will it be before people start believing that this country should be ruled by what the majority of people believe to be right? Winston Churchill said it best, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

In his article, Republic? Democracy? What’s the Difference, Alexander Marriott claims there are two types of people who support democracy. The first are those who actually support a republic form of government, and are just too ignorant to understand the differences. The second are people who are in the majority and therefore will be able to vote themselves benefits. Our country should not support groups, no matter how large they are. Our country was founded on individual liberty, and each citizen’s individual freedom should be protected.

-Justin Head

]]> <![CDATA[Constitution of the People's Republic of China]]> http://donnajgamache.wordpress.com/?p=211 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:53:08 +0000 donnajgamache http://donnajgamache.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/constitution-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china/ Adopted December 4, 1982. It's here for your information in English; even if you just read the preamble, it's time well spent. 

http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

]]> <![CDATA[Mind Control]]> http://marketoutthere.wordpress.com/B000MRP2ZO Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:24:53 +0000 hhotnkkool http://hhotnkkool.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/mind-control/

International pressing of the highly anticipated 2007 debut from Stephen Marley features on bonus audio track: 'Got Music'. A member of the celebrated Marley sibling group The Melody Makers since the age of seven, the five time Grammy Award winning producer, singer, songwriter, and multi-instrumentalist is stepping center stage for the first time. Mind Control is all Stephen and a cornucopia of the sounds and styles that he loves: a blend of Reggae, Rock, R&B, Nyabinghi Rhythms, Flamenco and Hip-Hop. It's an album with the grit and flavor to rock old school Kingston sound systems and slippery, waxed Miami Range Rovers alike. Features cameos from Damian Jr, Gong Marley, Julian Marley, Mos Def, Ben Harper and Mr. Cheeks. Island.

It's hard to believe that Stephen Marley is only now making his solo debut. But as the brains (producer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, singer) of the family who has been behind the Grammy-winning careers of the Melody Makers and Damian Marley, as well as young brothers Kymani and Julian, he hasn't been slacking off or lost in a haze of ganja. Perhaps too acutely aware of the magnitude of this record, Marley finished it once, then scrapped several songs and started anew. The results this time reveal an artist who is in complete control of his medium: Some songs have a political edge; some are societal critiques; some are lullabies to his children; some are party anthems. The sound brings in such unlikely but satisfying elements as flamenco guitar and nyabinghi rhythms. Throw in guest spots from Mos Def, Ben Harper, his brothers and others, and Mind Control truly does sound like the work of a master craftsman able to weave all these different ideas into one cohesive whole. �-Tad Hendrickson

Mind Control is available at Amazon for $10.97. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

]]> <![CDATA[106 Year Old Roman Nun Votes for Obama]]> http://whatwecallthenews.wordpress.com/?p=251 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:34:14 +0000 Scott http://wwctnblog.com/2008/10/12/106-year-old-roman-nun-votes-for-obama/ A nun from Rome who has not voted for 56 years has come out of the shade and decided to vote for Obama.

This nun is 106 years old and is quite deaf. However she gets information from newspapers.

"I'm encouraged by Senator Obama," she says.

"I've never met him, but he seems to be a good man with a good private life. That's the first thing. Then he must be able to govern," she adds.

Well, let me tell you Miss Nun, deciding to vote because of somebody's private life over their ruling skills is not appropriate.

As you may know, the team at What We Call the News have opposing political views. One of us is Republican and one of us is Democrat. I'm not going to say which I am but lets just say if you read previous posts you can probably figure it out for yourself. This post itself could cause debate

]]> <![CDATA[Cheapest Pine Wardrobes Uk]]> http://dresserscrafb.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/cheapest-pine-wardrobes-uk/ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 07:44:49 +0000 bradynbullockb http://dresserscrafb.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/cheapest-pine-wardrobes-uk/
Resources on Cheapest Pine Wardrobes Uk :
  1. BALTIC TWO DOOR WARDROBE IN ANTIQUE PINE FINISH. COLLECT OR DELIVERY MAINLAND UK* CHEAPEST ON EBAY ... 7h 17m. Pine Wardrobes. 0 Bids. 99.00. Pickup only: ...

    shop.ebay.co.uk/.../_W0QQ_nkwZPineQ20WardrobeQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZQQ_mdoZ

  2. MEXICAN CORONA 2 DOOR 1 DRAWER PINE WARDROBE. 1 NO RESERVE + CHEAPEST DELIVERY WHY LOOK ELSEWHERE! ... 2 antique pine double wardrobes. 10 Bids. 52.37. Free. 36m ...

    shop.ebay.co.uk/items/Wardrobes__W0QQQ5ftrkparmsZ72Q253A12Q257C39Q2...

  3. pine wardrobes. fitted wardrobes uk. stanley sliding wardrobe doors ... cheapest pine wardrobes uk. wardrobe sales. wardrobes used in movies. modern wardrobes ...

    dictionary.reference.com/browse/Wardrobes

  4. ALL WARDROBES ARE SOLID PINE/DOVETAiLED ETC.MOST COME APART ... CANADIAN PINE. Victorian Style Double Wardrobe/Drawers 81"hx 49"w x 23" BARGAIN CHEAPEST IN UK! ...

    www.thepine.co.uk/wardrobes.htm

  5. One of the most cheapest but stylish old Pine suppliers in the South ... old pine waxed and painted wardrobes that come apart. xmas gifts and accessories ...

    oldpine.co.uk

  6. NEW Natural Canvas and Pine Bedroom Wardrobe. 19.99 +10.00. 1h 21m ... COLLECT OR DELIVERY MAINLAND UK* CHEAPEST ON EBAY. 59.99 +30.00. 10h 4m ...

    home-garden.shop.ebay.co.uk/items/Bedroom-Furniture__W0QQ_nkwZwardrobe...

  7. Postage to UK. Time Left. Pine Single Wardrobe. 2 Bids. 51.00. Pickup only: Free. 3m ... COLLECT OR DELIVERY MAINLAND UK* CHEAPEST ON EBAY. 149.99 +30.00. 5h 45m ...

    home-garden.shop.ebay.co.uk/items/Wardrobes__W0QQQ5fcatrefZ1QQQ5fca...

  8. CLICK 4 PINE: Wardrobes - MEXICAN CORONA PINE 3 DOOR WARDROBE BEDROOM FURNITURE, ... 1 NO RESERVE + CHEAPEST DELIVERY WHY LOOK ELSEWHERE!!! 7. 77.00. 29.00 ...

    stores.ebay.co.uk/CLICK-4-PINE_Bedroom_Wardrobes_W0QQfsubZ267787

  9. ... furniture Deal, U.K.'s cheapest online furniture store. ... Wardrobes... Beside Cabinets... Blanket Box... Pine Bedroom... Pine Dining Room... Pine Kitchen...

    furnituredeal.co.uk

  10. cheap wardrobes, console table, bookshelves, cheap sofas, glass desk 50 or less cheapest...More , ... 2 door antique pine double wardrobe provides plenty of ...

    uk.shopping.com/-pine

  11. ... desk 50 or less cheapest. home furnishings bedding. mycrosoft ... This attractive wardrobe from the Apsley collection has solid pine top and base components. ...

    uk.shopping.com/-painted+wardrobes

  12. In particular a pine wardrobe or an oak wardrobe. ... packed wardrobes are still the cheapest and most commonly sold wardrobe solution in the UK today. ...

    www.pinesolutions.co.uk/wardrobes_buying_guide.html

  13. Oakleigh wardrobes. Oakleigh bedsides. Oakleigh dressing table. Oakleigh ... Solid Pine Furniture | Traditional Oak Furniture | UK Locations | White Bedroom ...

    www.pinesolutions.co.uk/pacific_oak_furniture.html

  14. Welcome to The Furniture Company - The Cheapest Online & Highstreet Retailer. ... Mexican Range 2 Door Wardrobe with Drawer. 02. Baltic Pine 4 Door/6 Drawer Wardrobe ...

    the-furniture-company.com/bedroom-wardrobes-c-24_75.html

  15. Welcome to The Furniture Company - The Cheapest Online & Highstreet Retailer. ... Baltic Pine 5 Drawer Chest. 04. Mexican Range 2 Door Wardrobe with Drawer. 05. ...

    the-furniture-company.com/bedroom-c-24.html

  16. ... cheap wardrobes , console table , cheap furniture uk , sofa sale ... cheapest pc desks paypal. desk. wardrobes direct. cheap rattan bedroom ... Pine ...

    www.doorone.co.uk/-wardrobes

  17. bookshelves , cheap wardrobes , console table , cheap furniture uk , sofa sale ... More , ... cheapest pc desks paypal. desk. wardrobes direct. cheap rattan ...

    www.doorone.co.uk/xGS-sideboards

  18. Wardrobes. pine furniture | bar stools | chairs | bedroom furniture | mirror | tables | desks | office furniture | lounge furniture ...

    www.byzfaith.com/logo_wardrobes.html

  19. Konteaki Furniture Sale - Discounted bedroom furniture - oak furniture - pine furniture - dining room furniture - coffee tables - wardrobes - sideboards - dressers ...

    konteaki-furniture.co.uk/cheap-finance-cheapest-home-mortgages-c-22...

  20. ... Bedroom Norfolk 2 Door Pine Wardrobe Antique Stain 30134 (SN) ... Pine Wardrobe. Stylish Pine Wardrobes. Sale On Now Order Online With Free UK Delivery ...

    www.nextag.co.uk/pine-wardrobe/zzukzB1z0--search-html

  21. ... wardrobe uk,5 door wardrobes,6 door wardrobe,2 door drawer wardrobe, ... Door Wardrobe Antique Pine by Seconique from Online Superstore Furniture Deal UK. ...

    www.nextag.co.uk/3-door-wardrobe/zzukzB1z0--search-html

  22. Wardrobes ... Pine Furniture. Beds. Wardrobes. Chest Of Drawers ... Pine Lincoln Large Wardrobe. GBP 269.99. Gift Vouchers. Login To Purchase. A Gift Voucher ...

    www.rooms-direct.co.uk/category_24-246_Wardrobes.htm

  23. Wardrobes ... Pine Corner Unit. GBP 109.99. Verona Pine ... Santa Fe Pine Large Wardrobe. GBP 329.00. Gift Vouchers. Login To Purchase. A Gift Voucher ...

    www.rooms-direct.co.uk/category_26-298_Wardrobes.htm

  24. 1 NO RESERVE + CHEAPEST DELIVERY WHY LOOK ELSEWHERE!!! 16. 51.00 ... PINE BEDROOM SET / BEDSIDE / WARDROBE ... PINE 4+3+2 CHEST OF DRAWERS / WARDROBES ...

    search.stores.ebay.co.uk/mexican

  25. ... Pine wood Wardrobe. 189. ... Wardrobes. Dining Room Furniture. Corner Dressers. Dining Room Sets ... Cara Coffee Table: The cheapest coffee table with 2T ...

    www.furniturestuff.co.uk/products_new.php?page=1

  26. Wardrobes. Dining Room Furniture. Corner ... Corona 2 Door Pine wood Wardrobe ... Cara Coffee Table: The cheapest coffee table with 2T glass structure. ...

    furniturestuff.co.uk/mexican-corona-pine-corner-dresser-pr-35.html?...

  27. ... including cheap beds and headboards, discount wardrobes, dressing tables, dressers, chest of drawers, bunk ... wardrobes and triple wardrobes in oak, pine, ...

    www.furniture-mall.co.uk/bedroom-furniture.php

  28. Cheap Furniture UK - Buy quality furniture at the cheapest online prices for UK home delivery ... The turned pine doorknobs and sturdy bun feet, giving a ...

    furniture-mall.co.uk

  29. Corona Pine 3 Door Wardrobe. Corona pine wood wardrobe with 3 doors in distressed waxed finish. ... Cara Coffee Table: The cheapest coffee table with 2T glass ...

    www.quickfurniture.co.uk/corona-range-m-10.html?sort=2a&page=1

  30. Wardrobes. Hall Furniture. Hall & Console Tables. Waxed Pine Maya Bedroom Set ... 3 drawer bedside chest, 4 drawer chest and a 2 door wardrobe, all in pine finish. ...

    www.quickfurniture.co.uk/oakleigh-long-john-coffee-table-pr-70.html

  31. Ducal Wardrobes. Ducal Study. Ducal Kitchen. Ducal Furniture by Region. Ducal London ... Ducal Home Furniture, Ricketts Place, Bewdley, Worcestershire, DY12 1DW, UK ...

    ducalhomefurniture.co.uk

  32. ... chairs and more at the cheapest prices, proudly shipped from sunny Miami. ... coffee tables, nest of tables, wardrobes, dressers, pine and oak dining room set, ...

    www.alaskafishon.com/resources/furniture.php

  33. Mexican Corona Pine and Brazilian Pine Specialist Furniture Retailer UK - eBay UK furniture shop ... We sell the cheapest pine bedroom furniture on the internet ! ...

    www.mexicancorona.co.uk/index.htm

  34. Welcome to The Bed Shop - The Cheapest Online & Highstreet Retailer. ... Baltic Pine 4 Door 6 Drawer Wardrobe. LPD. 199.00. FREE! Bellingham 2 Door Wardrobe ...

    the-bed-shop.com/bedroom-furniture-wardrobes-c-84_85.html

  35. Home " Catalogue " Bedroom Furniture " Wardrobes. My Account | Cart Contents ... Baltic Pine 4 Door 6 Drawer Wardrobe. 07. Waterford 2 Door Combi Wardrobe. 08. ...

    the-bed-shop.com/bedroom-furniture-wardrobes-c-84_85.html?sort=5a&...

  36. ANTIQUE PINE DOUBLE WARDROBE WITH DRAWER & BUN FEET. UK 46.00 (4 Bids) ... MEXICAN PINE, NEW CHEAPEST. UK 105.00. Sale Ends: Tuesday Oct-07-2008 20:04:07 BST ...

    www.woulduseagain.co.uk/homeandgarden/index.php?catid=112572

  37. Modern pine range with a silky lacquered finish, available in three colours or ... Findtheneedle, the UK business to business portal. ...

    corndell-furniture-specialist.co.uk

  38. ... Cabinets,Kitchen&Bathroom Cabinets,Wardrobes - Modernday is Kitchen Cabinets, ... dining room set, living room set, mirrors, coat stands at the cheapest prices. ...

    www.timesharelifestyle.com/resources/furniture.php

  39. ... nest of tables, dressers, pine and oak dining room set, living room set, mirrors, ... Furnitures,Wardrobes,Kitchen Cabinet Doors,Bathroom Vanity,Kitchen Cabinet ...

    www.doylechambersmailinglists.com/resources/furniture.php

  40. Save money on Britain's principal and most reliable wardrobes. Wardrobes ... bedroom furniture | tables | chairs | dining furniture | pine furniture | lounge ...

    www.bf2004.net/bargain_wardrobes.html

  41. ... The United Kingdom's premier and most popular pine furniture. Pine Furniture ... chairs | furniture | desks | mirror | dining furniture | wardrobes | beds ...

    www.bf2004.net/bargain_pine_furniture.html

  42. ... and more at the cheapest prices, proudly shipped from sunny ... Wooden beds specialists supplying the UK with pine, oak, beech and many more wooden beds. ...

    www.themaidsservingaustin.com/resources/furniture.php

  43. All of the bed frame is in solid pine, with bed end panels and desk pull-out in ... Advert: A wide selection of quality UK made sofas delivered to your door in ...

    www.whereonearthgroup.com/cheapest-wardrobes.php

  44. Pine (10) Stores. UK's Cheapest Online Bedstore. Headboards Galore. Refine ... Pine Furniture, Single Wardrobes, Small Beds, Storage Beds, Wardrobe, Wardrobes, ...

    shopzilla.co.uk/8B--Bedroom_Furniture_Accessories_-_cat_id--13862__...

  45. Pine Furniture Sale UK ... Cheapest Price Promise, Buy Online! www.kdbeds. ... Pine Furniture, Single Wardrobes, Small Beds, Storage Beds, Wardrobe, Wardrobes, ...

    shopzilla.co.uk/8B--Bedroom_Furniture_Accessories_-_cat_id--13862__...

  46. ... 3 drawer bedside chest, 4 drawer chest and a 2 door wardrobe, all in pine finish. ... Cara Coffee Table: The cheapest coffee table with 2T glass structure. ...

    mysite4u.co.uk/advanced_search.php?keywords=cupboards&...

  47. Discover facts about The United Kingdom's topmost, most trusted wardrobes. Wardrobes ... desks | chairs | tables | furniture | mattresses | bedroom furniture | pine ...

    www.e-quill.com/quill_wardrobes.html

  48. ... furniture | dining furniture | office furniture | mirror | beds | pine furniture ... designer furniture | desks | wardrobes | chairs | tables | furniture ...

    www.e-quill.com/quill_sofas.html

  49. Cheapest Wardrobes sites! Seek out the premier UK wardrobes. Appliances ... born warddobe, | solid pine wardrobe, | sliding bedroom wardrobe, | lion witch ...

    www.cheapestsites.co.uk/wardrobes.html

  50. ... chairs and more at the cheapest prices, proudly shipped from sunny Miami. ... Furniture, Bedroom Furniture, Wardrobes - click4oak.co.uk - Offers oak and pine ...

    resources.akoffshoreoutfitters.com/furniture.asp

]]> <![CDATA[Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case]]> http://givemepagerank.wordpress.com/?p=31 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:37:10 +0000 dr. Crash http://givemepagerank.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/panel-palin-abused-power-in-trooper-case/ I just read news about Palin from cnn.com when i try to update my Busby SEO Test website. Just read this article below.

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin abused her power as Alaska's governor and violated state ethics law by trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator's report concluded Friday.

"Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda," the report states.

Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan's refusal to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten from the state police force was "likely a contributing factor" to Monegan's July dismissal, but Palin had the authority as governor to fire him, the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower states.

The investigator's report states Palin's efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

The lawyers representing both Sarah and Todd Palin issued a three-page attack on the investigative report, including the contention that Ethics Act violations can only involve financial motives and financial "potential gain, or the avoidance of a potential loss."

"Here, there is no accusation, no finding and no facts that money or financial gain to the Governor was involved in the decision to replace Monegan," the lawyers said.

Any abuse of power, they said, was on the part of the Legislative Council members, not the Palins.

"Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Governor, and then agreeing to pursue the PSEA attack against an administration that would not cave in to outrageous union demands."

"Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the Governor," the lawyers wrote.

Monegan has said he was fired in July after refusing pressure to sack Wooten, who had gone through an acrimonious divorce and custody battle with Palin's sister. View a timeline of the investigation »

Monegan said he was "relieved" by the findings.

"I believed and had the opinion that I was terminated because I did not fire Wooten," he told CNN. "Now these findings say that that's what happened, so I feel relieved."

Palin and her husband, Todd, have consistently denied wrongdoing, describing Wooten as a "rogue trooper" who had threatened their family -- allegations Branchflower discounted.

]]> <![CDATA[Vietnamese Deputy PM visits the Republic of Korea]]> http://lookatvietnam1.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/vietnamese-deputy-pm-visits-the-republic-of-korea/ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:53:18 +0000 lookatvietnam1 http://lookatvietnam1.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/vietnamese-deputy-pm-visits-the-republic-of-korea/ Republic of Korea (RoK) Prime Minister Han Sung-soo said his government bore the responsibility of boosting cooperation with Vietnam as a recent survey revealed it was the favorite nation of many Koreans.

PM Han Sung-soo made the remark Thursday while receiving Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Thien Nhan, who is visiting the RoK to strengthen cooperation in education, training, science, technology and human resource development.

The RoK government’s leader affirmed his country would do its utmost to transfer advanced technologies to Vietnam and support the country’s development process.

Deputy PM Nhan spoke highly of the RoK’s position in developing cooperative ties with Vietnam and said that cultural and historical similarities between the two nations had laid a firm foundation for closer cooperation in the future.

Nhan and his entourage, which includes 21 officials from the Government Office and the Ministry of Education and Training and the heads of universities from across the nation, also Thursday met with officials from the Korean Educational Development Institute and the Korea Research Institute for Education and Training.

The Deputy PM emphasized the role of information technology in education and training and described the RoK as Vietnam’s strategic partner in this area.

He expressed his wish that the RoK government would provide a greater number of postgraduate scholarships in science and technology for Vietnamese students.

Nhan is scheduled to meet with the RoK Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Education, Science and Technology today.

Source: VNA

]]> <![CDATA[§240 The fight over the senior jewish floridian vote]]> http://thatdudeyouknow.wordpress.com/?p=207 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:27:05 +0000 thatdudeyouknow http://thatdudeyouknow.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/%c2%a7240-the-fight-over-the-senior-jewish-floridian-vote/ First of all the Obama supporter was out. Saying that if McCain wins the election she'll blame the jews. Actually pretty funny. I found it on Jerusalem Gypsy's blog:

 

Then there's the McCain supporters' response. This I found on the Dry Bones blog:

]]> <![CDATA["Martial Law" preparations continue for "Domestic Operations"]]> http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/?p=1043 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:23:14 +0000 whitewraithe http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/martial-law-preparations-continue-for-domestic-operations/ Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"

By Naomi Wolf, AlterNet. Posted October 8, 2008.

Members of Congress were told they could face martial law if they didn't pass the bailout bill. This will not be the last time.

Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube, that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. … Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"

"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

"But these orders are now legal?'"

"Correct."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"

"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"

"Nothing."

"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"

"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"

"They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

"Does Congress have any military of their own?"

"No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."

"Who can arrest the President?"

"The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."

[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]

"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"

"Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"

"Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?"

"Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President."

"But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?"

"Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."

"But it's a coup already."

"Yes."

Related article:

Is Posse Comitatus Dead? US Troops on US Streets

In a barely noticed development, a US Army unit is now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted that in addition to emergency response the force “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.” The military has since claimed the force will not be used for civil unrest, but questions remain. We speak to Army Col. Michael Boatner, future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM, and Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine. [includes rush transcript]

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

via Democracy Now! | Is Posse Comitatus Dead? US Troops on US Streets.

Source

]]> <![CDATA[Video - Interview - Naomi Wolf - Give Me Liberty ]]> http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/?p=2382 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:05:54 +0000 Boulderdash http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/video-interview-naomi-wolf-give-me-liberty/ Interview with Naomi Wolf author of "Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries" given October 4, 2008 on Mind Over Matters, KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle.

]]> <![CDATA[History essay - Why did the Republican referendum of 1999 fail?]]> http://soundaffects.wordpress.com/?p=124 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:57 +0000 soundaffects http://soundaffects.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/history-essay-why-did-the-republican-referendum-of-1999-fail/ In the lead-up to Australia’s referendum of November 6, 1999, the republican movement was beset on all sides by barriers historical, imposed and self-imposed. Seeking to overcome the challenges set by section 128 of the Constitution for any referendum proposal in Australia the movement fell short at both hurdles, failing to secure either a majority of the electors in a majority of States or a majority of all the electors voting. This does not make the republican referendum unique in the history of Australian referenda; rather it joins thirty-six other such attempts in the dustbin of Australian constitutional reform. These were the historical barriers – those that were imposed were due to the incredibly tight schedule required in order to put a question to the people by the proposed date. And although some of the self-imposed barriers came about because of this narrow time frame, many were due to shortcomings and failures in the conduct of the ‘Yes’ campaign itself, and specifically due to the attitudes taken by ‘Yes’ voters towards the ‘No’ coalition. Furthermore, it is also worthwhile considering the concept of a “compound republic” as described by Graham Maddox, and how this could have affected public support for the republican proposal.

The seeds of the 1999 referendum defeat can be seen as being sown almost a century prior to the vote, in the crafting of the referendum section of the Australian Constitution. Section 128 establishes that the Constitution can only be altered or amended through a popular vote, and a double majority of both electors overall and electors by State at that. As John Uhr surmises, the requirement of electoral acceptance is almost anomalous – and is certainly far removed from the US system, which is based on the federal and State legislatures rather than a direct appeal to the people.  Uhr links this need for a “special super-majority”  to Australia’s distinctive compulsory voting laws – supposedly to lessen the impact of disinterested voters. Furthermore, there is a suggestion that as well as the difficulties created by section 128, the Australian Constitution as a whole is notoriously resistant to change. However this is not because of unmanageable constitutional requirements but rather because it was advanced and “radically democratic for its time, being framed in a series of constitutional conferences…by delegates elected by the people of the various colonies.”
Whether or not there are barriers to reform inherent in the Constitution itself, there can be no doubting the historically “modest”  success of referendum proposals in Australia. Only eight of forty-four proposals have achieved the required double majority, the referendum immediately preceding the republican question saw four simultaneous proposals rejected with ‘Yes’ votes of below 40%, and all of the eight most recent proposals were also rejected.
There are many conflicting opinions as to the reasons for these numerous rejections: John Uhr believes the high failure rate “reflects more on the defective approach of initiating governments than on the alleged deliberative defects of voters”,  whilst also citing “the conventional interpretation holding that the referendum system gives too much weight to voter apathy and ignorance”;  Galligan and Wright specifically target “the quality of proposals” whilst also acknowledging that “some blame the ignorance and apathy of the people”.  However, perhaps the most important historical precedent to consider in regard to the republic referendum is Galligan’s and Wright’s explanation of the low success rate of referendum proposals in Australia: “the commonwealth government that controls the framing and initiation of proposals has often sought to expand its own powers or to put questions lacking popular support”. This historic suspicion of politicians and governments attempting to expand their own powers is borne out throughout the republican debate, and is an issue to be examined in greater depth when addressing both the imposed and the self-imposed barriers faced by the ‘Yes’ campaign.
One final historical barrier to be discussed involves the immediate history of the republican issue in the decade or so prior to the 1999 vote. From the very beginning of his time as Prime Minister, Paul Keating was passionate and vociferous when discussing what he saw as the absolute imperative for Australia to become a republic in order to escape its rigidly conservative past and take its place amongst the adult nations of the world. “It sometimes seemed”, writes Justice Michael Kirby, “that, by this issue, he was seeking to exorcise the ghost of Menzies’ dominance of Australian politics in the second half of the first century of federation”.  So passionate was he that “he effectively claimed the republic for himself and for his party”.  The difficulty this creates is that, historically, without bipartisan support at the federal level it is almost impossible to secure the required double majority. Keating made the republic a major part of his 1996 re-election campaign, and his promise of a referendum was quickly echoed by John Howard in an attempt to neutralise the issue in the general election. Keating’s eventual defeat in that election, coupled with Howard’s promise of a referendum, meant that the 1999 republican referendum was initiated and enacted by an avowed monarchist leading a party that did not support the referendum in the first place. This led to many of the imposed barriers referred to earlier, and it is to a more detailed examination of these that we now turn. But, in reality, by seizing the issue and making it partisan, Keating had almost certainly defeated the referendum before it had even been drafted.

Many of the most difficult challenges to overcome were, in fact, almost a direct result of Paul Keating’s passion and zeal for an Australian republic. A Commission had been created prior to 1988 and charged with reviewing the Australian Constitution in time for the Bicentenary, and in their final report  recommended that there was no sense taking steps towards a republic “as there was no significant movement”  pushing for the change. However, as Justice Kirby relates at length, once Keating became Prime Minister Australia’s progress towards a republic accelerated greatly. In 1992 Keating declared his intention to propose the necessary changes to the constitution in order to establish a republic, splitting the Liberal Party and giving a boost to the demoralised Australian Labor Party, which was at this time staring down the barrel of an unwinnable election. Following the remarkable Labor election victory in March 1993, Keating announced the establishment of a seven person Republican Advisory Committee in April, met the Queen in London in September to inform her of his government’s plans, and in June 1995 announced his government’s adoption of the Advisory Committee’s minimalist model – for the new Head of State to be detached from politics and “an eminent Australian, a widely respected figure who can represent the nation as a whole.”  At this same time Keating indicated that he aimed at a referendum on the issue “sometime in 1998 or 1999 with a view to acceptance of the referendum entailing a change to a republic in the centenary year of Australian Federation, 2001. ” However, in Justice Kirby’s assessment:

To change the Australian Constitution in such a significant respect, within the space, effectively, of five years, imposed requirements of comprehension and adaptation to change which proved unacceptable to the majority of the Australian electors.

It is easy, though, to understand the pressing urgency, especially when one is reminded of three hugely symbolic dates looming large in the hearts and minds of Australian Republicans circa 1995: the advent of the new millennium; the Sydney Olympic Games in September 2000 and the thought of who might represent the nation in opening and closing the games; and thirdly the centenary of Australian Federation in January 2001. Any and all of these events would provide powerful symbolism for a new age in Australia and the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the nation. Yet here we see that one of the greatest challenges to the ‘Yes’ movement – trying to convince the Australian people of the need for this fundamental constitutional and ideological reform – was simply not given enough time to be fully understood and accepted by the electorate.
Compounding this challenge was that Howard was certainly not going to allow any extra time for the republican cause to get its house in order, and so was perfectly willing to stick to the deadlines already proposed by Keating. The effects of this imposed brevity were especially evident during the Constitutional Convention in February 1998, when one hundred and fifty-two parliamentary delegates and appointed and elected non-parliamentary delegates were limited to just ten days to reach consensus on how best to proceed with the complex issue of the mooted republican referendum. Justice Kirby recounts that:

The republicans had to endeavour to secure a consensus in order to call up the fulfilment of the Prime Minister’s promise to have a referendum in those circumstances. Yet this imposed upon them the haste and unwillingness to explore and forge links with republicans of different persuasions, which produced the proposal ultimately put to the people.

As we shall see, the very nature of this compromise proposal opened itself up to charges of elitism and raised public suspicion. A proposal put together behind the closed doors of Old Parliament House (where the convention was held) immediately put the ‘Yes’ movement on the back foot, forcing them to expend a great deal of effort and energy explaining the proposed constitutional changes – something at which, ultimately, they failed miserably.
Almost from the outset this compromise platform was in serious electoral danger. As the Australian Constitutional Referendum Study  makes plain time and time again, the majority of support for a republic was based on the model of a directly elected president, not the parliamentary appointed president that was the Constitutional Convention’s platform. A majority of the sources,  too, cite the importance of direct election advocates in the ultimate defeat of the referendum, with David Charnock declaring “the votes of direct electionists were as important as those of monarchists in the defeat of the republic referendum.”  Charnock’s reasoning for this is simple: the three competing options (direct election, parliamentary appointed, and status quo) were each unable to secure an absolute majority in their own right, so inevitably the other two options will defeat it; creating what Charnock dubs a “ cyclical majority”.
Justice Kirby, in his article, goes on to reveal how the assembled republicans at the convention were unable to prevent Howard using “his position to undermine the referendum’s success”  quite so effectively:
In this respect, the republicans were probably outflanked by the strategy of Prime Minister Howard, whose unwavering support for the existing constitutional arrangements was never in doubt. His offer locked republican supporters into a time frame, and then a model, which was difficult or impossible to change in any material respect.
In this compressed constitutional convention we see both a barrier imposed by Howard and a barrier imposed by Keating. Essentially, Justice Kirby summarises, “neither side was willing to take the time which retrospect suggests essential if the proposal was to have a chance of being accepted.”  However, while Howard’s loading of the electoral dice was the last and most decisive of the imposed barriers to constitutional reform, Keating’s error of haste proved only to be one of the first of many self-imposed barriers put in their own path by the ‘Yes’ vote.

While there can be no doubt that the model of a parliament-appointed president which emerged from the 1998 Constitutional Convention was the less-preferred republican model for many voters, there were a great many errors made by the ‘Yes’ campaign that ultimately served to exacerbate the challenges already facing the movement. It may well have been the case that the parliament-appointed model was the one that would have caused the least upheaval to the constitution and indeed the established functions of government in Australia, but there was a noticeable failure on the part of the ‘Yes’ campaign to adequately make this case to the public:
A constant theme of explanations for the negative response to the change was the feeling that the electors were being taken for granted, talked down to, condescended with jingles but not provided with basic and detailed information of what precisely was involved in the change.
A perfect example of these condescending jingles and slogans were two aimed specifically at the youth vote: “Give an Australian the Head Job” and “Rooting for a Republic.”
Furthermore, those who retained affection and sentiment for the monarchy were often attacked and insulted in sections of the Australian media as being wrong, outdated and out of step with the rest of the country,  and belittled by some supporters of the republic as being somehow less patriotic and un-Australian.  Obviously, while the ‘Yes’ campaign could not possibly have controlled everything that the millions of republican supporters said or did, it is perhaps not unfair to suggest that, in the notable absence of a positive, substantive and detailed campaign for change emanating from ‘Yes’ headquarters, these negative, sensationalist attacks began to fill the void. Certainly, if having to convince a large number of voters of the substance, necessity and timeliness of the proposed model was already a significant challenge, these attacks were not helping the ‘Yes’ cause in the slightest.
Admittedly though, this was not solely the fault of the ‘Yes’ campaign, but one contributed to by the Australian media. That even the ABC was considered by some to be perceived as biased towards the republican cause  speaks to how total was the media push toward the success of the referendum in 1999. This media support was not simply limited to editorials and opinion pieces, but often, particularly with the News Ltd. publications, the aggressively pro-republic line carried through into supposedly factual reports, the coverage of the ‘No’ coalition, and even the photographs and cartoons. “Most of these”, Justice Kirby argues, “showed the Queen and her supporters in a bad light and the republicans as the only cause which real patriotic Australians could possibly support.”
Perhaps, though, the greatest campaign error made by the ‘Yes’ ticket was the practice of recruiting high-profile public figures to be used in promotional material and to be featured heavily in all coverage,  most notably former Prime Ministers Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke, former Chief Justices Mason and Brennan and even a former Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen. This error was greatly exacerbated by the choice to appropriate the “It’s Time” slogan from Whitlam’s historic election victory in 1972 – thus presenting a campaign to establish an apolitical head of state by using probably the single most famous and identifiably partisan election campaign in Australia’s history. This was an ill conceived, poorly considered choice that perhaps deterred as many voters as it inspired. It was, unquestionably, a massive failure of the ‘Yes’ campaign that no one foresaw the potential for formerly great public figures reappearing on the national scene to cause feelings of discomfort in the electorate, especially given that they were reappearing to support a constitutional referendum granting the Federal Parliament the power to elect the Head of State. As we have already seen, many referenda had failed that sought to expand the powers of politicians, and the re-emergence especially of these three former Prime Ministers was always going to arouse suspicion when one considers that the referendum model allowed parliament – the institution that Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke had dominated for many years not very long ago – to select the Head of State. There was, as Justice Kirby recounts, “a cynical view that their real motivation was a desire by them (or their contemporary equivalents) for the top job of President which the current constitutional arrangements safely denied them.

All of these errors, failures and self-imposed barriers to constitutional reform made by the ‘Yes’ campaign can all be related back to one great, overarching failure: what Justice Kirby dubs the elitist error. As he documents, post-referendum analysis showed that a typical ‘Yes’ voter was tertiary-educated, a higher-income earner and living in the capital city of a larger state, particularly NSW and Victoria. Outside of these two national centres, however, support for the referendum fell away among the less educated, the lower-income workers, those in smaller cities and town and those in the less populous states and territories.  “Clearly enough,” writes Justice Kirby,

In sufficient numbers to reject it, the alteration was seen by many as an unnecessary distraction from really important issues and one that was being pressed on the nation by an urban elite out of touch with the values and concerns of other citizens.

If one went seeking elitism in the 1999 referendum one could see it all the way from Keating’s seven member Republican Advisory Committee, the Constitutional Convention, the parliament-appointed model eventually adopted, and condescension and sloganeering from both the ‘Yes’ campaign and the media, to the presence of former Prime Ministers, High Court Chief Justices and a Governor General promoting the ‘Yes’ vote. At no point in this process was the wider public consulted or even invited to participate, and the entire campaign was detached from the vast majority of Australians. It is certainly true, as Higley & McAllister argue, that due to the constitutional and procedural requirements all referendum proposals in Australia are unavoidably elite as they must go through several stages of parliament before they are put to the people.  It is also worth pointing out that ‘elite’ means the best and brightest, and that having a referendum proposal initiated, engineered and orchestrated by the best and the brightest might, in fact, be preferable. However there is a world of difference between being ‘elite’ and being ‘elitist’, and that difference proved to be electorally fatal to the republican referendum proposal.

One final point to consider in assessing the failure of the republican referendum is the extent to which people felt there was need for change, and the extent to which the proposed changes were already perceived to be enshrined in both the Constitution and the practice of government in Australia. In his article “Australian Democracy and the Compound Republic”, Graham Maddox advances the idea of a “compound republic”,  which speaks to the importance of federalism in political culture and practice. Maddox posits that, prior to the 1999 referendum, many were of the belief that Australia was already a republic in many respects, and that “there was a strong opinion that Australia enjoyed all the benefits of republicanism under the constitutional monarchy”.  The importance of federalism in the Australian political system had led to other writers  considering Australia a compound republic, which leads us to an interesting consideration: if Australia is already thought of as republican in practice, then this precludes any attempt to change our system to a republican one. It must be noted, however, that Maddox shows no evidence that this concept of compound republicanism had reached mainstream public discourse in any meaningful way whatsoever, and so it would be incorrect to cite this concept as assisting in the downfall of the republican referendum. However it is certainly an interesting point to consider in and of itself.

As with any election, it would be wrong to attribute the 1999 republic referendum defeat to one single issue or concern. What can be said, however, is that the reasons for the defeat can be split into three broad categories. Firstly, the less than successful precedent of referenda in Australia and the requirements of the Constitution meant that the republic proposal faced significant challenges even before the formal process was begun. Secondly, once that process got underway the republican cause had barriers imposed upon it, deliberately and unintentionally, and from both sides of politics. Thirdly, following the adoption of a referendum proposal that was less popular than some of the alternatives, the ‘Yes’ campaign was unable to convince either those who supported the monarchy or those who supported direct election that a parliamentary-appointed president model was the most effective, or that there was a pressing need for change. While the election of Kevin Rudd and Labor in November 2007 has seen the republic issue tentatively put back on the table, it will be impossible for any proposal to succeed unless it learns from the mistakes of 1999.

]]> <![CDATA[Other Cowboy Stars - Bill Elliott "Colorado Pioneers"]]> http://stevesomething.wordpress.com/?p=1229 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:54:24 +0000 stevesomething http://stevesomething.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/other-cowboy-stars-bill-elliott-colorado-pioneers/ Okay.

So, we've spent some time exploring an important year in Charles Starrett's cowboy star career.  That would be the year of 1935.  This is when Starrett first pulled on his boots and starred in his a Western.  That film was "Gallant Defender."

1945 would probably rank as the second most important year in his career.  That's when he began to make Durango Kid films exclusively, with "The Return Of The Durango Kid."

What was Wild Bill Elliott up to in 1945?  Well, he was portraying the creation of comic artist Fred Harman -- Red Ryder.  He would be the second of four actors to play the role (Don "Red" Barry, Allan Lane and Jim Bannon were the others).

"Colorado Pioneers" co-stars Robert Blake, and concerns a bunch of city kids who come West to learn a thing or two about being cowhands.  This Republic film is strictly for a younger audience.

This opens the door to a discussion on what the intended audience was for Charles Starrett's Western films, and how much a consideration of the age-range of the audience effected the filmmakers' choices in making these films.

Let us continue this discussion on another day.

]]> <![CDATA[More Than 2 Choices For President of These United States?]]> http://bkl1.wordpress.com/?p=49 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 02:25:08 +0000 bkl1 http://bkl1.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/more-than-2-choices-for-president-of-these-united-states/ By Brian K. Lutes

 We have more than 2 choices for President of these United States, but it is THE HARD TRUTH that in reality we do not.

The Libertarian Party candidate for President is a former Congressman and US Attorney Bob Barr of Georgia. Barr was a stellar conservative in his time in Congress and was a leader in the fight to impeach Bill Clinton. He would be an excellent President as in every interview I have heard him give his first answer when asked what he would do in a given situation is "well, the CONSTITUTION says..." and he has immense respect for the 2nd Amendment. In addition he understands that the Federal government has tremendously overstepped its bounds and needs to be reigned in drastically as well as we must get out of the United Nations.

The Constitution Party's candidate for President is Chuck Baldwin. I believe Mr. Baldwin would also be an excellent President as he understands that before the President can do anything he must first look to the Constitution for authority. He believes that the Federal government must be re-chained to the Constitution as intended by our Founding Fathers.

However, in reality they won't win and therein lies the horror of our situation.

I am sickened by both the Republican & Democratic candidates for President this year, but I am more sickened by the fact that I will probably be forced to cast my ballot not so much in favor of McCain, but against Obama.

It sickens me because I have never been a believer in picking the lesser of 2 evils, but come on, is there really a choice here? No! Obama is a straight up communist. He doesn't even try to hide it.  I believe he will make short shrift of what little is left of our "limited constitutional republic" by installing Hillary Clinton & Chuck Schumer on the US Supreme Court which means we can all kiss our guns goodbye. And, he will quickly signing the Global Poverty Act that he introduced in the Senate and will be passed by the Democratically controlled Congress. This act will require billions of our tax dollars to be given to the United Nations automatically every year to combat "global poverty". The man will simply be the final nail in all of our coffins.

As for McCain, he's got Sarah Palin and not much else as far as I'm concerned. If not for the possibility of her taking over for him I just don't think I could pull his lever. Think about it: McCain authored the McCain - Feingold Act that virtually eliminates political free speech in the days just before an election. President Bush, never a conservative himself, said the only reason he signed the bill was because he believed the Supreme Court would throw it out as unconstitutional. Well they didn't you asshole! If he believed the bill was not in compliance with our Constitution he should have vetoed it on the spot, but I digress.

And, let's not forget that McCain was a huge advocate for the illegal alien amnesty last summer and very distinctly said "we're not going to build fences and barriers at the border". Does anyone think that McCain won't give amnesty to the illegals if he is elected? In addition McCain supported  what has come to be known as the "economic bailout" for which there is absolutely no authority in the Constitution. Then in the last debate he suggested that the Federal government buy up $300 billion worth of mortgages that are in default. In many respects he is Obama-lite.

Alas, I will be pulling the lever for McCain in just a few days with the hope that he will not sit long on the throne.

]]> <![CDATA[Student's Reaction to The Presidential Debate]]> http://sjuonlinenews.wordpress.com/?p=385 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:19:00 +0000 sjuonlinenews http://sjuonlinenews.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/students-reaction-to-the-presidential-debate/ After Tuesday’s second debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, the students of St. John’s University have a new topic.  Here are some students opinions.

 

Student # 1

       I think the debate was finally well planned and well executed. However, though the “Town hall” setting was said to be John McCain’s best setting, I do not believe that he did well. He paced the room instead of working the room. He sat in his chair writing notes constantly and seemed to get aggravated very easily. He did not give off the cool and easy vibe. McCain also went as far to do very disrespectful notions. He undermined Barack Obama and threw down a couple of low blows. He referred to his opponent as “that one,” that was far beyond low. He just had not respect for the person he was running against. I understand it politics and it does get dirty but there has to be a line of respect drawn somewhere.

But as far as the issues go, I have heard these statements for awhile. McCain’s $5,000 dollar tax credit for healthcare is a joke to me. Yes, I can take it across state lines the same way I do to purchase other things but that is too much work and in the long run he wants to take money from my work benefits to give me this opportunity. And his notions about how to “win” the Iraq war, which in my opinion is already lost, are more nostalgic notions of his past. He is a patriot, which I respect, but those “glory” days are over.

Now on to Barack Obama, he worked that town hall audience and the TV. He was very personable and gave off his usual calm and cool collective attitude. While John McCain spoke he sat still and listened and never made any notes. He was respectful and calm even when the low blows came at him. He threw some low blows himself but no as obvious as John McCain.

His issues, again, I have been hearing for the last 20 months and they sound good. However, I still do not like his exit strategy for Iraq. Over 4,000 of our soldiers have already died in this war, a 16 month pull out does not satisfy me. I don’t believe we should continue to fight a war but I still don’t think we should leave. Many lives have been lost and tossed upside down by this war. 4,000 of our brave have gone in vain and right now, just walking away is not an option. Finish the job, let Iraq set up a government but do not let them lose. That country is weak and can be turned over by a coo and become another risky enemy for the United States.

My overall view of the debate is that it was a success. The first debate was in a weird gray area with no questions answered. This one got a lot more information across. A clear win for Barack Obama though. McCain seems to be in a desperation mode where is he going to say anything to appease. Right now, the debates are getting good. I am sure the McCain camp wouldn’t agree with that but now we are finally hearing the real issues.

 

Student #2

From watching the Tuesday night presidential debate, I felt that Barack Obama won handedly. He carried himself well, both on the issues and in regards to his demeanor.  John McCain tried to make a substantial improvement from his first debate but once again, Obama won.  Both candidates, in my opinion, left a lot of room for improvement.  For example, both candidates could have pressed the issues more.  I did not hear much about the specifics of their plans and policies but I think that out of the two, Obama presented more information, statistics, and figures than John McCain.  McCain simply restated many of the questions and stuck to his rally talking points and did not mention what, specifically, he would do to help the middle class.  Obama also pointed out the flaws in McCain’s healthcare plan, which is immensely important to me. From watching the debate, I think that Obama resonates with many people, black and white.  Many people can relate and clearly understand his plans and policies over McCain.  During the debate, McCain didn’t seem like he really understood the plight of the American people. Simply stating that we’re in tough times doesn’t change much.  He also used phrases like “my friend” to preface many of his answers which I think worked against him.  McCain on the defensive is also a sad thing to watch because he comes off as trying to hard and I think it highlights the fact that he does not have much to offer besides more of the same policies as our current president.  Also, another thing that detracted from the arguments presented by both candidates is their lack of truth telling.  Granted, candidates should cast doubt on each other, however, there is a grey area between casting doubt through the use exaggeration and flat out lying.  As an average citizen that is not political junkie, it’s difficult to know what is truth from what is not and these candidates have been using this against us and I think it has the potential to catch up with both of them. 

 

Student #3

I think McCain did a really good job at the second debate because he demonstrates why he should be next president. His energy plan is much better than Obama, requires us to drill immediately. Also he has immediate solution for Health care, 5000 tax credit for health care. As a republican, I feel that McCain’s tax plan will be better for middle –class, and he is clearly has more experiences in Washington. He much better prepares to run a country be a commander in chief. He is also war hero as prove of record in military. Obama has no clue to do anything in White house. Let’s s talk about this word “change”, Obama keeps throwing that word out there and never explains what he means.

 

Looking forward to the next presidential debate.

]]> <![CDATA[The United States of America: An Illegitimate Federal Government]]> http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/?p=980 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:33:58 +0000 whitewraithe http://whitewraithe.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/the-united-states-of-america-an-illegitimate-federal-government/ Received via email 10/6/2008

Real agenda behind the false imprisonment of Congressman James Traficant per Jim Condit, Jr.

WHY JIM TRAFICANT IS REALLY IN JAIL

The following summary is from a website I've lost track of: On 17 March 1993, almost a decade before he was sentenced to prison for eight years on 30 July 2002 and dismissed as a crackpot by the media, James Traficant, a Congressman from Ohio, delivered an extremely important speech before the House of Representatives, exposing the fact that the federal government of the United States has been illegitimate ever since it was declared bankrupt by the Emergency Banking Act of 1933.  Although comparable in importance to George Washington's Farewell Address and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, this historic message by James Traficant has been studiously ignored by media pundits and university scholars, as a result of which the American people have yet to receive his urgent wake-up call.

Begin Traficant speech on the floor of the House of Representatives:

The Bankruptcy of The United States
United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993
Vol. 33, page H-1303

The Speaker is Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House:

"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11... Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any Bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully, a blueprint for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.

It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congressional session, June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution To Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: "The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States?'

. . . Their lust is for power and control. Since the inception of central banking, they have controlled the fates of nations.

. . . The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and distinct from the federal United States government.

. . . Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) "hypothecated" all property within the federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a "beneficiary" of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their "subjects," the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States corporation all the credit "money substitute" it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the federal United States didn't have any assets, they assigned the private property of their "economic slaves", the U.S. citizens as collateral against the unpayable federal  debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a s