Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Evening Stephanie...
The article has more to offer then the first few paragraphs...it's point is made further down...
But I do appreciate your time in posting the information you have provided...
Have a great weekend...
tis
Thanks for the info Sox...
I am by no means a history buff...was doing/thinking other things while the teachers attempted to pass on to me their knowledge...another one of my regrets in life...
tis
What would be...
the time frame...
tia
tis
Evening Sox...
I have no idea...but am curious to the information (answer) you have concerning the question you have asked of me...
tis
And Then They Came After Us...
We’re at war. How about acting like it?
First the terrorists of the Middle East went after the Israelis. From 1967 we witnessed 40 years of bombers, child murdering, airline hijacking, suicide murdering, and gratuitous shooting. We in the West usually cried crocodile tears, and then came up with all sorts of reasons to allow such Middle Eastern killers a pass.
Yasser Arafat, replete with holster and rants at the U.N., had become a “moderate” and was thus free to steal millions of his good-behavior money. If Hamas got European cash, it would become reasonable, ostracize its “military wing,” and cease its lynching and vigilantism.
When some tried to explain that Wars 1-3 (1947, 1956, 1967) had nothing to do with the West Bank, such bothersome details fell on deaf ears.
When it was pointed out that Germans were not blowing up Poles to get back lost parts of East Prussia nor were Tibetans sending suicide bombers into Chinese cities to recover their country, such analogies were caricatured.
When the call for a “Right of Return” was making the rounds, few cared to listen that over a half-million forgotten Jews had been cleansed from Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and lost billions in property.
When the U.N. and the EU talked about “refugee camps,” none asked why for a half-century the Arab world could not build decent housing for its victimized brethren, or why 1 million Arabs voted in Israel, but not one freely in any Arab country.
The security fence became “The Wall,” and evoked slurs that it was analogous to barriers in Korea or Berlin that more often kept people in than out. Few wondered why Arabs who wished to destroy Israel would mind not being able to live or visit Israel.
In any case, anti-Semitism, oil, fear of terrorism — all that and more fooled us into believing that Israel’s problems were confined to Israel. So we ended up with a utopian Europe favoring a pre-modern, terrorist-run, Palestinian thugocracy over the liberal democracy in Israel. The Jews, it was thought, stirred up a hornet’s nest, and so let them get stung on their own.
We in the United States preened that we were the “honest broker.” After the Camp David accords we tried to be an intermediary to both sides, ignoring that one party had created a liberal and democratic society, while the other remained under the thrall of a tribal gang.
Billions of dollars poured into frontline states like Jordan and Egypt. Arafat himself got tens of millions, though none of it ever seemed to show up in good housing, roads, or power plants for his people. The terror continued, enhanced rather than arrested, by Western largess and Israeli concessions.
Then the Islamists declared war on the United States. A quarter century of mass murdering of Americans followed in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, the first effort to topple the World Trade Center, and the attack on the USS Cole.
We gave billions to Jordan, the Palestinians, and the Egyptians. Afghanistan was saved from the Soviets through U.S. aid. Kuwait was restored after Saddam’s annexation, and the holocaust of Bosnians and Kosovars halted by the American Air Force. Americans welcomed thousands of Arabs to our shores and allowed hundreds of madrassas and mosques to preach zealotry, anti-Semitism, and jihad without much scrutiny.
Then came September 11 and the almost instant canonization of bin Laden.
Suddenly, the prior cheap shots at Israel under siege weren’t so cheap. It proved easy to castigate Israelis who went into Jenin, but not so when we needed to do the same in Fallujah.
It was easy to slander the Israelis’ scrutiny of Arabs in their midst, but then suddenly a few residents in our own country were found to be engaging in bomb making, taking up jihadist pilgrimages to Afghanistan, and mapping out terrorist operations.
Apparently, the hatred of radical Islam was not just predicated on the “occupation” of the West Bank. Instead it involved the pretexts of Americans protecting Saudi Arabia from another Iraqi attack, the United Nations boycott of Iraq, the removal of the Taliban and Saddam, and always as well as the Crusades and the Reconquista.
But Europe was supposedly different. Unlike the United States, it was correct on the Middle East, and disarmed after the Cold War. Indeed, the European Union was pacifistic, socialist, and guilt-ridden about former colonialism.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were left alone in unassimilated European ghettoes and allowed to preach or promulgate any particular hatred of the day they wished. Conspire to kill a Salmon Rushdie, talk of liquidating the “apes and pigs,” distribute Mein Kampf and the Protocols, or plot in the cities of France and Germany to blow up the Pentagon and the World Trade Center — all that was about things “over there” and in a strange way was thought to ensure that Europe got a pass at home.
But the trump card was always triangulation against the United States. Most recently anti-Americanism was good street theater in Rome, Paris, London, and the capitals of the “good” West.
But then came Madrid — and the disturbing fact that after the shameful appeasement of its withdrawal from Iraq, further plots were hatched against Spanish justices and passenger trains.
Surely a Holland would be exempt — Holland of wide-open Amsterdam fame where anything goes and Muslim radicals could hate in peace. Then came the butchering of Theo Van Gogh and the death threats against parliamentarian Hirsi Ali — and always defiance and promises of more to come rather than apologies for their hatred.
Yet was not Britain different? After all, its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe. Radical imams openly preached jihad against the United States to their flock as thanks for being given generous welfare subsidies from her majesty’s government. But it was the United States, not liberal Britain, that evoked such understandable hatred.
But now?
After Holland, Madrid, and London, European operatives go to Israel not to harangue Jews about the West Bank, but to receive tips about preventing suicide bombings. And the cowboy Patriot Act to now-panicked European parliaments perhaps seems not so illiberal after all.
So it is was becoming clear that butchery by radical Muslims in Bali, Darfur, Iraq, the Philippines Thailand, Turkey, Tunisia, and Iraq was not so tied to particular and “understandable” Islamic grievances.
Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all.
Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done.
India too got mostly a pass, other than the occasional murdering by Pakistani zealots. Yet India makes no effort to apologize to Muslims. When extremists occasionally riot and kill, they usually cease quickly before the response of a much more unpredictable angry populace.
What can we learn from all this?
Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their “unfair” foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort.
Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.”
Second, thinking that the jihadists will target only Israel eventually leads to emboldened attacks on the United States. Assuming America is the only target assures terrorism against Europe. Civilizations will either hang separately or triumph over barbarism together. It is that simple — and past time for Europe and the United States to rediscover their common heritage and shared aims in eradicating this plague of Islamic fascism.
Third, Islamicists are selective in their attacks and hatred. So far global jihad avoids two billion Indians and Chinese, despite the fact that their countries are far tougher on Muslims than is the United States or Europe. In other words, the Islamicists target those whom they think they can intimidate and blackmail.
Unfettered immigration, billions in cash grants to Arab autocracies, alliances of convenience with dictatorships, triangulation with Middle Eastern patrons of terror, blaming the Jews — civilization has tried all that.
It is time to relearn the lessons from the Cold War, when we saw millions of noble Poles, Romanians, Hungarians, and Czechs as enslaved under autocracy and a hateful ideology, and in need of democracy before they could confront the Communist terror in their midst.
But until the Wall fell, we did not send billions in aid to their Eastern European dictatorships nor travel freely to Prague or Warsaw nor admit millions of Communist-ruled Bulgarians and Albanians onto our shores.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200507220816.asp
tis
Evening Ergo...
I explained in my post I was being lazy that evening...
My navigation of that site has been rather worthless to this point...
Best to you...
tis
Evening Alex...
You may/maynot find this article interesting...
we discussed Michael Savage once...to which you had some choice words to describe him... <g>
This is one of the reasons I like the guy...he bust the @ss of both sides...
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/mulshine/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/112192270134860.xml&coll=1&a...
Hope all is well...
tis
Evening Brainlessone...
I did not read down/up that far...I shall review it when time permits...
Hope all is well...
tis
Evening Harry...
I appreciate the clarification...
I shall consider such in the future...
Peace...
tis
If a fighting force cannot outgun the British army or the U.S. military, they can always strike at the civilian population, and hurt the enemy in that way.
We rightfully reject and condemn those tactics. Death may be a part of life, but inflicting it on others breaks the fabric of interconnectedness and assaults the sacred embodied in each one of us.
Being that the article...
was/is not that long...why may I ask...did you choose to only post a portion of it...
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/170/story_17075_1.html
tis
Came across this evening...
I did a search of "perryman" on this site...and it showed no results...if posted prior...my apologies...
The reader/readers should know that Mr. Perryman is a conservative...some may wish to discredit Mr. Perryman and his lawsuit because of his conservative status...
Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations
[Seattle, January 3, 2005] On December 10th 2004, inner-city minister, Rev Wayne Perryman, - filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.” Perryman said “he based his case on the research that he gathered during the past five years while writing the three editions of his latest book:
Unfounded Loyalty
An In-depth Look Into The Love Affair Between Blacks & Democrats
In his 100-page brief, Perryman concludes that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against African Americans by the Democratic Party - were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews. In both situations millions of lives were destroyed (physically, mentally and economically).
In his brief, Perryman told the court:
*That in an effort to impede and or deny African Americans the same constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens, the Democratic Party established a pattern of practice by promoting, supporting, sponsoring and financing racially bias entertainment, education, legislation, litigations, and terrorist organizations from 1792 to 1962 and continued certain practices up to 2002.
*The Democrat’s 210 years of racist practices and cover ups not only negatively affected the entire Black Race; but these practices infected our entire nation with the most contagious and debilitating social disease known to mankind, racism. With landmark litigation, racist legislation and profane defamation, Democrats spent substantial amounts of money to produce racist campaign literature and to support racist entertainment (i.e. Jim Crow minstrel shows, stage plays “The Klansman,” and movies, “The Birth of a Nation”), all in an effort to prove to the world that African Americans were a racially inferior group that should be treated and classified as “property” and not as “citizens”.
*During the past 21 decades the Democrats successfully disguised and concealed their horrific acts against the African Americans by operating and committing these acts under the following aliases: “the Confederacy,” “Jim Crow,” “Black Codes,” the “Dixiecrats” and the “Ku Klux Klan.” Congressional records, historical documents, and the letters and testimonies from several brave black citizens revealed that these groups weren’t separate independent organizations, but were actual auxiliaries, divisions and/or the legislative efforts of the Democratic Party. The debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 further revealed that these auxiliaries were committed to use every means possible to carry out the Democrat’s racist agenda of “White Supremacy,” including: lynchings, murders, intimidation, mutilations, decapitations and racially bias legislation and adjudication.
.
Perryman said, “To conceal the truth of their racist past (and as part of their effort to deceive the public), the Democratic Party made a conscience decision not to mention or disclose their true and complete history. (See exhibit 1). On their official website they failed to disclose that as a Party:
· Democrats opposed the Abolitionist
· Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it
· Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854
· Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery
· Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery
· Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision
· Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws
· Democrats supported and passed Black Codes
· Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers
· Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867
· Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks
· Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation
· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote
· Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court
· Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts
· Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts
· Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
· Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson
· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
· Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration
· Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.”
Congressional records reveal that there wouldn’t be a question of Reparations today had Democratic President Andrew Johnson signed Senate Bill 60 (in 1866) which would have given each African American family 40 acres and a mule. Instead, Johnson vetoed the Bill and continued to block other key pieces of legislation that were designed to bring about equality for African Americans.
Perryman further argues that:
During the past 200 years, our government operated under a two party system which directed, developed and determined the policies of our country. Whatever the government did or did not accomplish (particularly as it pertained to African Americans), was directly related to which political party was in power at the time.
On April 29, 1861 Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that: “Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South... [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man….”
Seven years later during the 1868 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party’s campaign poster read: “This is a White Man’s Country - Let the White Men Rule.”
At the turn of the century (1913) Democratic Senator Ben Tillman said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and the only plank, namely, that this is a white man’s country, and white men must govern it.” From 1792 to 2002 (a period of 210 years), the Democratic Party carried out their proud tradition of white man rule by never electing a black man to the United States Senate from their party.
From 1792 to 1962 the Democratic Party was more commonly referred to as the Party of White Supremacy. This was the period when most of the damage was done to African Americans (economically, physically, socially and mentally). It was during this period that the Democrats exhausted every effort to promote slavery, destroyed Reconstruction and introduced Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.
The chronicles of history reveals that the Institution of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws weren’t promoted, protected and preserved by prominent individuals or by the federal government. They were promoted, protected and preserved by one political party and that party was the Democratic Party. Without their powerful political support, the institution of slavery and segregation would have ended long before 1865 and 1965.
The big question they had during the era of slavery was, whether or not a law or a person's actions violated the Constitution. The goal of the Democrats was to never allow the Constitution to be amended to include blacks as citizens. They wanted the freedom to treat African Americans as property (not as humans), without federal interference (this was their primary reason for fighting for their so-called States Rights). This was also the reason why Democrats were opposed to adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution and why they praised and supported the Dred Scott Decision. Republicans rushed to have these Amendments added to the Constitution while the states that were under Democrat control were still separated from the Union. Republicans knew they would have a difficult time getting these Amendments passed if the Democrats from the Southern States came back and joined their congressional (Democrat) counterparts in the North.
During era of slavery and Reconstruction the Democrats were primarily interested in what they could do to Blacks, not what they could do for Blacks. From 1792 to 1962 the Democrats as a party, did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality (in 170 years). With the exception of Truman’s efforts to integrate the military, every law that was introduced and passed by Democrats during this period was designed to hurt blacks, none were passed to help blacks. Perryman said, “Had the Democrats attempted to pass these same types of laws in 1864 that they claim credit for in 1964, the laws in 1964 would not have been necessary. Instead, in 1866 they passed Black Codes, in 1875 they passed Jim Crow Laws and in 1894 they passed the Repeal Act to repeal various pieces of previously passed Civil Rights legislation that were designed to give African Americans equality.
Perryman is quick to point out that the Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. However, like in the case of Michael Skakel (the Kennedy nephew who killed Martha Moxley), the Democrats like Michael Skakel must pay for their past actions. Perryman said, “The Skakels and the Moxleys were best friends and neighbors, but when the Moxleys learned that it was Skakel who murdered their daughter in 1975, they did not excuse his action because of the long term friendship. They made him pay, even though it was 25 years later. The same applies to the current relationship between the Blacks and Democrats. The Democrats should not expect Blacks to ignore the Democrat’s past racist practices, simply because of the current friendship.”
Perryman’s research and 100-page brief include the works of our nation’s top history and law professors including African American Historian, Professor John Hope Franklin, Princeton’s History Professor James McPherson, Professor Hebert Donald of Harvard, Professor Allen Trelease of North Carolina, and Professor Bernard Schwartz of New York University’s School of Law, plus congressional records and documentaries from PBS and the History Channel.
Perryman said, “since our experiences are similar to those inflicted on the Jews by the Nazi Party and since Reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 affords Plaintiffs redress for past injuries; and amends for the wrong inflicted,” he asked the court for the following:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on Plaintiff own behalf and on behalf of the Class, prays for judgment as follows:
1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Awarding compensatory damages and rescission in favor of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class against the Defendant for the damages sustain as a result of wrongdoing of the defendants, together with interest thereon;
3. And as part of the compensatory damages the Plaintiffs recommends the following:
a. That an education fund be set up equivalent to the amount of $25,000 for every African American age 25 and younger that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit. The fund will be used solely for private school, college and trade tuitions and related educational costs.
b. That under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which authorizes a public education fund, to educate the public of the wrongs that took place, the Plaintiffs ask for funding to fund a major motion picture and film series depicting all of the events that were highlighted in this lawsuit (and others not mentioned) and that this film and major motion picture be distributed to every public and private school in America to be viewed by students as a regular part of their history curriculum for the next 50 years. We further ask that the Lead Plaintiff and the consultants of his choice be paid a consulting fee including traveling and related expenses to help produce the motion picture and the film series. The consulting fee will be the standard consulting fee for similar types of major motion picture projects.
c. We ask that the Defendant pay each African American citizen ages 26- 35 that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit, a total sum of $25,000 in reparations, each adult ages 36-45, $45,000 in reparations, each adult ages 46-55, $50,000 in reparations each and each citizen ages 56 and older $100,000 in reparations.
4. Awarding Plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys to administer the Class Action claim and appropriate consultant fees.
5. Granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and federal and state statutory provisions sued on hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Defendant’s investments, checking, savings or other assets so as to assure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy.
6. Ordering a formal apology to African Americans for the wrong that was committed during the duration of the Defendants’ tenure as an organization or political party.
7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Wayne Perryman
P.O. Box 256
Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 232-5575 Home office (206) 860-6880 Church office www.wayneperryman.com
http://www.reparationscentral.com/lawsuits4.html
tis
"Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2305-2005Jan11
Some interesting points raised within...
tis
And still I ask...who is Miller/Times covering for...
Ergo...(edited)
Concerning my prior post to you...I regret it sounds short...at times the thoughts of one flow freely into speech/words...that particular post was not such a time for me...
Peace...
tis
Something to view...
Bear in mind this does not give any of the details of the contents of what was being voted on...so the following may/maynot be misleading...
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/borderagent.html
If anyone comes across specific details...I would appreciate seeing such...
My apologies for being lazy this evening...
tis
Evening CnP...
Thank you for the kind words :)
I must admit though...I have had my moments of being uncivil here...something I am not proud of...but someone did manage to "hit that nerve" once...
Hope all is well...
tis
Evening Ergo...
I have not seen the movie...but shall put it on my list of things to do...
I would not let the "anti liberal rhetoric" written/read within the articles get to you...besides...It is a "r" President doing the sending...but I do agree...it does get old...
Concerning Africa...you hit the nail on the head...and our current president is sending more money to the same @ss's that starve their people...
The majority has a good Heart...I blame the machine of politics for making it look otherwise...
The Little One is doing very well...she truly loves this shared Parenting...
Best to you and yours...
tis
Numerous Congress Members May Have Received Illegal Congressional Pay in 2003-2004...(if posted prior...my apologies)
Many current or former Senators and Representatives appear to have taken illegal Congressional salary payments during the current Congress, prior to the October recess.
The chronically absent list is well-represented by candidates who ran for higher office, including those who ran for President or Vice President: Senators John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), John Kerry (D-MA), and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Congressmen Richard Gephardt (D-MO) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). Senate candidates Brad Carson (D-OK), Mac Collins (R-GA), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Pete Deutsch (D-FL), Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Chris John (D-LA), Denise Majette (D-GA), George Nethercutt (R-WA), and Patrick Toomey (R-PA), who have served in the House during 2003 – 2004, also had numerous unexcused absences. In 2003 now-Kentucky Governor and former Representative Ernie Fletcher (R) missed 27 session days.
Federal law requires Members of Congress to forgo Congressional pay for days missed due to campaign appearances or other unexcused absences. In June 2003 National Taxpayers Union wrote to each of the six Presidential candidates serving in Congress to ask whether they planned "to voluntarily follow this law during your campaign." None of the candidates replied.
Here are the estimated salary overpayments made to each of the six Presidential and/or Vice Presidential candidates:
* Senator John Edwards was absent for every vote during 52 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. In 2004, Senator Edwards missed every vote during the months of July, September, and October – a total of 59 consecutive votes. Senator Edwards' 50 absent days in 2004 equal an estimated salary overpayment of $63,543.16.
* Representative Richard Gephardt was absent for every vote during 85 of the 109 days when the House cast floor votes in 2003. Gephardt compiled many streaks of consecutively missed votes, including all votes from April 10 to May 8, June 2 to June 24, September 9 to October 1, and October 20 to November 20, when he missed 93 votes in a row. In 2004 Gephardt was absent for 46 days. Representative Richard Gephardt's total estimated salary overpayment: $81,362.53.
* Senator Bob Graham's 41 absences in 2003 add up to an estimated salary overpayment of $25,269.53.
* Senator John Kerry was absent for every vote during 76 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. The Senator's longest streak of missed votes in 2003 ran from July 11 to September 9, when he missed 62 in a row. For 2004, Senator Kerry was absent for every vote during the months of July, September, and October – and compiled a total of 76 consecutive votes missed from June 23 through October 11. Kerry's absences for 2004 total 70 days. Senator John Kerry's estimated salary overpayment: $90,932.68.
* Representative Dennis Kucinich was absent for every vote during 28 days in 2004, but did not meet the study's missed-votes threshold for 2003. Representative Dennis Kucinich's estimated salary overpayment: $17,636.64.
* Senator Joseph Lieberman was absent for every vote during 63 of the 115 days when the Senate cast floor votes in 2003. Lieberman skipped 54 percent of all the votes. Notably, Lieberman was first elected to the Senate after criticizing the incumbent for missing too many votes. Lieberman's longest lineup of missed votes ran from July 10 to July 29, when he missed 43 votes. Senator Joseph Lieberman's estimated salary overpayment: $38,828.79.
All Members of Congress who are included in this report are noted in the table below:
Congress Member
*Denotes a Congress Member who ran for higher office
Days Missed 2003
Days Missed 2004
Final Total
Bell, Chris
13
$8,188.44
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse
11
$6,928.68
Carson, Brad*
19
$11,967.72
Collins, Mac*
18
$11,337.84
Conyers, John
17
$10,477.61
DeMint, James*
37
$23,305.56
Deutsch, Pete*
23
$14,487.24
Edwards, John*
52
50
$63,543.16
Fletcher, Ernie*
27
$16,640.91
Gephardt, Richard*
85
46
$81,362.53
Graham, Bob*
41
$25,269.53
Greenwood, Jim
14
$8,818.32
Gutierrez, Luis
19
23
$26,197.51
Hoeffel, Joseph*
14
$8,818.32
Isakson, Johnny*
15
$9,448.20
John, Chris*
18
$11,337.84
Kerry, John*
76
70
$90,932.68
Kucinich, Dennis*
28
$17,636.64
Lieberman, Joseph*
63
$38,828.79
Lipinski, William
18
$11,337.84
Majette, Denise*
22
$13,857.36
Meeks, Gregory
15
$9,448.20
Mollohan, Alan
15
$9,448.20
Nethercutt, George*
13
$8,188.44
Toomey, Patrick*
19
$11,967.72
The Law
According to 2 U.S. Code 39, "The Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives (upon certification by the Clerk of the House of Representatives), respectively, shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family."
In 1981, and again in 1996, this provision in the law was amended in unimportant respects, thus reaffirming a Congressional belief in its continued legal vitality. It therefore seems indisputable that Section 39 is binding on all Members of Congress.
The candidates have a duty to comply with this law. The Code of Ethics for Government Service says, "Any Person in Government service should ... uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations ... and never be party to their evasion." The House Ethics Manual also notes that if a Member violates any "provision of statutory law, a Member or employee may also violate these provisions of the House rules and standards of conduct."
House Rule 23, clauses 1 and 2 state:
1.) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.
2.) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof.
Both House and Senate ethics rules contain strict prohibitions against the use of official resources for campaigns.
Paying Congress Members to miss work is unfair to other candidates who usually campaign without pay. If any of the other candidates worked for a corporation that gave a paid leave of absence for campaigning for President, the Federal Election Commission would impose a stiff fine for an illegal corporate contribution.
The records of the House show that in 1971 then-Congressman Edwards of Louisiana, someone not known for high ethical standards, took action to ensure that he was in compliance with this law when he did not attend House sessions during his campaign for Governor.
Methodology
We studied those Members of Congress who were absent for a high percentage of votes, over 15 percent, for 2003 and 2004. Each year's absences were studied independently; thus, in order for a Member to have absences noted for both 2003 and 2004, they would need to exceed the study's threshold each year.
If a lawmaker was present for even one floor vote during a session day, credit for full attendance that day was assumed. The study only counted absences if every floor vote was missed during a day.
We performed a computer search of the Congressional Record to determine whether any of the House candidates had received a leave of absence for any reason, even those not authorized by law. If a leave was granted, no salary overpayment was calculated. Senators' requests for leave are not stated in the Congressional Record.
We also inquired with the offices of each absent Senator and Representative to determine which, if any, days were for absences provided by the law. We updated our records to reflect any information from lawmakers who replied. Furthermore, we conducted independent research of online media sources for each lawmaker to ascertain whether illness or surgery may have accounted for any absences. Those lawmakers who still had more than 10 days of absences remaining after these examinations are included in this report.
To estimate the amount of salary to deduct for each day missed, we divided the 2003 annual Congressional salary of $154,700 by 251, since there are 261 weekdays per year, and 10 federal holidays. That calculation yields a Congressional salary of $616.33 per day. In 2004, a leap year with an added workday, an added holiday for Ronald Reagan's funeral, and a higher salary of $158,100, the per-day deduction was $629.88.
This is a conservative estimate of the overpayment. Others have suggested that the docking of congressional pay should be based on the number of session days. Such a calculation would yield a substantially higher overpayment estimate for each candidate. For example, under such a formula, Representative Gephardt's overpayment would have exceeded $122,000 in 2003.
Data citing missed votes that was used to perform the calculations was obtained from the respected Congressional Observer Publications (http://www.proaxis.com/cop/), a Congressional vote data service widely used by educational institutions and media outlets. Individual reports, detailing the dates on which a Member missed every vote, are available upon request.
[This report is available in PDF.]
Appendix
Legal Memorandum
This memorandum was written by attorney Bruce Fein.
Re: Responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to Enforce 2 U.S. Code 39 Requiring Salary Deductions for Absenteeism
Pursuant to 2 U.S. Code 39, Members of the House and Senate forfeit an amount of salary for each day of absenteeism not ascribable to "the sickness of himself or of some member of the family." The Section 39 deduction mandate seems clearly a binding law, as its evolution corroborates.
As initially enacted on August 16, 1856, the Section provided:
The Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms of the House, respectively shall deduct from the monthly payments of each Member the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such Member assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some Member of his family.
Its purpose was to insure a quorum to do business, as explained by its author, Rep. James L. Orr[1]:
The necessity for such a provision is imperious, as our experience at the present session fully attests. The House is composed of two hundred and thirty-four Members, and the number attending its sittings has been frequently less than one hundred and fifty—often times from seventy to one hundred absentees—and to the serious detriment of the public business, when the Committee of the Whole has been broken up, when considering the appropriation bills, for want of a quorum. If the House adopts the substitute, we shall, in the future, have a smaller number of absentees, and thereby cure a great and increasing evil.
Enforcement of the provision was to be through a Congressional honor code, as the following colloquy discloses[2]:
Mr. Orr. The provision is simply this: that when a Member goes to the Sergeant-at-Arms at the end of each month for his salary, he shall report to the Sergeant-at-Arms the number of days he has absented himself from the House.
Mr. Stanton. The Member?
Mr. Orr. The Member. If his absence has been caused by the sickness of himself or his family, then he is entitled to compensation; if from any other cause, a deduction is to be made for the absent time. A Member is not to be sworn. He answers upon his own conscience and honor.
In 1894, the provision was debated at length on the House floor[3] in the context of a chair ruling on a point of order. The Chair assumed that the statute was valid despite a long period of unenforcement. That conclusion accorded with the majority of the House Judiciary Committee. It found that the statute was still in force, and recommended a resolution directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to enforce it. It does not appear that this resolution was actually adopted by the House, but the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms proceeded to enforce the statute and deductions were made from the pay of absent Members[4]. A provision reimbursing these deductions was stricken from an appropriation bill introduced in the subsequent Congress[5].
The enforcement of the provision thereafter has been erratic. According to Robert Luce's Legislative Assemblies[6], it fell into disuse until 1914 when deductions from Members' salaries were ordered, but Members were reimbursed by a unanimous vote in the subsequent session.
At present, Congressional pay officials withhold remuneration when Members voluntarily certify their absence. Mr. Edwards, for example, certified absenteeism to campaign for Governor of Louisiana in 1971 and accordingly was not paid for those days of the session he did not attend[7].
In 1975, the Senate inserted a provision in the fiscal year 1976 legislative branch appropriations bill that would have repealed Section 39, but it was deleted from the final version of the law. In 1981 and again in 1996, the section was amended in unimportant respects[8], thus reaffirming a Congressional belief in its continued legal vitality. It thus seems indisputable that Section 39 is binding on all Members of Congress.
An effort by a California taxpayer to compel Congressional enforcement of Section 39 was dismissed for want of standing in 1981 by U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams (N.D. Calif.). Williams observed that it would be "inappropriate for the courts to inquire into or supervise the attendance of members of a coordinate branch of government." In a similar 1972 suit, a federal judge had dismissed a suit seeking recovery of salaries and allowances paid several Members who were absent from Washington campaigning for the presidency.
In sum, Section 39 is legally binding on Members, even if enforcement by the House and Senate in lieu of the judiciary is required. And the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are saddled with a special duty on that score.
Under 2 U.S. Code 48, the Speaker and the President are responsible for certifying the salary accounts of Representatives and Senators. To discharge that responsibility, the Speaker and the President must make some good faith inquiry into whether any salary deductions under Section 39 are in order. If no inquiry is made, then Section 48 would be an empty formality. Laws should be more than ornamental.
At present, it appears that salary certificates of Members seem to be routinely signed in willful ignorance of whether Section 39 obligates an absenteeism deduction.
[1] 42 Cong. Globe, App. p. 1307 (August 15, 1856).
[2] Id., at p. 1308.
[3] 26 Cong. Rec. pp. 5040-5051 (May 21, 1894).
[4] 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. Rep. Nos. 704, 1218; Cong. Rec. pp. 3797, 4130-4133.
[5] 29 Cong. Rec. pp. 2049-2056 (February 20, 1897).
[6] Houghton Mifflin Co., New York (1924). 63rd Cong., 2nd Session, Cong. Rec., p. 14227.
[7] Cong. Rec., September 20, 1971.
[8] P. L. 97-51, S. 112(d), October 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 963, Pub. L. 104-186, title II, Sec. 203(7), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1726.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=71
As well as...
As House O.K.’s Pay Hike, Citizen Group Slams Senate’s Move to Collect Taxpayer Salaries for Campaigning
(Alexandria, VA) – Hot on the heels of news that a Senate Committee moved to repeal a statute requiring Congress Members to forfeit pay for unexcused absences like campaign appearances, the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) today urged Congressional leaders to use “any and all means” to keep the law in place and enforce it.
“Just yesterday the House of Representatives voted to grease the skids for a seventh-straight annual pay hike; the Senate shouldn’t be allowed to add insult to this injury by forcing taxpayers to subsidize absentee lawmakers,” NTU President John Berthoud said. “Although the ‘No Work, No Pay’ statute has been sporadically enforced in Congress, that’s no reason to do away with the law entirely.”
Last week a Senate Committee approved appropriations legislation that would repeal Title 2, Section 39 of the U.S. Code, which states that Congressional administrators “shall deduct from the monthly payments (or other periodic payments authorized by law) of each Member or Delegate the amount of his salary for each day that he has been absent from the Senate or House, respectively, unless such Member or Delegate assigns as the reason for such absence the sickness of himself or of some member of his family.” NTU has long sought enforcement of this law, but Congress has been reluctant to do so.
“Some might dismiss Section 39 as a technical provision that has outlived its usefulness, but we urge you to instead consider this rule on the basis of its own merit, regardless of whatever past enforcement history it may have,” Berthoud wrote in a letter sent today to House and Senate Leaders as well as the Chairs and Ranking Minority Members of the Appropriations Committees. “Indeed, rather than citing lack of enforcement as a reason for repealing the No Work, No Pay law, Members of Congress should take this opportunity to put real teeth into Section 39.”
Berthoud explained that compliance with Section 39 “would not require a Herculean effort on the part of Congress,” and could be accomplished through the regular payroll certification process to which Member offices are currently subject.
An exhaustive NTU study from January 2005 found that 25 lawmakers had 10 or more days of unexcused absences in the 108th Congress, amounting to more than $500,000 in illegal salary payments. Seventeen of those 25 Senators and Representatives were campaigning for higher office. For fiscal and political accountability reasons, NTU has launched a grassroots effort – including e-mail alerts and talk radio – to persuade the full Senate to restore the No Work, No Pay law and, if necessary, push for deletion of the repeal provision in the conference process.
“Raising Congressional salaries past $165,000 in a time of deficit spending is a debacle in its own right, but allowing lawmakers to grab this princely pay on the campaign trail is a downright disgrace,” Berthoud concluded. “Instead of enacting laws that abuse taxpayers, Congress should be upholding and following laws that protect them.”
NTU is a non-partisan citizen group founded in 1969 to work for smaller government and more accountability from elected officials. Note: The NTU letters to Congressional leaders, the report on the No Work, No Pay law, and other materials on Congressional perks are available at www.ntu.org.
-30-
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=734&org_name=NTU
Well...at least the R/D's get along when it comes to their/our money...
tis
Something to consider...
from Neal Boortz...
WHAT ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES
Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow.
But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.
But neither Judith Miller nor the New York Times is rolling over. Couldn't the Times release Miller's notes just as easily as Time did Cooper's? Of course. But they won't. And Judith Miller is sitting in prison. Why? Who are they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. Because if it were, the Times would roll on him in a second. How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W. Bush?
That's the real story here...and the mainstream media is missing it. It's not Rove, it's who Judith Miller is protecting. Could it be somebody else in the Bush White House? Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, has come up. Could it be Joseph Wilson? Valerie Plame herself? We'll probably know soon enough.
And don't forget a likely possibility: that the prosecutor will wrap things up and nobody will be indicted. Can you imagine the rage of the left then?
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
tis
Evening CnP...
I appreciate the link...
Shall take me sometime to read what is within...but I shall try when more time permits...
Thanks again...
tis
Evening Ergo...
Is not/was not a/any suggestion made by me what so ever...
Part II
The tragedy of Africa: Part II
Thomas Sowell
July 13, 2005
Nature and man have combined to make Africa the most tragic of the continents -- and the men who did this have been both black and white.
The great French historian Fernand Braudel said, "In understanding Black Africa, geography is more important than history." Much of Africa's history was in fact shaped by its geography.
Almost every great city in the world has arisen on navigable waterways -- and such waterways are more scarce in Africa than in any other continent. An aircraft carrier can dock on the Hudson River in midtown Manhattan but there is not a single river where that is possible on the vast continent of Africa, which is larger than Europe or North America.
Even smaller boats can travel only a limited distance on most African rivers because of cascades and waterfalls. Most of the continent is more than 1,000 feet above sea level and more than half of Africa is more than 2,000 feet above sea level. That means its rivers and stream must plunge down from those heights on their way to the sea.
Water transport was crucial in the thousands of years before there were trains or automobiles. It was crucial for developing an economy and crucial for developing a culture in touch with enough other widely scattered cultures to make use of advances in the rest of the world. But many African societies have been isolated by that continent's dearth of both navigable rivers and harbors.
Isolated regions have almost invariably lagged behind regions in touch with a wider cultural universe. One among many signs of the isolation and cultural fragmentation of much of sub-Saharan Africa is that African languages are one third of all the languages in the world, even though African peoples are only about 10 percent of the world's population.
Small, tribal societies were another consequence of geographic isolation -- and the vulnerability of such societies to conquest by outsiders was another.
If cultural diversity was all that the multiculturalists claim, Africa would be a heaven on earth. Too often and in too many places it has been a hell on earth.
Many people expected great things from Africa when new independent African nations began to emerge from colonial rule in the 1960s, often headed by leaders who had been educated in Europe and America.
Unfortunately, what these new leaders brought back to Africa from the West were not the things that had made the West prosperous and powerful but the untested theories of Western intellectuals and ideologues who had taught them. Such African leaders by and large lacked both the common sense of the African masses and the technological and economic experience of the West.
The net result was that African leaders, full of confidence because of their Western education and the adulation of the Western intelligentsia, made their people guinea pigs for half-baked theories that had contributed nothing to the rise of the West and had contributed much to its social degeneration.
Poverty-stricken Africa could afford these economic and social disasters far less than the affluent West could. However, African leaders were not judged in the West by their results but by their rhetoric and their visions that resonated with the rhetoric and the visions of the Western intelligentsia.
Thus Julius Nyerere became virtually a secular saint in the Western media while he was driving the people of Tanzania deeper into poverty and tyranny. Nor was he alone.
Conversely, when Felix Houphouet-Boigny made the Ivory Coast an oasis of economic advancement and civil peace, he was either ignored or disdained. He was one of the few new African leaders with any previous experience in business or any understanding of economics. His successors have ruined the country.
Whatever damage European colonialism did to Africa during its relatively brief reign, that was probably less than the damage done later by well-meaning Western would-be saviors of Africa. Africans do not need to be treated as mascots but as people whose own efforts, skills, and initiatives need to be freed from the tyranny of their leaders and the paternalism of Western busybodies.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050713.shtml
Best to you and yours...
tis
The tragedy of Africa
Thomas Sowell (archive)
July 12, 2005
The official declarations coming out of the G8 meetings in Scotland, as well as the raucous demonstrations surrounding those meetings, talk about saving Africa. But, looking back over the decades and generations, Africa has been "saved" so many times that you have to wonder why it still needs saving.
Desperate and tragic conditions afflict millions in Africa today and any humane person would like to help. But the repeated failures of previous help ought to make us at least question the particular manner in which Africa can be helped.
"Forgiveness" of foreign debts is always high on the agenda of those on the political left.
At any given moment, this would of course free up money that African governments could spend to help relieve their people's distress -- assuming that this is what they would spend it for. But why would anyone think that promoting irresponsible government borrowing by periodically "forgiving" their debts is going to help African countries in the long run?
As for the people of Africa, they have to survive in the short run in order to get to the long run. So emergency aid for emergency conditions makes far more sense than long-run "foreign aid" programs with an almost unbroken track record of failure, not only in Africa but around the world.
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
Sub-Saharan Africa has some of the most tragic geographic handicaps of any region of the world. Navigable waterways, which have been crucial to the development of nations and of cultures, are severely limited in most of Africa. Poor soil and inadequate and undependable rainfall patterns shrink the possibilities still further.
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
In more recent times, so-called "foreign aid" has left many monuments of futility in Africa, from rusting machinery and the ruins of many projects to cows sent from Europe that keeled over in the African heat.
With all its handicaps, Africa used to feed itself and even export agricultural produce to Europe. In some of the more geographically favored parts of sub-Saharan Africa, iron was smelted thousands of years ago.
During the first two decades after African nations gained their independence in the 1960s, one sub-Saharan nation that stood out with its economic prosperity and political stability amid economic disasters and social catastrophes among its neighbors was the Ivory Coast under President Felix Houphouet-Boigny.
Yet neither the Ivory Coast nor its leader attracted nearly as much attention, much less adulation, as was showered on Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, or other big-name African leaders who led their countries into ruin.
The Ivory Coast in those days relied on markets instead of the kind of policies and rhetoric that the intelligentsia favored. When its policies changed, it became just another African basket case.
Today, too many people in the West continue to see Africa as an outlet for the visions and policies of the left that have failed in the West and are even more certain to fail in Africa.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
tis
Ones thoughts...
Arab newspaper slams Muslims for aiding terror
By Colin Freeman
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
July 10, 2005
LONDON -- The editor of the world's leading Arab newspaper has launched a scathing attack on Muslims in Britain for turning a blind eye to terrorist fundraising activities on their own doorstep.
Writing in the wake of Thursday's bombings, Tariq Al-Humayd, editor-in-chief of London-based Al-Sharq Al Awsat (The Middle East), claimed that collections were frequently solicited in London's Arab neighborhoods for terrorist causes in the guise of charities.
In a strongly worded editorial, he said that those enjoying the freedom of life in Britain had a "responsibility" to scrutinize such collections carefully, and if necessary prevent them from taking place.
"In London, we have seen, and are seeing, the money being collected in the streets, and the conventions under various titles, and everyone is inciting jihad in our Arab countries and cursing the land of unbelief in which they live," he wrote.
"When you express amazement [at this], they tell you that this is freedom. Has freedom no responsibility? No one answers."
Mr. Al-Humayd added: "When you tell them, 'Stop being so tolerant of the incitement that comes from your own country, from your skies, and from your Internet' ... they turn away. And what happened? The terror struck London, indiscriminately. ... For the sake of freedom of all of us, stop the ones who are attacking our freedom."
Al-Sharq Al Awsat, founded 27 years ago, is regarded as the premiere pan-Arab daily, and is distributed in 19 Arab countries in addition to Europe and the United States.
Its columnists voice a variety of views within the spectrum of Arab opinion, and the newspaper is considered highly influential.
In similar sentiments, Amir Taheri, an Al-Sharq Al Awsat columnist, criticized Muslims who equivocate over terrorist attacks.
Insinuations that they were provoked by Western actions such as the invasion of Iraq, he said, simply gave terrorists the impression that they had tacit support.
"Until we hear the voices of the Muslims condemning attacks of this kind with no words [of qualification] such as 'but' and 'if,' the suicide bombers and the murderers will have an excuse to think that they enjoy the support of all Muslims.
"The real battle against the enemy of mankind will begin when the 'silent majority' in the Islamic world makes its voice heard against the murderers, and against those who brainwash them, believe them, and fund them."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050709-104055-3541r.htm
Interesting reading...
within this site...
http://upordownvote.com/xp303htm/restore.htm
One should still research the info within before taking it as fact...
tis
Evening Easy...
Hope this finds you well...
I at times...get behind on current/past events...this being one of those times...
This bill has a seven year ratification from the date it is submitted...if in fact I have read it correctly...
The sponsor/co-sponsors of the bill...
Congressman Steny D. Hoyer (D-Md.). Co-sponsors include Congressmen Howard L. Berman (D-Cal.), Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ), Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minn.) and F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wisc.).
Either the Dem's listed love the leadership of Bush...or they are simply looking at 2008...my guess is the latter...
Peace...
tis
Two xcelent articles by Thomas Sowell...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050706.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050707.shtml
tis
The Memri site/sites...
are a interesting read...
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=65
http://www.memri.org/
tis
Former Soviet Bloc Capital Officially Honors Reagan
Budapest votes to pay tribute to
Former Soviet Bloc Capital Officially Honors Reagan
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 5, 2005
On Friday, July 1, in Budapest, Hungary, the city council approved placing a monument of former President Reagan in the capital city park.
It is the first time a former Soviet-bloc elected government has voted to erect a monument in honor of the President for his role in ending the Cold War and freeing Eastern Europe from Communist oppression.
Népszabadság, Hungary's largest national newspaper (and the former Communist Party mouthpiece), reported that the support for the monument crossed all party lines, a rarity in Hungarian politics (portions translated below):
There was a long debate about the work of the 40th President of the USA. MDF initiated that a bust of Ronald Reagan be erected at Budapest, as the president did much for the freedom of the people living in Central Eastern Europe and to end the Cold War. The initiative was supported by the MSZP, the SZDSZ and as well as the Fidesz. MIÉP caucus leader Zsinka László objected the idea, and said that a statue of a Hungarian politician such as Pál Teleki or Ottokár Prohászka be created instead. At the peak of the debate Zsinka said that „those who vote for the Reagan statue carry out an order coming from outside.” Csaba Somlyódi (MSZP) replied ironically that they had not received any order at this week yet, and they were undecided, but thanks to Zsinka, now they know what to do. Szilárd Sasvári (Fidesz-MKDSZ) said that the bust of Reagan should be erected and the Roosevelt square be switched to Reagan. The debate including the significance of the peace conferences of Jalta and Malta took more than an hour, so the representatives spent more time on the statue than the Podmaniczky program about the medium-term developing tasks of the city. Eventually, the erection of the statue was passed.
The movement to honor Reagan began a year ago in an op-ed by the then-publisher of the Budapest Business Journal Stephen A. O'Connor (now the Group Publisher for Human Events).
O'Connor's op-ed got traction with the Mayor of Budapest, Gabor Demszky, who recognized Reagan's role in freeing Eastern Europe. He reflected on his own experience as a young dissendent jailed by the former Communist regime whom Reagan helped free with a letter to the then-Soviet-friendly former government. (The June 25, 2004, statement, "Emléktáblát állíthatnak Ronald Reagennek," can be found at the Budapest Portal, the city government website, by typing "Reagan" into the search engine.)
The mayor and the former Ambassodor to the U.S., Hungarian-American Peter Zwack, picked-up O'Connor's cause and formally presented it to the city government of Budapest, the largest city in Eastern Europe (population: 2 million).
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7986
tis
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH AFRICAN ECONOMICS EXPERT
"For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!"
The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...
Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.
SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.
Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.
SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?
Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.
Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there's a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program -- which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It's only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it's not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa ...
SPIEGEL: ... corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers ...
Shikwati: ... and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN's World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It's a simple but fatal cycle.
SPIEGEL: If the World Food Program didn't do anything, the people would starve.
Shikwati: I don't think so. In such a case, the Kenyans, for a change, would be forced to initiate trade relations with Uganda or Tanzania, and buy their food there. This type of trade is vital for Africa. It would force us to improve our own infrastructure, while making national borders -- drawn by the Europeans by the way -- more permeable. It would also force us to establish laws favoring market economy.
SPIEGEL: Would Africa actually be able to solve these problems on its own?
Shikwati: Of course. Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there's a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn't do all that poorly either.
SPIEGEL: But AIDS didn't exist at that time.
Shikwati: If one were to believe all the horrorifying reports, then all Kenyans should actually be dead by now. But now, tests are being carried out everywhere, and it turns out that the figures were vastly exaggerated. It's not three million Kenyans that are infected. All of the sudden, it's only about one million. Malaria is just as much of a problem, but people rarely talk about that.
SPIEGEL: And why's that?
Shikwati: AIDS is big business, maybe Africa's biggest business. There's nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.
SPIEGEL: The Americans and Europeans have frozen funds previously pledged to Kenya. The country is too corrupt, they say.
Shikwati: I am afraid, though, that the money will still be transfered before long. After all, it has to go somewhere. Unfortunately, the Europeans' devastating urge to do good can no longer be countered with reason. It makes no sense whatsoever that directly after the new Kenyan government was elected -- a leadership change that ended the dictatorship of Daniel arap Mois -- the faucets were suddenly opened and streams of money poured into the country.
SPIEGEL: Such aid is usually earmarked for a specific objective, though.
Shikwati: That doesn't change anything. Millions of dollars earmarked for the fight against AIDS are still stashed away in Kenyan bank accounts and have not been spent. Our politicians were overwhelmed with money, and they try to siphon off as much as possible. The late tyrant of the Central African Republic, Jean Bedel Bokassa, cynically summed it up by saying: "The French government pays for everything in our country. We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
Former Central African Republic leader Jean-Bedel Bokassa: "We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
Zoom
DPA
Former Central African Republic leader Jean-Bedel Bokassa: "We ask the French for money. We get it, and then we waste it."
SPIEGEL: In the West, there are many compassionate citizens wanting to help Africa. Each year, they donate money and pack their old clothes into collection bags ...
Shikwati: ... and they flood our markets with that stuff. We can buy these donated clothes cheaply at our so-called Mitumba markets. There are Germans who spend a few dollars to get used Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen jerseys, in other words, clothes that that some German kids sent to Africa for a good cause. After buying these jerseys, they auction them off at Ebay and send them back to Germany -- for three times the price. That's insanity ...
SPIEGEL: ... and hopefully an exception.
Shikwati: Why do we get these mountains of clothes? No one is freezing here. Instead, our tailors lose their livlihoods. They're in the same position as our farmers. No one in the low-wage world of Africa can be cost-efficient enough to keep pace with donated products. In 1997, 137,000 workers were employed in Nigeria's textile industry. By 2003, the figure had dropped to 57,000. The results are the same in all other areas where overwhelming helpfulness and fragile African markets collide.
SPIEGEL: Following World War II, Germany only managed to get back on its feet because the Americans poured money into the country through the Marshall Plan. Wouldn't that qualify as successful development aid?
Shikwati: In Germany's case, only the destroyed infrastructure had to be repaired. Despite the economic crisis of the Weimar Republic, Germany was a highly- industrialized country before the war. The damages created by the tsunami in Thailand can also be fixed with a little money and some reconstruction aid. Africa, however, must take the first steps into modernity on its own. There must be a change in mentality. We have to stop perceiving ourselves as beggars. These days, Africans only perceive themselves as victims. On the other hand, no one can really picture an African as a businessman. In order to change the current situation, it would be helpful if the aid organizations were to pull out.
SPIEGEL: If they did that, many jobs would be immediately lost ...
Shikwati: ... jobs that were created artificially in the first place and that distort reality. Jobs with foreign aid organizations are, of course, quite popular, and they can be very selective in choosing the best people. When an aid organization needs a driver, dozens apply for the job. And because it's unacceptable that the aid worker's chauffeur only speaks his own tribal language, an applicant is needed who also speaks English fluently -- and, ideally, one who is also well mannered. So you end up with some African biochemist driving an aid worker around, distributing European food, and forcing local farmers out of their jobs. That's just crazy!
SPIEGEL: The German government takes pride in precisely monitoring the recipients of its funds.
Shikwati: And what's the result? A disaster. The German government threw money right at Rwanda's president Paul Kagame. This is a man who has the deaths of a million people on his conscience -- people that his army killed in the neighboring country of Congo.
SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?
Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.
Interview conducted by Thilo Thielke
Translated from the German by Patrick Kessler
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html
linked from: http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
tis
Evening Hap...
It is definitely worth a persons time in reading more on the subject...
Opposition...I guess would be those with legitimate concerns...hopefully the Boortz/Linder book will shed more light on the subject...
Have a Great 4th...
tis
Actually Ergo...
The British have a VAT (value added tax) as well as a income tax...(I have kin that live there)
The rich under the current system...find the loopholes...actually...the loopholes are made for them...
I am up for change from a system that is confusing...and gives the gov too much information...as well as a multi mill a 12.5% income rate...
tis
I disagree Ergo...
When a chance arises...read the entire contents of the proposal's...there are some interesting points made...
Painting...I do work many would run from...and I run from painting... :)
Hope the family is well...
tis
Evening Ergo...
This is not a flat tax...this is a sales tax...
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#1
tis
Hap...Concerning the sales tax...
This site lays some light to the subject...
http://fairtax.org/
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/main.html
Also...Linder and Boortz have written a book...not due out until 8/02/2005
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060875410/qid=1119462672/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl...
tis
Muslim nations vow to help end Iraq insurgency
If posted prior...my apologies
Thu Jun 30,12:43 PM ET
SANAA (Reuters) - Foreign ministers of Muslim countries on Thursday pledged cooperation with Iraqi authorities to help end a bloody insurgency waged there by Iraqis and foreign Arabs.
Ministers of member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) meeting in Yemen agreed to help "rebuild
Iraq and enabling the Iraqi government to maintain security and stability," Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi told reporters.
Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Wednesday he held informal talks in Sanaa with officials from neighboring states about foreigners coming to fight in Iraq.
Several countries who share a border with Iraq including Kuwait,
Iran,
Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, are all OIC members.
The insurgency against U.S. forces and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government has become deadlier since a new cabinet took power in April.
Foreign ministers also called for the disarming of factions in Somalia's capital Mogadishu, which they said were "obstructing" a long-delayed return of the fledgling Somali government to the lawless Horn of Africa nation.
Somalia's president and parliament speaker failed to agree in discussions held in Sanaa last week on where the government should be based during talks aimed at restoring central rule after 14 years.
The foreign ministers' meeting also approved granting Russia observer member status and agreed to form committees to redraft the OIC charter next year.
The OIC summit, to be held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia later this year, is expected to ratify the decisions put forth at the foreign ministers' meeting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050630/wl_nm/iraq_insurgents_muslims_dc
tis
This article has a 9/5/2002 date...
Anyone have any info/update...
Lawsuit: Iraq Involved In 9/11 Conspiracy (edit)
(CBS) Over a thousand victims and family members of those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks sued Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein Wednesday alleging there is evidence of a conspiracy with Osama bin Laden to attack the United States.
The lawsuit alleges that Iraqi officials were aware, before Sept. 11, of plans by bin Laden to attack New York and the Pentagon.
The suit, filed Wednesday on behalf of 1,400 victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and their families, also claims Iraq sponsored terrorists for a decade to avenge its defeat in the Gulf War.
"Since Iraq could not defeat the U.S. military, it resorted to terror attacks on U.S. citizens," said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.
The suit names bin Laden, al Qaeda and Iraq as defendants and seeks more than $1 trillion in damages. It was brought by Kreindler & Kreindler, a New York law firm specializing in aviation disaster litigation.
Although other lawsuits have been filed against some of the same defendants, Jim Kreindler, one of the lawyers bringing the litigation, said the suits were the first to include certain detailed information about Iraq's alleged involvement in the attacks.
"We have evidence Iraq knew and approved of the Sept. 11 targets," he said.
It relies in part on a newspaper article published July 21, 2001, in Al Nasiriyah, 185 miles southwest of Baghdad. The law firm provided The Associated Press with a copy of the article written in Arabic and an English translation.
According to the lawsuit, a columnist writing under the byline Naeem Abd Muhalhal described bin Laden thinking "seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert, about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House."
The columnist also allegedly wrote that bin Laden was "insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," a possible reference to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
The lawsuit says a former associate of Muhalhal contends the writer has been connected with Iraqi intelligence since the early 1980s. It also says Muhalhal was praised by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in the Sept. 1, 2001, issue for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished."
Kreindler said Muhalhal had advance knowledge of al Qaeda's specific targets on Sept. 11 and that "Iraqi officials were aware of plans to attack American landmarks."
"Further, we have evidence that Iraq provided support for bin Laden and his al Qaeda terror organization for nearly a decade," he said.
The lawsuit said there have been numerous meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and high-ranking al Qaeda members to plan terror attacks.
The suit said bin Laden's chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, whose whereabouts are unknown, met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Baghdad in 1992. An Iraqi serving with the Taliban who fled Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 and was captured in Kurdistan has corroborated the meeting and confirmed that Iraqi contacts with al Qaeda began in 1992, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit noted that Ramzi Yousef arrived in New York on Sept. 1, 1992, with an Iraqi passport to begin planning the 1993 trade center bombing that killed six people and injured more than 1,000 others. Yousef is serving a life prison term after being convicted in the bombing and a plot to blow up a dozen airliners over the Far East in 1995.
The lawsuit alleges that Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent who traveled to the United States using travel documents forged in Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation of that country in 1991.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
TIA...
tis
Harry...
Though I do appreciate the article...
I wish to ask to how it pertains to the issue of eminent domain...
Thanks...
tis
She speaks of her son...
being killed in a car accident...doesn't state (please point out if I missed it) a jeep/tank/military vehicle...apparently it happened stateside?
The officer politely informed me that Jeremy had been in a car accident that morning, but he had no further details at that time. Later, the Army was not very forthcoming with information regarding Jeremy’s car accident, what happened or even the immediate cause of death, which turned out to be blunt force trauma to the head. Five days later, Jeremy’s unit left without him headed to Iraq.
However...I do Regret Amy Branham's loss of Her Son...
tis
Widow tells Bush to stay the course in Iraq war...
Interesting read...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050630-124908-7077r.htm
tis
Ones idea...
June 29, 2005
If it’s property they want, it’s property they’ll get
By Stephen Gordon
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." – Frederick Douglass
While this June has been filled with many “one brick short of a full load” Supreme Court decisions, clearly Kelo v. New London takes the cake. As readers of this website are already acutely aware, the Supreme Court decided to disregard basic property rights in favor of powerful special interest groups. Now is time to do something about it.
On June 15, 1215 A.D., in Runnymede, England, a piece of parchment was signed called Magna Carta – a crucial document which limited the power of the monarchy and affirmed the basic rights of the people in England. This one piece of paper is perhaps the most important single influence to the Constitution of the United States.
Article 39 of Magna Carta read, “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, banished nor shall we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
The pertinent word in the sentence above is ‘disseise’, which is defined in this manner, “To put out of actual seisin or possession; to dispossess (a person) of his estates, etc., usually wrongfully or by force; to oust.”
From this, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution was derived. It reads, “[No person shall] …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
With five swift strokes of their collectivist pens, the Supreme Court overturned nearly a millennium of tradition and common law with respect to private property ownership. In Kelo v. New London, the justices decided that not only may the government apply eminent domain in order to construct government roads and buildings, but they may now boot you out of your house if Wal-Mart or the local land developer wants your property.
In so doing, they have granted special status to the feudal lords of the 21st century, namely major corporations, development companies and local government fiefdoms – reverting our system of property ownership back to the dark ages.
Our Constitution is essentially the contract between the people and our government. While the government frequently reneges on this trust, this is perhaps the most egregious case since the birth of our nation. Many are already stating that the decision in Kelo renders the contract null and void.
Henry David Thoreau wrote, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”
In this spirit, his and our predecessors dumped tea in the Boston Harbor. Already, many are calling for civil disobedience. One man is attempting to use this decision to force Justice David Souter from his home -- so that he may establish the "The Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Café" in its place.
All of us may not have the opportunity to dispossess the Supremes of their fine homes. While humorous, some of us may even have moral qualms about the stealing part – even if it is from the enemy.
However, we have the opportunity to act in a totally moral and lawful manner in order to express our discontent. Let’s throw some serious sand into the gears of the government machine. They have asked for real property, so let us send it to them.
Real property (land) is composed primarily of dirt. The entire incident in Kelo is over who possesses a bunch of dirt.
The people in the area in which I live are proud of their soil – as is the case in most other places. Perhaps this eminent domain issue may be remedied by providing the landgrabbers a lot of dirt – enough dirt so they won’t have to steal it from the poor and the elderly again.
Radio talk show host Neal Boortz recently stated, “All property isn't dirt”. However, in this case, it is. Let’s give ’em some!
Some addresses to which you may mail your dirt are:
Dave Goebel
Chief Operating Officer
New London Development Corporation
165 State Street, Suite 313
New London, CT 06320
Richard M. Brown
City Manager
City of New London
181 State Street
New London, CT 06320
Justice John Paul Stevens
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice David H. Souter
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Stephen P. Gordon is a communications consultant specializing in political, public education, media relations and fundraising campaigns. He is the founder and President of Alabamians for Compassionate Use and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. He recently served as Communications Director for the Badnarik/Campagna 2004 campaign.
June 29, 2005
If it’s property they want, it’s property they’ll get
By Stephen Gordon
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." – Frederick Douglass
While this June has been filled with many “one brick short of a full load” Supreme Court decisions, clearly Kelo v. New London takes the cake. As readers of this website are already acutely aware, the Supreme Court decided to disregard basic property rights in favor of powerful special interest groups. Now is time to do something about it.
On June 15, 1215 A.D., in Runnymede, England, a piece of parchment was signed called Magna Carta – a crucial document which limited the power of the monarchy and affirmed the basic rights of the people in England. This one piece of paper is perhaps the most important single influence to the Constitution of the United States.
Article 39 of Magna Carta read, “No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, banished nor shall we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
The pertinent word in the sentence above is ‘disseise’, which is defined in this manner, “To put out of actual seisin or possession; to dispossess (a person) of his estates, etc., usually wrongfully or by force; to oust.”
From this, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution was derived. It reads, “[No person shall] …be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
With five swift strokes of their collectivist pens, the Supreme Court overturned nearly a millennium of tradition and common law with respect to private property ownership. In Kelo v. New London, the justices decided that not only may the government apply eminent domain in order to construct government roads and buildings, but they may now boot you out of your house if Wal-Mart or the local land developer wants your property.
In so doing, they have granted special status to the feudal lords of the 21st century, namely major corporations, development companies and local government fiefdoms – reverting our system of property ownership back to the dark ages.
Our Constitution is essentially the contract between the people and our government. While the government frequently reneges on this trust, this is perhaps the most egregious case since the birth of our nation. Many are already stating that the decision in Kelo renders the contract null and void.
Henry David Thoreau wrote, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”
In this spirit, his and our predecessors dumped tea in the Boston Harbor. Already, many are calling for civil disobedience. One man is attempting to use this decision to force Justice David Souter from his home -- so that he may establish the "The Lost Liberty Hotel" and "Just Desserts Café" in its place.
All of us may not have the opportunity to dispossess the Supremes of their fine homes. While humorous, some of us may even have moral qualms about the stealing part – even if it is from the enemy.
However, we have the opportunity to act in a totally moral and lawful manner in order to express our discontent. Let’s throw some serious sand into the gears of the government machine. They have asked for real property, so let us send it to them.
Real property (land) is composed primarily of dirt. The entire incident in Kelo is over who possesses a bunch of dirt.
The people in the area in which I live are proud of their soil – as is the case in most other places. Perhaps this eminent domain issue may be remedied by providing the landgrabbers a lot of dirt – enough dirt so they won’t have to steal it from the poor and the elderly again.
Radio talk show host Neal Boortz recently stated, “All property isn't dirt”. However, in this case, it is. Let’s give ’em some!
Some addresses to which you may mail your dirt are:
Dave Goebel
Chief Operating Officer
New London Development Corporation
165 State Street, Suite 313
New London, CT 06320
Richard M. Brown
City Manager
City of New London
181 State Street
New London, CT 06320
Justice John Paul Stevens
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice David H. Souter
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Stephen G. Breyer
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Stephen P. Gordon is a communications consultant specializing in political, public education, media relations and fundraising campaigns. He is the founder and President of Alabamians for Compassionate Use and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. He recently served as Communications Director for the Badnarik/Campagna 2004 campaign.
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001138.html
linked from: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
tis
Welcome to our State Peg...
Hope you find your stay an enjoyable one :)
tis