Facts Are Stubborn Things

Congressional Budget Office Says True Cost of Stimulus Bill is $3 Trillion+

2009-02-13T02:22:00.002-06:00

The Heritage Foundation reported on Thursday, February 12, that the true cost of the Stimulus Bill will be $3.27 Trillion, based on the Congressional Budget Report examining the baseline spending created by the bill.

Here's the article explaining the numbers.

Happy Birthday to Ronald Reagan

2009-02-06T02:34:00.004-06:00

Ronald Wilson Reagan was born on February 6, 1911.

One of my favorite quotes is from the speech he gave at the Republican National Convention on October 27, 1964:

We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.

HR1 House Republican "No" Vote: Principled Opposition or Negotiating Tactic?

2009-02-04T11:30:00.003-06:00

I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that ALL of the House Republicans voted "NO" on the "Stimulus" Package and I'm working on thanking them via email and fax. But.....please pardon my suspicious nature. Along with many others, I've seen this movie before and sequels are rarely an improvement upon the original.

The original? First round vote on TARP. Those of us who were opposed from the start knew that all it would leave behind was scorched earth. Set in flames in its path were Constitutional principles, Capitalism, and the few remaining shreds of a decent legacy for Pres. Bush. Attached to his reputation was the future credibility of Republicans who would attempt to engage in defending free market principles.

Many of us who shut down the Capitol switchboard and website in unprecedented numbers to inform Congress of our opposition to the bill's passage were very heartened when the House voted the bill down. Just following the vote, House Republican leadership stepped in front of the cameras. It would seem reasonable and common sense to expect a shot across the bow of both George Bush and Congressional Democrats; a definitive statement, a line in the sand. These naive hopes soon evaporated like mist. Actually, we were all slapped in the face. And our faces are pretty swollen and sore after the last eight years.

Minority Leader Boehner and Congressman Cantor explained the reason for the bill's failure. Was it principled opposition to a damaging, massive spending bill? No! It pains me beyond imagining, but I actually, for once, found myself agreeing with Barney Frank. Apparently, Republican feelings were hurt. If only Nancy Pelosi had been nice. Her highly partisan speech given on the House floor moments before the vote was given the reason for the bill's failure. Pelosi's scary little show would have righteously diminished her if left alone. Cited as a rationale for voting against a damaging bill, I was left disgusted and disillusioned.

Unfortunately, lack of conviction by many politicians does NOT surprise me, but it was not unreasonable, under those very particular circumstances, to expect something different and something better. Literally everyone in front of a microphone and TV camera said the situation was unprecedented. The word "crisis" and phrase "Great Depression" were being used every few minutes at this point, but Nancy Pelosi and the Republican leadership's behavior was absolutely politics as usual.

For people who had just started paying attention or those not fully informed, it would have only been right to question whether or not the "crisis" was as serious as portrayed if Congress was behaving in the same manner as has become the custom.

Trouble is, the crisis was and is unprecedented. Anyone capable of doing a minimal amount of research can discover that the United States of America is in big trouble financially. That makes the infantile rantings of Pelosi and the impotent whining of Republican leadership even more despicable. It is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.

Knowing at the first round of votes on TARP that a real crisis did loom, the common sense, logical thinker must ask the following question: Was Republican leadership completely so totallyl ignorant of the facts or did they simply really care so little about the outcome that they were only out to play politics? Or, far worse, were they aware of the true circumstances and happy to engage in consolidating even more power into the Federal government? In other words, it was either incompetence, negligence, or a power grab.

Whatever the reasons, these maneuverings were used as a marginal negotiating tactic. But once the bill failed, the public had to be convinced. The media was only too happy to help. Coverage, including Fox News, became palpably and suddenly Orwellian. Everyone from Shepard Smith to Bill O'Reilly lectured viewers on how they just didn't "get it". Even Sean Hannity seemed muffled. The only person appearing clearly skeptical about TARP on the whole network was Neil Cavuto.

A few prominent voices on Conservative talk radio, namely Rush, Glenn Beck, and Mike Gallagher were unambiguously opposed. Outside of that venue, the message was clear: "Main Street doesn't want to bail out Wall Street" and the average citizen just "didn't get it".

Many Republicans and a few skittish Democrats, used their "no" votes, as noted, as a minimal negotiating tactic. Little changed in the bill (it only went up to $850 billion, that's all) and of course, it passed. (I'm still wondering how the manner in which the vote took place was constitutional, by the way. As a spending bill, it should have originated in the House. Since it failed in the House, how could it be moved on to the Senate?)

In any case, any Republican who voted for TARP, in either house of Congress, helped Barack Obama win the presidency, and castrated all Republicans for a long time to come. It is my concerted opinion that John McCain nailed his campaign's coffin shut, permanently, when he voted for that bill.

I realize that statement is virtually impossible to prove. But, let's look at it logically. Anyone in doubt that Republicans have been castrated need only watch a little TV. You don't need to go to MSNBC or any other left leaning network. Go to Fox News and watch a discussion as to what should be done about the current "stimulus" package. Anytime a Republican or Conservative mentions free market alternatives, uses the word Socialism to accurately describe what the "stimulus" package encompasses, and note the Leftist response.

Bob "the Heckler" Beckel throws out the name "George W. Bush" every time he's involved in a discussion of the subject. Nina Easton blurted out the same message with decent clarity the other evening on Hannity's show. Michael Steele tried to correct her, acknowledging that Republicans on Capitol Hill might have a difficult time making a free market argument, but grassroots Conservatives were always opposed. Such a statement only confirms the point. Republicans on the Hill, by participating in drafting the bill, rather than out and out opposing it, castrated themselves and seriously damaged the Republican brand.

To further make the point, all you have to do is look at voter turn out on election day. The word "apathetic" doesn't begin to cover it. Prior to the "bail out" any principled Conservative was going to have a difficult time, as McCain's mother put it, "holding their noses and voting for him."

Republicans, had a golden opportunity to turn the rapidly deteriorating situation around. Imagine if McCain and the vast majority of Republicans had stood together against George Bush and TARP. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of the public was opposed. It would have been Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, almost the entire Democratic Congress, and by default, even if he wouldn't commit, Barack Obama siding with George Bush. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Congressional Republicans would have been on the other side.

From a purely political perspective, I still scratch my head wondering what on earth Republicans thought they had to gain in aligning themselves with George Bush on the whole issue. Could there have been a lamer duck? His approval ratings were in the 20 percents.

Pelosi and Reid had handed Congressional Republicans a golden gift when they shut Republicans out of the negotiating process. Republicans could have stayed ten miles away from the infectious plague of a bill and claim no hand in it. John McCain was the Typhoid Mary of the day.

There is no proving, as I acknowledged, that I am right about how much the handling of TARP by Republicans damaged the party and its candidates. Of course no exit pollster asked anyone about the issue. One can, however, draw some logical conclusions by putting together the unprecedented number of phone calls and emails in opposition to TARP with the outcome of the overwhelming majority of votes on social issues in various states, answers to some actually pertinent questions from exit polls, studies of demographics of voter turnout, and the immutable fact that a large chunk of the electorate was woefully under-informed due to the "slobbering love affair" (hat tip to Bernie Goldberg) coverage of the media throughout the election cycle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the following conclusions from the above information: America is still a traditional, "center-right" country. Typically conservative voters largely stayed home. People, regardless of party voted by in support of traditional values, even if they had to "split their ticket" to do so. Those questioned about the RNC clearly sent the message that the Republican party is not too conservative and the party had lost its way. Only a small percentage of people describe themselves as "liberal". Finally, can anyone actually doubt that the electorate was woefully mis or under informed?

I wish I could pick the brains of large numbers of Conservatives. How many of them actually voted for Barack Obama because they wanted to send a message to the Republican party and in the hopes he would be Jimmy Carter 2.0, thereby bringing forth the next Ronald Reagan? I actually seriously considered doing so myself. The prospect of voting for John McCain made me want to hurl. It was only when I spent hours reading about Obama's background, including the topic of Black Liberation Theology and Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals that I firmly decided that I really had to vote for John McCain. I know I am not so unique that I could be the only Conservative who considered giving the Republican party a clear message and force it to reset.

Despite what I and the others in the 46% decided, there's no getting around that all of the above adds up to a clear message for the Republican party: You've screwed up.

Knowing these facts it would seem that the concept of common sense began to be violated about a nano second after the election. What were the obvious moves that should have been made by the party? Every last member of leadership should have resigned. It would have been a clear sign that the party as a whole understood they no longer had credibility.

But what actually happened? The only change I noted was Roy Blunt resigned and John Boehner did a very serious tap dance. It didn't impress me. I honestly don't give a flying fig how wonderful John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are as men. After TARP, they don't have a shred of credibility. Sen. McConnell, in particular, is just pathetic, as evidenced by his recent behavior and statements. If the party is to have any hopes of surviving, McConnell should be replaced, right now.

I truly appreciate that all of the Republicans in the House voted "NO" on HR1, what Rush so aptly calls "Porkulus". But, again, going back to where this started, what reason on earth do any of us have to believe its not just another negotiating ploy?

Republicans have literally, nothing to gain from "negotiating" with the Democrats on this bill. Let Democrats pass it on their own. Let them take the responsibility for fulling campaign promises and saddling generations to come with unfathomable debt.

To stand against the bill is not obstructionist. It's not saying "no"'; it's saying "YES" to the free market, "yes" to sound budgetary practices, and "yes" our children can have future. It's the only right thing to do.

Unless that bill contains genuine tax cuts for actual taxpayers, a reduction in the corporate rates, unless it has spending cuts, and government hiring freezes, it's going to hurt the country, not help it.

We will all be watching to see whether the Republican party decides to commit suicide. Let's help them all stay alive and develop spines by thanking the House members for voting "No" and writing and phoning Senators to tell them to do the same.

Argument for Evolution or Just a Coincidence?

2009-02-04T00:14:00.005-06:00

Headline on Drudge says "IT'S A CIRCUS"

Oops! Wrong photo....

Mean? I don't know. My very witty daughter actually made the connection, so she's the clever one. I couldn't help but post it, though. As a former South Dakotan who was involved in at the county level in the "DUMP DASCHLE" effort, just a little bit of spite is in order today. Thinking about Mr. Daschle as HHS Secretary made my skin crawl. Hope the limo door didn't hit him in the backside when he speed away from the reporters today.

Yet Another Obama Cabinet Nominee Has Tax Problems...This time it's Daschle

2009-01-30T18:36:00.005-06:00

When I heard former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle was Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary, I was kicking myself that I had allowed myself to be convinced by family (and wishful thinking) to throw away my rather large leftover stock of "DUMP DASCHLE" bumper stickers when we moved from South Dakota to Nebraska.

I hadn't realized that within about two years, we'd soon be living in a parallel dimension, so I was convinced that Daschle would not reappear to haunt us. How naive.

In between sorting through the mess that is is the Republican party, scanning the horizon to found an articulate Conservative leader only to despair of finding one, and trying to figure out what nightmares are contained in the "Stimulus" Package, I have only intermittently considered the scary prospect of Tom Daschle as head of the HHS, let alone what could be done to stop his appointment.

A very faint glimmer of hope has appeared on the horizon.

Fox News just reported that the former Senator is one more in a growing list of problematic Obama appointees to either have conflicts of interest (think Billary) or, as in this case, tax problems. Fox has not posted anything on its website yet, but the Wall Street Journal put something up here.

From the perspective of a former (and likely returning in the future) South Dakotan, the fact that his state voted him out of office even though he held the influential position of Minority Leader should say a lot, considering the population of +700,000. He found it a very delicate tight rope walk to vote just enough the right way to keep South Dakotans happy and pander to the left, as evidenced by this discussion on the Daily Kos.

You know what they say about a man serving two masters.

It is my firm opinion that one of the many mistakes made by Daschle was his very visible support of the Gore campaign during the Election 2000 mess in Florida, including a conference call with other prominent Congressional Democrats. A CNN transcript, found here, gives a taste of how Daschle handled himself.

Daschle's position was ridiculous and not at all well received by his constituents, considering his state supported George W. Bush at a rate of over 60% to a very weak 37% for Gore. I saw it as the beginning of the end.

Of course, Daschle disappeared from the state of South Dakota the minute he was ousted from office. A perusal of tonight's Journal story gives us some clue as to what he's been up to. Regardless of these activities, he would be a total nightmare as head of the HHS when there's no mistaking that Universal Health Care is on the way.

I'm aware of some of his great ideas for health care as administered by the US government, which, includes the creation of a board just like the Fed, literally called "Fed Health". Good God. That Fed sure has done a bang up job of keeping our financial system healthy, hasn't it? Let's just rush to start up another Fed-like board, but instead of the monetary system, let's turn our health care over to something like that. As Tony Blankley's pointed out in his excellent summary of Dachle's book on health care in The Washington Times on November 26, 2008 , Daschle thinks things like angiograms are wasteful spending, and that physicians can't "help themselves" from doing something about blockages in the arteries, "however slight".

The moral of this story? Tom Daschle needs to be dumped, again. His $100,000 "oversight" in paying for a free car and driver provides some kind of opening to doing that. His appointment is not directly related to the financial crisis as was Geithner's so the "urgency" factor is going to be harder to exploit. Also, there is the piling on factor. How many lobbyists and tax evaders can you appoint, even if you are Barack Obama, before it becomes to difficult to justify ignoring?

So, a shout out to Senate Republicans, "Hello!! Is anybody home?" How many more immoral, unethical, non-taxpaying appointees are you going to confirm?

Anyone who gives a darn should at least try to stop Daschle's appointment by contacting their Senators.

Conservatives Suffering From Stockholm Syndrome

2009-01-10T21:55:00.005-06:00

One of the funniest things I have heard in a while is a comment by a caller into the Mike Gallagher show. She assessed Republicans and "so-called" Conservatives who have been going along with all of the bailouts, stimulus packages, and other Leftist measures, as suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".

For those not familiar, this "condition" is defined as, " An extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor."(1) The syndrome is so called based on the reaction of hostages taken in a violent 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm Sweden. (More, here.)

Mike Gallagher's witty caller was certainly funny. Like I said, one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Sometimes it does seem like the Democratic party leadership on Capitol hill must be at least, intermittently, holding some Republican politicians and even some "Conservative" pundits hostage. I've often wondered if there's some bizarre catch and release / re-catch and re-release program going on behind the scenes.

Perhaps the whole bunch has been undergoing a Patty Hearst type of brainwashing in some Congressional closet. The caller might be on to something....

While an amusing explanation, I'm buying this explanation about as much a I bought into the Simpson Dream Team's explanation of "if they do not fit, you must acquit."

As attractive as a million amusing and innocuous explanations may be for what appears to be a near total collapse of principles in the Republican party, no amusement, no explanation explains, let alone begins to deal with the truth that must be faced.

Sources:
1) "Definition of Stockholm Syndrome". Medicine.net

Fox's O'Reilly Can't Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer "Doesn't Care" About the "Fairness Doctrine"?

2008-11-20T21:52:00.013-06:00

Fox's Griff Jenkin's played "chase the politicians" on Capitol Hill Thursday for Bill O'Reilly. As much fun as it was to watch Chuck Schumer speedwalking down a Washington corridor, there was more information available. Why does O'Reilly tell only part of the story? Are we too dense to pay attention long enough?

On Thursday's O'Reilly Factor, the "No-Spin master" did another half story on an issue. I'm becoming more convinced than ever, that either Bill thinks his viewers have the attention spans of gnats, or he has one of the worst research teams in the media business, who don't even seem to know how to use the internet.

In any case, the half story this evening regarded the Conservative Speech Suppression (aka "Fairness") Doctrine. He sent reporter Griff Jenkins, to Capitol Hill to do one of those amusing deer-caught-in-the-headlights segments where a reporter chases politicians or other miscreants with a bright light and tries to stick a microphone in their faces whilst they proceed to look like the speedwalker in the banned Mr. T Snickers commercial.

Griff's mission was to question lawmakers about their position on the Doctrine. During Mr. Bill's "Talking Points Memo" the audience was treated to the surgically frozen smile of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The second lawmaker to be questioned, and to his credit, the only one of the three who actually stood still, was New Mexico Senator Ted Bingham.

Sen. Schumer of New York, was the third "contestant" and the one which most reminded me of the speedwalker. It's just too bad Griff hadn't brought along the tank, the Snickers, or, Mr. T.

Ok, let's just pause a second an enjoy the visual on that one. [Pausing....visualizing....] Who among us wouldn't love to watch Mr. T machine gun Chuckie Schumer with Snickers bars?

I can't embed the O'Reilly video here, but "Talking Points" is the default listing that comes up on the O'Reilly portion of the Fox site. Click the title for the November 20 "Talking Points Memo" 'Will Fairness Doctrine be reimposed?'

Of course the "Fairness" Doctrine is an important issue and the comments and reaction to reporters' questions on the issue are interesting and informative viewing.

But, as has become obvious to me, and perhaps I'm just slow-witted or too willing to give the benefit of the doubt, it seems that Bill O'Reilly only tells part of most important stories.

Towards the end of his "Memo" O'Reilly commented that he spoke with Schumer sometime after Grif attempted to speak with him on Thursday afternoon, and Schumer said he "didn't care about the issue, nor should he". O'Reilly labeled this response as "a ruse".

According to Merriam-Webster online:
ruse (noun): a wily subterfuge

Is anyone else tired of tap-dancing? Mr. Schumer's statements to Bill were neither a "subterfuge" nor "wily".

Let us call things what they actually are. When a feathered, beaked creature quacks, we call it a duck. When someone says something that is not true, we call it a lie.

And Chuckie Schumer did lie. On November 4, Election Day, on Foxs News Channel, Schumer equated talk radio with pornography. Perhaps after the imbecility of those comments, the estimable Mr. Schumer decided he'd better stop "caring" about the Fairness Doctrine, really quickly. He is right about one thing (kind of like a broken clock, it is accidentally right twice day) he shouldn't care.

As if the pornography analogy were not enough, Chuckie has additional reason to continue to distance himself from the issue. Apparently he's taking heat from people. I mean real people, not just people with pointy heads and huge egos.

On Monday, November 17, Mark Levin received a call to his radio show from a woman named Carla, from Brooklyn, New York.

[You can listen to the Monday Mark Levin show by clicking HERE. The conversation with Carla occurs about 48 minutes into the broadcast (as long as that version doesn't contain commercials, like the Podcast).]

Here is a transcript of the conversation:

Carla: Hi. I am so glad to talk to you and I'm also kind of nervous because I don't want to end up like Joe the Plumber. Um, I had, an, let's just say, an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport, at La Guardia, on Saturday night, that was pretty extensive and kind of -

Mark: Well, wait a minute, by "altercation" you mean a discussion.

Carla: Well, yeah, a heated discussion, about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning, he was ahead of me, there was a fawning Democrat chick, who came over to him, and was like all over him and I had heard what he had said on, I think it was Fox News, on Election Day, I had heard his comments, about uh, about talk radio, and about the Fairness Doctrine which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there and he had this big smile on his face.

And I just said to him, "Don't you dare try to take my talk radio away from me."

And he said to me, "I'm not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can't allow people to be nasty and rude and, and say things that aren't true."

And I said, "Are you kidding me? That's what our democracy is about. Our democracy is messy." I said, "Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic, and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That's what makes us different than Europe."

And he, he just started lashing out at me. He told me how ignorant I was. And that they were not going to permit -

Mark: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So in other words, so in other words, he was shrill, and rude, and vile.

Carla: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill, and it was attacking my intelligence and uh, and my I.Q., [Mark: Gee whiz.] and I was dumb. And I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy and it was called Red China and it sounded like he was talking right out of, uh, Mao's Red Book, and that that was not what our country was about and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy. And that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it's wrong. And that's the nature of democracy.

Mark: Well, let me tell you something. You're a patriot, uh, I wish more people would engage like you; politely but firmly, confronting the Left. Uh, and you're not stupid, he's a moron. And let me tell you Carla, what, what's really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Carla?

Carla: No. I didn't notice anything upsetting him, he looked pretty smug.

Mark: It's me. Because he doesn't like me, my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he's greater and better than the rest of us. That's why I mock all of them, to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says, "shrill" and all of that, he's talking about me. Because he doesn't like me 'cause I'm in his face, because I've challenged him, because I've urged him to come on this show, because I know he's coward. But he's a menace, he's a menace to this country, he's a menace to this society, he's a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others, we'll come up there, and I'd be more than happy to testify under oath, assuming of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. I'd be more than happy to do that, Schmuckie. I'd be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don't like it, it's none of your damn business. I'd be happy to educate you, Schmuckie. What do you think of that, you dope?

And Carla, you're I.Q. is twice of his. So you're I.Q.'s about 140.

Carla: Yeah, well, I told him. I said I will fight to the death, for my, for my talk radio, for anyone else, to be obnoxious, to be as loud and as nasty as they want. Because -

Mark: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

Carla: Of course, of course he is. But I said the point of our democracy is that we don't censor our tones, we don't control our tones.

Mark: Well, of course, of course, you're right. And you're extremely intelligent. But he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn't allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer; they'd dealt with people who would punish people dared to say things they didn't believe in. They tried to squelch dissent, they tried to squelch free speech and that's why, when they, when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech, uh, and they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer. But Chuck Schumer doesn't give a damn. He's a power hungry menace. Thank you, Carla, God Bless You, and good job. You take care.

So, Bill O'Reilly devotes a "Talking Points Memo" to the topic, featuring Sen. Schumer, who had very recently (Nov. 4) made an ass out of himself on the issue. O'Reilly who works for the same network on which Schumer made his ridiculous statements, doesn't play the tape. That's getting your point across effectively, that's following up. It's about as effective coverage of the issue as O'Reilly's was of Obama.

But there was additional information available regarding New Mexico's Sen. Bingham. Although he was polite and forthright enough to stand still, to not play duck and cover, he is on record elsewhere, letting everyone know exactly where he stands on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine, with more detail and more in-depth information than the twenty seconds Griff spent with him.

In late October, Bingham was interviewed on New Mexico radio station, KKOB, on this issue. You can read more about this HERE and listen to an audio clip of it.

BLOGGERS: "Gird Your Loins" and Guard Your Data. Change.gov Scrubbing is a Red Flag

2008-11-11T08:00:00.004-06:00

The Washington Times' story yesterday regarding how the Change.gov website was "scrubbed" sometime over the weekend is a red flag to all those who wish to see truth preserved.

The Times reported that the Obama agenda previously listed there, largely copied over from the Obama campaign site, has been replaced with vague statements.

As many bloggers, and even some reporters know; this is not the first time information has evaporated from the internet regarding Barack Obama. In fact, the scrubbing of unflattering and questionable data intensified in the last months of the campaign. Any question regarding whether this practice would be routine during an Obama Presidency, have now been answered.

Bloggers need to be cognizant of this fact and act accordingly since there are few news outlets who will not plead amnesia in the future should an issue arise referencing documented information that has disappeared.

Further, it's obvious that President-elect Barack Obama's penchant for saying, "I've consistently said...." or "this has always been my position..." or "I've always said...." or "I have said so repeatedly...." would be a lot easier to back up if there is no proof of prior statements or contrary information available.

The Obama campaign, transition team staff, and coming administration have had a great deal of help in "protecting" information. Besides things disappearing off the 'net, there have been things that have "disappeared", difficult to access, withheld, or even altered in the "terrestrial" world. There are several incidents of which bloggers are likely aware that include the removal of the "Obama Youth" video from Youtube which was only re-posted because some shrewd blogger had permanently downloaded it and put it back up on the site. Besides that video on Youtube, there have been reports of disappearing Jeremiah Wright videos and NBC's aggressively monitoring and immediately demanding videos including any NBC footage be pulled, such as Barney Frank's appearance on CNBC in July of this year when he stated that Fannie Mae was a sound investment. This video was the basis for the Bill O'Reilly ambush of Frank in October.

Besides the video pulls, there are a number of people who were disturbed by a trend on the Real Clear Politics site, wherein negative Obama reader articles would mysteriously disappear and the user accounts deleted. It's unclear at this date whether that issue was ever resolved. All inquiries to the webmaster, even by prominent blogger Roger Gardner of Radarsite, went unanswered.

There are some scrubbing incidents which I personally discovered in the last six to eight weeks of the campaign, primarily involving ACORN. On October 10, I had a post regarding Barack Obama having been a member of the legal team that sued Citibank in Chicago for allegedly "red-lining". I assert that this is yet another Obama connection to ACORN. The two plaintiffs were likely referred to Obama's firm by that group. These kinds of suits, which bullied banks to grant unprofitable and non-viable mortgages to people in areas with historically high rates of default, contributed to the "Sub-prime mortgage meltdown". Citibank ultimately settled that suit.

In researching ACORN, I found a site called Tax Exempt World, where a large amount of data on tax exempt entities is available to the public. Some of the information is available for free, some for a fee. On October 9 amd 10, when I was doing this research, I pulled up an ACORN detail page on Tax Exempt World, using this link:

Trouble is, the page didn't look exactly like it does now. There was further detail below the the Google ads, stating where ACORN's funds were held, which was an account in the British Virgin Islands. Below is an image I prepared showing where the information existed on the page as of October 10, but disappeared within about a week, when I went back to look more carefully:

Certainly it's easy to make an assertion like I've just done without any back up. Besides the fact that I had no real reason for doing so, I referenced the fact in my article, intending to go back and do further research:

"Further, the tax-exempt database I linked for the ACORN address above displays that ACORN keeps its money in an offshore bank account in the Virgin Islands, which I find just plain odd."

Perhaps the Tax Exempt site had a glitch and was displaying information that was meant for the paid part of their service only. Of course that is a possibility, but considering that it was not the only web page that disappeared, was scrubbed, or was significantly edited that I used when researching for my post, I find it awfully suspicious.

It doesn't look like I linked to the ACORN home page within the article, but I quoted from it. Several days later, when I went back to do some more research on their site, I kept getting the following result:

This went on for several days, and then mysteriously, the site reappeared and had clearly been scrubbed and edited. The edits included a rabid defense of the organization. In visiting the site today, one can find the full-fledged effort continues the self-defense measures. Today's front page has a big button featured entitled "Fight Back: The Truth About ACORN".

Perhaps this disappearance and re-emergence of a site is just another coincidence, but I don't think so.

More recently, I was researching the issue of Barack Obama's connection to Sal Alinksy's theories and the book Rules for Radicals. I discovered the following page:

This was apparently from an online version of the book After Alinksy: Community Organizing in Illinois, which had been published by the University of Illinois at Springfield. Obama had written an essay entitled "Why Organize? Problems and Progress in the Inner City" at an earlier time. This essay was later included as a chapter in After Alinksy. Some enterprising person had the foresight to apparently copy the page source code and loaded the page back up to the web. It's a good thing, because if one clicks on the link "The Complete book After Alinksy home page" on the above page, this is what comes up:

Since all of the other links on the reloaded page are connected to the University's site and those work, it is hard to believe that this, too is another coincidence or something created out of whole cloth. One thing is definitely true, the book does exist. The ISBN number is valid. The book is listed for sale on Amazon, although it is obviously in very short supply; the current price is $150+.

Some may ask, "what's the big deal about the removal of the book from the University site"? In some respects, it's not that big of a deal. While the article may make my skin crawl because I understand the subtext and it's implications, it is not particularly radical, per se. But apparently someone was bothered by the notion that the information existed on the University's site. It would not be flattering to have any clear connections between Alinksy doctrine and Barack Obama. Despite many radical leftist's denials, Alinksy is nothing but a Marxist radical, his tactics were not "peaceful" as some leftist pinheads on TV have said or many radical "community organizing groups" worshipping at Alinksy's feet state in their "About Us" pages. His goal was revolution of American society; revolution to a Marxist state.

Despite the obvious implications of Obama granting permission to include his essay in a book about Alinksy, his other connections to the Alinksy philosophy, and what all of it means for an Obama, there is something more bothersome about the information being pulled off the Univeristy site.

It's the Orwellian aspect of it all, of course. How can history be so easily re-written in what is supposed to be an open society? Who is doing all of this scrubbing, editing, and pulling? One could obviously make suppositions all day long about how the University of Illinois fits into all of this, considering the many tentacles of connections to Barack Obama there. At the very least, there are apparently a lot of people and organizations in our country who are very protective of President-elect Obama and whose ethics are questionable, to say the least.

Regardless of who is "scrubbing", editing, and pulling, and why, the moral of the story is obvious: bloggers and others doing research need to protect the information they discover and they need to do so NOW. How many among us have had fleeting thoughts of going back over links, etc., discovered throughout the election, and doing something about downloading or taking a screenshot, but have as of yet to do so? I know for a while now, I've been intermittently capturing and downloading, but I haven't done it consistently or gone back over things I'd found in the past.

It seems important going forward that we all adopt these practices as a normal part of the way we do things.

In pondering the best ways to preserve information, I recall the controversy that occurred over the ages of the members of the Chinese Women's Gymnastics team. I recall a blog post by an author who is also an investigator. He employed the use of a cache search and turned up a Chinese government report that revealed discrepancies about the girls' ages. The government had pulled the report off the net, leaving its discovery open only to those skilled in cache searches.

Certainly there are many others out there much savvier than myself. I've got some learning to do about this; I briefly tried this out on some of the links for pages I mentioned having disappeared, but clearly, I don't know what I'm doing yet, or they are just gone. For those who might be reading this who are good at cache searching, I would ask you to leave comments to instruct the rest of us how it is best done.

For now, I can share what I'm going to be looking at myself:

Google Guide about Cached Pages
(the Google guide itself, which I've not "stumbled upon" before looks like it might have some handy information to generally improve searching techniques)

Search Engine Showdown
Includes a listing of many free services that archive pages from the web. Google is there, of course, but many others that may include information that Google doesn't have.

One of those listed, "Way Back Machine", doesn't carry the archives for at least six months after the fact. However, since none of the others have worked for me so far and may not ever, I will wait patiently and try Way Back Machine for some of these pages.

Very likely many have already thought out how to archive data and have the tools handy to do so. Maybe you've done it or are doing it already. Although I'm admittedly new to blogging, I'm not new to the internet. Of course, I've experienced some dead links here and there over the years when going back to an old bookmark, but the number of things vanishing lately seems to have a creepy Orwellian bent. I wonder if that's true for many others. Am I just naive?

In any case, in the event that anyone coming across this post is either also new to blogging or new to preserving the information they've found, I'm going to go list the steps I plan to use. If you have suggestions for improving upon my list, I invite any and all suggestions. (Unless, of course, your suggestion is for me to go suck an egg because I'm archiving information on Barack Obama. If so, please don't bother. It will just be deleted, anyway.)

So, here are the steps I'm personally going to take:
1) Spend some time everyday for the next few days reviewing past posts for web page references and video files that are only linked at this point. If they seem likely candidates for removal, I'm going to archive them using steps I'll go through below.

Youtube videos:
Download permanently using Youtube Downloader. In addition to handy downloading, this program also converts videos for use on multiple platforms like Ipods, Windows Media Player, etc.

Web pages and graphics:
Take screenshots of sites using MWSnap. This is much more flexible than simply using the "print screen" function in Windows.
Depending upon the perceived importance of the website or page, save the page source by going to the "View" menu at the top of the browser and pasting into notepad, saving as html.

Of course, this data could really rack up in size fairly quickly. So there are storage needs to consider. Maybe it's time to invest in another external hard drive or a big pack of CDs.

2) I will be noting the importance of information I find going forward and take the above steps on ongoing basis as necessary.

Like I said, others more experienced in these matters than myself are very welcome to leave suggested improvements.

BREAKING: Two Omaha, Nebraska Students Suspended for "Inappropriate Remarks" About Barack Obama & Secret Service Investigates Another for a "Threat"

2008-11-07T11:58:00.012-06:00

Apparently, the efforts to silence dissent against President-elect Barack Obama have already begun. And it looks like he can count on the youth, if not so much as he would have liked, at the ballot box, in policing their peers.

Lincoln, Nebraska, radio station 1400 KLIN reported this morning that two Omaha high school students have been suspended for making "inappropriate remarks" about Mr. Obama that "had racial and religious 'undertones'".

A search for a more in-depth report on the incident finds an Omaha World Herald story which reveals that the incident that occurred Wednesday is not the only one in which action was taken against an area high schooler.

In Bellevue, Nebraska, police and the Secret Service were called by a high school student who had received a text message from a fellow student that the recipient deemed "threatening". Apparently, the two students were arguing about the outcome of the election. No action was taken, as the threat was not deemed "credible", although it was labeled as "inappropriate".

These incidents should disturb us all. Of course, racial epithets and threatening language should not be tolerated in a civilized society. But, in the case of the suspended students, the words "inappropriate" and "undertones" were used. I find that, unfortunately, not surprising, but very outrageous. How many people, for the last eight years, made more than "inappropriate" remarks with actually violent "overtones" against President George W. Bush? How many calls were made to the Secret Service, how many students suspended? Apparently it's ok to disapparage, ridicule, and slander a white Christian guy, and that's about it.

What I find most disconcerting is that the first incident, which resulted in the suspensions, was not reported by the classroom teacher, it was reported by students who left the class and contacted the administration. And the administration took it seriously.

Perhaps the reporting students will be the first to sign up for President-elect Obama's National Civilian "Security" force.

Homeschooling, anyone?

Hey Brit Hume: How about trying to put a CONSERVATIVE on your "All Star Panel?"

2008-11-06T17:57:00.007-06:00

Fox News Channel is part of the mainstream media.

Pathetically, unless you want to spend an entire broadcast yelling at the pinheaded, kool-aid drinking anchor, its the only available news network. It is better than most other networks because there are some real conservatives available by way of some guests and Sean Hannity, but let's not fool ourselves. It's becoming more "mainstream" (mainstream = out of touch) by the minute.

In some ways, its no surprise; there's little investigative journalism anywhere in the news business these days, and cable news spends too much of its time myopically covering and recycling the same small handful of stories. Fox has always had somewhat of a tabloid-type flavor to it, especially during non-primetime hours. Ever turned the channel on from about 9AM - 5PM (central)? Besides Neil Cavuto's Your World (including when delightful fill-in Stuart Varney makes an appearance) and the occasional Megyn Kelly smackdown, you can see as much footage of overturned semis on I-90 near Atlantic, Iowa, as you can handle. It doesn't help the network's "cred" rating, in my opinion, that every woman on the network besides Julie Banderas must have her colorist on speed-dial to touch up those roots.

Even in primetime, the situation is sketchy. Mr. Mountain-sized Ego, otherwise known as Bill O'Reilly, prides himself on being one of the toughest interviewers on television. Poppycock. If ranting, turning red, and pointing fingers at the camera and screaming, "Coward!" at Barney Frank passes for "toughness" then I'm a monkey's uncle. (And that can't be; I'm a woman.) Instead of playing the miles of footage of Barney Frank attacking regulators of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and confronting him, loopy statement by loopy statement, Mr. Ego pitched a fit.

What was worse than that was O'Reilly's coverage and interview of Barack Obama. Who does his research? Skipping over the birth certificate question (which is a diversion), the "he's a Muslim" dead-end, where was the coverage of everything else? He said, "I don't have a problem with Mr. Obama." Super. Then, the night before the election, he and regular contributor, Dennis Miller, giggled their way through a conversation that was essentially about how ridiculous it was that Barack Obama was about to be elected. Joe Wurlzebacher revealed more for us about Barack Obama with one question than Bill O'Reilly did in twenty minutes. Yeah, he's real tough.

The biggest problem, I have, though, is with Brit Hume's daily show, Special Report, and his overall coverage of Election 2008. He is managing editor of his own show, so he must have some input into the members of his illustrious "All-Star panel". The same tired parade of people is rotated and recylced for all election coverage, which Hume anchors. Nary a real conservative in the bunch. There have been random appearances of Bill Sammon, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, and now deputy managing editor at Fox News, and he's a straight shooter, but that's about it.

First of all, would someone please, please poke Mr. Hume with a stick? For at least six months, he's been nearly napping his way through his on-air time. Sometimes when the camera moves onto him after coming out of commericial break, especially on longer nights during the primaries and debates, his mouth is literally, hanging open. Someone hand the man a napkin, he needs to wipe the drool off the corner of his mouth. He's gone into retirement a little too early.

Regulars on Humes glittering panel include Juan Williams, of NPR, who committed random acts of actually rational analysis of Mr. Obama's troubling background, during the primary season, but nearly burst into tears the night Obama gave his convention speech in front of those Grecian columns in Denver.

NPR is not under-represented on Hume's panel; there's also the penetrating Mora Liason. About a week and a half before the election, the esteemed panel was discussing the wisdom of the McCain campaign beating the "William Ayers" drum. Liason actually stated, "Ayers was just someone who lived in Obama's neighborhood and their kids went to school together." Nary a word from Hume or anyone on the panel to correct her. The statement was a virtual copy of the answer David Axelrod floated after the question of the extent of Obama's association with Ayers first surfaced during the primaries. There's at least a twenty year age difference between the Obama and Ayers children, and the relationship between the two has proved to be very extensive, reaching back at least to 1995, possibly 1987, when their wives worked at the same law firm in Chicago. Obviously, all of these "stars" are just filling air time, not actually have real, informed discourse on real issues that affect real people.

Other regulars include Mort Kondracke of Roll Call, Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, Nina Easton of Fortune, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Nina Easton was widely quoted on Fox during "Bailout Fest 2008", including in a David Asman piece that attempted to carefully dissect the entire debacle. It was one of the best pieces of journalism on the subject, truly, but trotting out Easton, who repeated her favorite phrase everywhere possible, "The people on Main Street don't want to bailout the 'Wall Street Fat Cats'" was insulting to our intelligence. It didn't help that Asmen introduced the clip of the wise Easton by saying, "Many Americans just don't understand." Easton was able to work in her take on the bailout on several occasions during her turn on Hume's "panel". But that wasn't her only gem. My personal favorite was her statement during a discussion of the media's bias in favor of Obama. I wish I could remember her exact words, but she literally looked perplexed when her turn came and said that she didn't think it would really effect the outcome of the election.

Krauthammer and Kristol are definately the most thoughtful of the bunch. One hears decent insight from them on occasion. Unfortunately, like the overwhelming majority of pundits, they are looking at the world through their permanently fixed inside-the-beltway prisms. The most ridiculous moments are when they are asked what the American people, or the electorate specifically, are "feeling" about a particular policy or event.

The most egregious offender attending Hume's tea parties is Fred Barnes. If one didn't know better, one would often think Mr. Barnes was the editor of a liberal publication. Listening to him talk makes me want to reach through the TV and punch him right between the eyes.
On Thursday, during the august panel's pontification on intepreting the outcome of the Presidential race, Mr. Barnes informed Republicans that they must recognize that they have to change their strategies moving forward; essentially, they must move to the left.

But this was the second night in a row that "conservative" editor Barnes had made that kind of statement. And this is just another in a long line of the same kind. As a "conservative" he wasn't too bothered about the Bailout bill. At least Bill Kristol was clear that it was going to be a bad piece of legislation.

Perhaps I shouldn't pick on Mr. Barnes quite so much. He's probably taking the brunt of my frustration on the whole issue of perhaps well-intentioned "conservatives" in Washington who have not clue one as to how the majority of American people "feel", do not do any real homework, do not call eachother out when one of them spews falsehoods, and observe "crisis"' situations in the same bored, lofty voices as they would commenting on the weather.

The whole panel needs to be scrapped, along with its moderator. There isn't one, real tough-but- fair questioner on all of news after 3:00Pm (central). If Fox wanted real probing questions, and real diversity of real opinion, they would put Neil Cavuto or Stuart Varney in Hume's time slot. The "All Star" panel should be turned into the "All America Panel" and have one articulate pundit from each side of the aisle, and rotate through a group of articulate, "average citizens", two at a time, one from each side of the aisle, each night.

I'd start with Joe the Plumber on the conservative side. A conversation among that kind of group would prove far more interesting than the elitist pap that's served up by the "All Star panel" everynight.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann on What the Rahm Emmanuel Appointment Means: "It Looks Like The Sopranos"

2008-11-06T01:54:00.012-06:00

Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann spoke to Mark Levin on his radio show Wednesday afternoon, after winning a second term in Tuesday's elections.

Mark asked Congresswoman Bachmann for her opinion on Rahm Emanuel being appointed Barack Obama's Chief of Staff:

Mark Levin: You've dealt with this scoundrel, my word, not yours, Rahm Emanuel, he's going to be chief of staff to Milhouse, Barack Milhouse Obama. Now the issue here is, he's a very nasty guy who plays really knuckle politics. This doesn't look like "change" and "hope". Does it to you?

Rep. Bachmann: Well, it looks like The Sopranos. I mean that's kind of what we're looking at. This is knuckle Chicago politics. And that's what's going to be in the White House now. I mean, we have been, Conservative Republicans have felt the brunt of Rahm Emanuel, this election cycle, last election cycle. It's unlike anything anyone has ever seen or heard. And now it's going to come forth out of the White House.

[crosstalk]

Mark Levin: Does this guy, does this guy reach across the aisle, does he ever reach across the aisle? I don't see it.

Rep. Bachmann: No, it's called shame and humiliate your opponent. That's what it is; it's shame and humiliation.

Mark Levin: So what kind of signal does this send to Republicans in Congress?

Rep. Bachmann: I think what it says is, people are not going to be running for office as Conservative Republicans unless they really mean it and feel it. To go through the kind of brutal lashings that the Democrats are going to be holding out for future office holders, um, you'd really have to think twice, just about your position, your reputation. I'm a mom of five, I had twenty-three foster kids and I worked professionally as a federal tax lawyer, and we've started our own business. And to go through something like this, where, really for eighteen days, your name is mud, your ruined, your reputation is destroyed.

And for what? I believe in freedom, I believe in this country. Believe in what you're trying to talk about everyday on your show, I mean, I'm a huge fan of you, Mark. And you've got, you've got normal people who want to run for office, 'cause they just love this country, and want the next generation to enjoy freedom. And let the world have a haven to repair to for freedom. And this is what we're up against.

Because it literally what is now the choice between socialism and those who still believe in the initial foundational principles of freedom. I'm never going to let go of those principles. I don't care how hard they beat me and humiliate me. I am never letting go of those principles, because I do think they are going to be under assaalt and this is Day 1 of the assault of socialism. But we need strong-minded leadership in D.C. to take these people on.

Mark Levin: Well you are a very, very strong person. We admire you enormously. And as you need to come on, you let us know. You need to do one favor for me, will you make me one promise?

Rep. Bachmann: What?

Mark Levin: Don't go on "MSLSD"* anymore.

Rep. Bachmann: That you don't have to worry about, my dear. You absolutely don't have to worry about that.

We lost some great colleagues last night. I mean true freedom fighters. Tom Feeney, Tim Walbert, Marilyn Musgrave, Steve Shaba, Thelma Drake. We lost true freedom fighters. We hung onto some; Scott Garrett, whose a real hero of mine. So it was brutal and it was bloody, but for those of us who made it through the smoke, it's because of the generous involvement of your listeners.

And I'm not going there just to put my head under the radar screen. I'm going there because we have to fight. Because if we don't fight, there is no alternative. That's what you told us when you spoke to us. We're it, we're all that's left. And if we don't fight, the only alternative is, is full-bore rampant socialism. You'll hear from me, you'll hear from Scott Garrett, you'll hear from my colleagues. We're going to go down swinging, we're not going to let them just roll over us. We're going to go down swinging. We're going to let the public know, from the front lines, what we see and hear everyday.

Mark Levin: Well, you are, you make us all proud. My buddy, Scott Garrett, thank God he won, too. And, uh, Congresswoman, God Bless you, and go get 'em.

Rep. Bachmann: We're going to do it. And thanks a million to your listeners, thank you for making this happen, thank you.

*If you want to know more about what's being referred to at this point in the conversation, read this post.

Rep. Bachmann is not painting a stilted picture of Rahm Emanuel. He once said, "Republicans can go f*%$ themselves." But then again, according to a Chicago Tribune reporter who followed him throughout the 2006 Mid-term election cycle, Emanuel's sentences are laced with profanity and he "extends his middle finger with some regularity". The Tribune reporter, Naftali Bendavid, was only allowed to report in detail on Emanuel and his tactics after the elections. It's a long, detailed piece, and while it provides insight into just how Emanuel master-minded Republican defeat, it blasts to shreds the flimsy hopes anyone has of the "new kind of politics" promised by Barack Obama during his campaign. The full story can be read by clicking here.

Constant use of profanity and "flipping the bird", while endearing qualities in any White House Chief of Staff, are not the sole talents Mr. Emanuel possesses. He is also, apparently, very entertaining when wielding a steak knife. A practially crowing article in the Huffington Post appeared today entitled "Rahm Emanuel: Knife Figher, A Look Back", details how Emanuel vented his frustration at "enemies" at an after-election dinner with fellow campaign workers. After screaming out a name, Emanuel apparently "stabbed" the table with his steak knife, screaming "Dead!"

We can all only wait to see who will be the next delightful appointment to the coming Obama administration.

Obama Spokeswoman Says Obama Has Been "Unequivocal" on "$250,000", Then Lowers Threshold to $45,000 - $50,000

2008-10-29T23:58:00.000-05:00

$120,000 must be the new $150,000, no, it's the new $200,000, no, the new $250,000. Huh??

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in a radio interview on Denver, Colorado radio station 850 KOA today stated that people with incomes under $120,000 would receive tax cuts:

After months of stating that Obama would give tax cuts to "all working families" that made less than $250,000, that number has changed four, perhaps five times this week.

Those numbers for people who will have tax bulls-eyes tacked to their foreheads just keeps changing. In the whole "spreading" or redistributing the wealth scheme, those who will have their wealth "spread around" seem to be making less and less from one day to the next.

On Wednesday, "Oh, That's Just Joe Being Joe" Joe Biden said the Obama-Biden tax plan would lower taxes for everyone making less than $150,000:

Perhaps in a "slow economy" or "financial crisis", we just need to redefine the definition of "rich". Wednesday, apparently, rich was $150,000, during Obama's thirty minute indoctromercial, it was $200,000.

Perplexed by the four different numbers now floating, Fox News Stuart Varney, filling in on Neil Cavuto's Your World, invited an Obama spokeswoman on to clear things up.

**Warning - Duct Tape Alert**

Please wrap your head securely in Duct tape prior to viewing as your head is likely to explode about 90 seconds in:

This link will take you to the Fox News site where you can view the video.

Miss Law seems to lower the threshold now to $45,000 - $50,000 if I get anythinng that makes any sense out of what she said.

If Mr. Obama, his running mate, a former Ambassador to the U.N. and sitting governor, or his "spokeswoman" can't walk a straight line, let us do so here. Let's examine some of the ways in which Miss Law tried to tap dance around directly clarifying which particular number is the one we are to believe:

$150,000 and $120,000 were amounts used because they fall inside $250,000, and so does $200,000
It's not Mr. Obama who stated anything but $250,000, it was Joe Biden, and Governor Richardson
Since it wasn't Mr. Obama himself, we'd have to ask Joe Biden and Gov. Richardson what they meant
Gov. Richardson and Sen. Biden were just saying those particular amounts because of the people they were talking to probably don't make more than those amounts of money
Mr. Obama did say $250,000 and then $200,000, but that's not equivocating
The discrepancies in amounts just reflect the struggle to define what "middle-class" is
Middle-class is really $45,000 - $50,000

Miss Law really cleared things up, didn't she? Let's see if we understand her correctly, taking these explanations, one at a time and correcting the circular logic:

It's not a question of what falls inside the amount in question, and that's not the context or language that was used by any of the speakers. It's a question of where the threshold lies.
First, it was Mr. Obama who was among those confusing the issue. But also, if a candidate or campaign sends out someone to speak on their behalf, they are obligated to have their facts straight. If they don't have those facts straight, don't send them out. If they say something that represents the candidate's point of view, we will take the person at face value. Otherwise, the candidate himself should call a press conference and clear things up. Besides, since Miss Law was speaking on the campaigns behalf, hence the word, "spokeswoman", are we not to believe anything she says either.
We don't need to ask Biden or Richardson anything. They already spoke. Were they rogues out there without campaign permission? Can we have Miss Law's cell phone number so we can call and ask her what she meant?
So the campaign is admitting that they say things to different people in different places?
Huh?? Then what the heck is it?
The discussion is not regarding the "struggle to define middle-class", it's an effort to nail down a dollar amount at which certain incomes will be taxed higher and others given cuts. Apparently we are being clearly told that until the "struggle" is resolved, we're not going to be clear on that murky middle-class definition. Hence, the threshold for "rich" is TBD. In other words, we won't really know what the amount is until after Sen. Obama is elected.
Now we're getting down to it. That $45,000 figure is suspiciously like the $41,600 figure we'd heard about earlier in the campaign: Sen. Obama had at one point in the U.S. Senate voted to raise taxes on people with incomes above that amount.

Let us examine the definition of the word "equivocate", courtesy of Merriam-Webster's:

equiv·o·cate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Seems like the whole loopy discussion is the definition of "equivocate".

Finally, let's move totally into the land of common sense and sound reasoning. Is there any real doubt about what's going on here? We're being bombarded with so many amounts at this stage, so later, if elected President Obama can stake a claim on whichever amount is most convenient.

MORTIFIED to be a Nebraskan! High taxes, licensing witch-hunts, ridiculous Safe Haven Law, UNL invited Bill Ayers. Get me outta here!

2008-10-24T23:43:00.002-05:00

Nebraska is supposedly "solidly red" but has high taxation and a recent string of governmental bungles. Three of these embarrassing episodes displaying poor policy and lack of common sense have made national news in the last few weeks. Are these Nebraska events just coincidentally happening within a short period, are they symptomatic of systemic bad decision making, or are the current events here just illustrative of what plagues government in most of America?

This is a long post. I've had it with government incompetence and elitist arrogance. Probably a self-indulgent rant, I admit. But also possibly a lot of examples of where we're going wrong in this country. We seem to be living in a land where there is no longer any common sense or moral standards.

I'm finding out that life-long convictions should be kept if they are based on sound reasoning or even a gut instinct with a good track record. One of mine, previously long held, was that I would never live in the state of Nebraska. Because of a promotion offer made to my husband, we tried to ensure the compensation agreement settled on covered the increased cost of living. Calculated numbers can't tell you everything. The "won't live in Nebraska pledge" was based on a lifetime of personal observation regarding the state's tax policies. What I've realized since is that a state's tax policies are likely to be an indicator of other flaws.

Unfortunately, Nebraska made national news recently multiple times, and at one point, last week, three days in a row. The headlines regarded a loopy state senator's lawsuit, a newly implemented "Safe Haven" law, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's invitation to William Ayers to speak to students. There's no question, I'm embarrassed to say, "I live in Nebraska." The sad part is, I really did know better and I just tried to convince myself otherwise. Sometimes the lessons we learn come in the form of having our head rammed into a brick wall. While I have adequately learned my lesson about maintaining convictions, it doesn't prevent me from wanting to scream. National embarrassment is actually the least of my concerns. The most recent headlining-making incident affects my family directly, and really sets my blood boiling. But some of the most irritating policies and recent bungles haven't made national news.

My opinion about living in Nebraska developed based on it's tax policies in contrast to its immediate neighbors to the north, South Dakota, and east, Iowa. Since I lived for long periods in both of these two states in communities immediately adjacent to Nebraska until two years ago, my observations of the contrast were first hand. Considering the many issues that arise in any region throughout it's history, the three state convergence provided me with many examples from which to learn. As would be expected, tri-state area demographics are used for decision making by businesses, such as whether or not to open a nationally popular chain restaurant. Manufacturers have been able to take advantage of the available labor base while having the option to pick and choose which specific state's tax structure is most advantageous. In an effort to stay informed, I'd seen many debates and decisions of that kind. Most often, businesses did not choose to locate in Nebraska.

Besides my observations of the business climate as an adult, I was left with an impression as a young adult that you didn't want to live in Nebraska if you already owned or wanted to own a nice car. The motley collection of clunkers crossing the Missouri River with Nebraska plates told the tale. I would occasionally hear personally of people who had moved into the smaller Nebraska city across the bridge from Iowa, then later were turned into the Nebraska State Patrol by a neighbor with some kind of grudge for having Iowa license plates although they'd been living in Nebraska for several years. The state, of course, charges basic licensing and title fees comparable to others, but there are several other taxes and fees: personal property tax is assessed on vehicles annually, there is a "wheel tax" in many counties, and upon the purchase of any new or used vehicle, the same sales tax rate is applied to the as if one were buying toilet paper, a refrigerator, or a pair of blue jeans, which is 7% almost everywhere in the state. Perhaps that laundry list of taxes and fees is standard practice in many states, but it wasn't and isn't in Iowa or South Dakota.

My early and vague impression about Nebraska and the expenses associated with owning a vehicle here have only been reinforced since our move. Iowa applies the base state sales tax rate of 5% at the time of the purchase. South Dakota has a special vehicle purchase excise tax rate of 3%, again, applied upon purchase. Neither of the two states has a personal property tax, at least not on vehicles or on any item I ever owned while living in either state, and neither have a wheel tax.

Since I'm frugal or thrifty....ok, since, I'm cheap, I found myself whining annually when renewing my license plates in the state of Iowa. The best illustration I can give of differences among these three states is to use my own vehicles and their respective cost to license in each. Certainly, this little illustration will reveal a number of things about my husband and myself, such as the unavoidable truth that we ran the gambit from living within, above, and then below our means in the span of the last fifteen years. So be it. At least we've learned something.

In the state of Iowa in 1994, the cost to license a 1993 Ford Taurus sedan was $150 per year, and we paid $425 in sales tax when purchased. Three years later, the licensing fee was still $150, but when moving to South Dakota it cost just $45 for a full year. In 1998, we bought a 1997 Ford Expedition. It cost $630 in sales tax and a whopping $75 to license it in South Dakota. The clerk looked sheepish when she pushed the bill across the counter. "This is the highest rate we charge, because it's a truck and it's so new. It will stay that high for a few years. The law just changed and the costs went up," she said apologetically. I almost wanted to kiss her but wasn't surprised by the amount. Employing the same logic as we had done when purchasing a vehicle in Iowa, we'd checked prior to buying. In some cases, the taxes and fees can be a deal breaker. $630 is nothing to sneeze at if you value a dollar, but it wasn't $1400, which would have been the cost had we resided in Nebraska at the time. And that's just the sales tax. I don't want to know what the personal property tax would have been.

We continued to pay that "high" $75 fee for a few years. It dropped to $56 and then $45. The clerk told me at the $45 drop that that would be the lowest price it would ever hit. Same clerk who originally waited on me and she was only slightly less apologetic. Every year, I made sure I expressed my gratitude to the County Treasurer and staff at the reasonableness of the costs, and they were pleased. At least I had the sense to appreciate a good thing when I had it.

In 2006, when we licensed the same 1997 Ford Expedition in the state of Nebraska, the total for the license, title fee, personal property tax, and wheel tax was almost $450. At renewal in 2007, it cost over $350. My renewal is coming up soon and can't wait to see how much an eleven year old truck will cost. In 2007, we added a 1999 Ford Taurus Wagon to our "luxurious fleet". All of the taxes and fees amounted to over $400. That's on a vehicle we paid $3800 and gave over a clunky van that had to be jump started (yeah, yeah, redneck, what can I say?) to get it to the dealer. The thing booked at around $5000. Renewal in 2008 was $130+. These are nearly or over ten year old vehicles, for Pete's sake. We've become economic "freaks" in recent years, having adopted a no-debt policy (other than our mortgage). Obviously, we're not like so many people who buy new vehicles every five years or even more frequently. Yes, our Expedition was high end at the time we purchased it. I've already acknowledged we've lived above our means at one point. We're not going to replace that truck anytime soon but I wonder how other people can afford not only hefty car payments, but the increased cost of all the fees that must be sky high on an equivalent vehicle today. I would guess many roll those expenses right into their car loan. We would probably have considered that if we'd lived in Nebraska at the time. If we were dumb enough to go into that much debt on a vehicle, we'd likely have been dumb enough to finance the taxes and fees, too. What are people getting for all of these taxes and fees? I wish I could say that there is something special about the state of Nebraska in that the roads are generally better constructed, in better repair, or noticeably clearer in the winter, but I can't. I can't figure out what the heck we are getting for our money.

I can say where at least some portion of that money goes in Nebraska and one reason why Iowa also costs more than South Dakota; that state's county Treasurer offices don't fool around mailing reminders to people when it's time to renew. Wonder of wonders, they expect people to remember to do it themselves. If after sixty days, their is a failure to comply, there is a summons issued. I never knew anyone who found themselves in county jail for that offense. What I found even more interesting was the local news eight years ago detailing how people from Nebraska and even Iowa had been caught in the attempt to avoid the hefty licensing fees in their homes states by opening post office boxes in small South Dakota towns and then using that address as a "residence" basis for licensing in South Dakota. To the best of my recollection, that particular loophole was closed; vehicle licenses in South Dakota are established with residential addresses, post office boxes are no longer accepted.

Although one would expect to, and does see lots of out of state plates in a state university's home city, it seemed upon moving here, we saw a disproportionate number of South Dakota plates. State officials apparently noticed it as well. Last spring, local news reported investigations by the Nebraska State Patrol of suspected circumvention of licensing laws. The investigations, the report detailed, included actually following cars with South Dakota plates to see if they went to Nebraska residences. The probe went further and we personally experienced what it's like to become targets of a government witch-hunt, if only on a minor scale.

About a year and a half after moving to Nebraska, and therefore seventeen months after licensing our vehicles here, we and several thousand of our fellow citizens received threatening letters from the Nebraska State Patrol, on the governor's letterhead. The letter stated, "Our records indicate that a vehicle (or vehicles) has been registered in your name in another state." The letter also informed that we might not be in violation but "there will be an investigation to evaluate this information." We were also warned that failure to comply with state law is a felony and we would be prosecuted, but were urged to comply voluntarily.

One wonders at the total expense of this effort. Postage and printing of the letters alone had to be significant. My husband and I always title our vehicles jointly, and as would be expected from oh-so efficient government, there was apparently no effort to weed out duplications by address, joint ownership, marital status, or otherwise. We each received our own letter, so there was double the expense. It may seem trivial, but the paper was heavier than the cheapo standard office stuff, was virtually full of print, included several of those official state seals, and was printed in two colors of ink. Further, there is a statement at the bottom: "Printed with soy ink on recycled paper." Super! We all know that recycled stuff is so much more cost effective than that which is traditionally manufactured. Glad our tax dollars are not only subsidizing farmers' with a myriad of government programs, including ill-advised corn-based ethanol, but that we are helping out with soy bean prop-ups as well.

Besides just the cost of sending out these letters, the entire basis for making the contacts must be questioned. What was the criteria, after all? Common sense tells us (now, there's a concept) that the letters my husband and I received provide decent information with which to make some reasonable surmises about the general plan employed by the state. The letter was sent to our Nebraska residence. Since it doesn't make any reference to a particular vehicle, we have to do some guessing, but the options are finite. When we moved from South Dakota, we owned two vehicles and a boat. Within thirty days of the move, we licensed the two vehicles in Nebraska. Within a year we made the aforementioned trade of the clunky van for that luxurious station wagon. The wagon was promptly licensed in Nebraska. So, both of our passenger vehicles were licensed by June of 2007. The boat we owned never left the state of South Dakota as it was stored and used there. In 2007, we renewed the licenses for the boat and its trailer, but changed the address on file to our residence in Nebraska. This way of handling the situation was exactly according to the letter of the law in both states; location of majority use determines where a boat is to be licensed. And it took all of ten minutes for me to verify that information, including looking up the necessary phone numbers for the appropriate government agencies. Within a couple of months of renewing the license, the boat was sold by consignment through a South Dakota dealership. In other words, we haven't owned a "vehicle" of any type licensed in the state of South Dakota since the summer of 2007, under any address.

There are only a few ways that the state could have used to determine their basis for mailing letters to "violators". Regardless of which one chosen, it was clearly all erroneous. Since the letter was received through and addressed to our residence in Nebraska, the only logical explanation is that the state of Nebraska requested and paid for a list of licenses held in South Dakota with Nebraska addresses and the list included boats as well as passenger vehicles. The letter quotes the state law requiring the licensing of passenger vehicles. Why they would pay money, and you know they had to have paid for the cost of generating such reports, for dated lists that included a lot of clearly useless information is rather mind boggling. In addition to this incompetence, the very basis of trolling for people actually using a Nebraska address with "vehicles" licensed in another state is just plain stupid. People who are truly subverting the law don't use their Nebraska address; they use a phony one, one of a relative, one for an empty piece of land, one for a hunting cabin they use once a year, and so on. I know this is what goes on, because I know you can't license a passenger vehicle in South Dakota with a Nebraska address. I also know its bogus because we've been in full compliance with the law the entire time. It's all so ridiculous.

In addition to the cost of obtaining the "fresh" list of supposedly felonious peoples' names from the neighboring states of South Dakota and Iowa, there would also have been fuel costs for following vehicles around, apparently, to see where they live, the man hours lost on this hot pursuit, the incalculable costs of crimes committed while the State Patrol was looking the other way, and time spent by state officials' and attendant PR departments dealing with the ugly backlash that followed the news stories and receipt of the letters. Likely, there ware man hours in the State Attorney General's office at some level, as multiple attorneys stated their angry objections to the language of the letter and advised the public to ignore the letter, since in their opinions, several aspects of it were unconstitutional.

We took the free "advice" of the enraged attorneys. I was more than ready to field any silly inquiries of the State Patrol and happy to produce the proper documentation. Nearly six months later, I haven't heard a peep out of the state. Have they been following me? Don't know, don't care. I abide by the speed limits, wear my seat belt, etc., etc.

So...the state of Nebraska clearly expended a good chunk of change so they could pursue dead ends and actually do little to deal with getting people to comply with properly licensing their vehicles.

Is there any method that would actually be effective in catching the non-compliant? I can't think of one that doesn't remind one of checkpoints with a uniformed guy saying, "Papers, please." I do have a radical idea: how about lowering the cost of licensing vehicles in the state of Nebraska? It's amazing how compliant people are when these costs are kept reasonable, in fact, how well they can actually remember to comply, on their own, when this is the case. It seems to me that the costs have to be as high as they are just to fund all of the nonsense I just detailed. It's fantastic to watch our tax dollars at work.

Nebraska's vehicle taxes and licensing fees are just the tip of the tax iceberg. It has the highest overall tax rate in a nine state region, when considering income , personal property, sale, and real estate taxes. For a family making over $27,000 per year, the income tax rate is 6.84%, in Iowa the same family would be taxed 6.8%, if they made over $40,000, the rate would be 7.92%, over $60,000, 8.98%. (Click this link to check the source of this information.) In South Dakota, there is no income tax. It's obvious why my family moved from Iowa to South Dakota. Nebraska's real estate property tax is 1.74% of value, compared to Iowa's 1.25%, and South Dakota's 1.30%.

One would think our state is in big financial trouble. What other reason could there be for such high taxes? Not so, in the last few weeks, it was reported that there is a $500 million dollar budget surplus, and state officials are debating about whether that money should be held in reserve or, gasp!, returned to the taxpayers, or double gasp!!, whether taxes should be lowered. Wow, tough question.

Believe me, I've already kicked myself a number of times for going against my previous conviction about living here. Besides learning not to get into debt, I've also learned one would benefit tremendously by subscribing to the newspaper of a city or town which one is considering moving to for a time prior to making the final decision. So, another lesson learned. But we tried to be smart; we ran all of the numbers, not just taxes. We did make one serious mistake; we assumed that this city would have similar or lower costs for groceries and fuel as compared to the smaller, more rural area from which we were moving. We based that assumption on knowledge of prices in Nebraska's largest city, Omaha. We all know what happens when one assumes things. At least we had checked everything else, right down to the cost of cable TV. Our weekly food costs went up 25% and gas cost at least $.25 more gallon than we'd previously paid. And that was prior to the overall rises people began experience about year to a year and a half ago.

Incompetence and high expense are not isolated to the state government here. We have the misfortune to have moved to the city in Nebraska with the highest cost of living, and apparently with the most incompetent municipal government. Within six months of our move, there was a city-wide property tax increase in addition to the expected increase resulting from an updated assessment, both of which increased our monthly mortgage payment by $100. After getting settled in to our new community, we discovered that the City of Lincoln has been running budget deficits for several years and have been debating the implementation of a city income tax. Super! At at time when the local newspaper was busy running stories such as the one entitled "A Broke City", complete with photos of failing infrastructure, the mayor proposed a housing industry stimulus package that would have given a $5,000 - $10,000 bonus to first-time or new construction home buyers. Wonder of wonders, the new home construction industry in the city has been slowing down. This proposal, and a competing one from a City Council member was made a couple of weeks prior to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis. It's mighty interesting that not one word about said stimulus has been uttered since...from anyone.

There are a number of other examples of total lack of common sense applied by both the state and local government here, but all that I've already mentioned gets the point across amply. When coupled with the several national headlines that appeared last week, three days in a row, any lingering doubts about whether our move was a mistake, have been erased. It's almost like God heard my internal dialogue and decided to send me a message.

The message came in the form of weeks of national news reports culminating with three days in a row. The first point worthy of note to national press was that a state Senator filed a lawsuit against God. Yes, I did just say "God", as in Yahwey, the Alpha, the Omega, you get the picture. The case was filed almost a year ago, and last Wednesday, October 15, a judge dismissed the case. It begs the question: why on earth did it take that long? My favorite column or headline regarding the adventure is entitled, "There's Just No Cure For Stupid" found in the Royse City, Texas, Herald-Banner, in which columnist John Browning examines not one, but two stupid Nebraska cases, among others. "Maybe there's something in the water in Nebraska", he mused. Yeah, maybe...

The next, and most frequently reported on Nebraska issue generating national press buzz really ginned up a few weeks ago. In the Unicameral's 2008 session, those genius state Senators, in reaction (over-reaction?) to an infant abandonment incident at an Omaha hospital, decided to pass a Safe Haven law. Prior to this, Nebraska had no legal way for a parent to legally abandon their child. Oh, the horror! I understand the purpose of Safe Haven laws, but there was not an epidemic of abandoned or dead babies in this state prior to that lone incident of a mother abandoning her baby in the hospital bathroom.

In any case, the over reaction was palpable. The legislature quickly passed a Safe Haven law. Somehow, and no one seems to be able to explain it, the law was written in such a way that allows any child up to the age of nineteen to be abandoned at a hospital without legal recourse. In the last four weeks, 19 children have been abandoned in Nebraska, two of which were trucked in out of state. One mother actually drove all the way from Michigan to dump her teenager off in Nebraska. All of the children were over the age of 2, and all but three of them were teenagers. One of the stories I found in the national press was this AP story chronicling the Michigan mother's abandonment. When two days in a row saw multiple drop offs, one of which was five children from the same family, local news began reporting about government official's debating over a potential special session of the legislature to change this very poorly written law. Nebraska doesn't allow the governor to call a special session. He's stated the law needs changing, but he's not sure a special session is necessary. State senate leaders have said the same. Some apparently powerless members of the Senate have called out for a special session, to no avail. This debate began when fewer than a dozen children had been abandoned. As of today, Friday, October 24, a total of 19 have been abandoned, two of which were dropped off in the last 48 hours. Perhaps the debate about a special session will continue long enough that it will be time for the regular session to convene in January. Wonder how many kids will be scarred for life after being abandoned as teenagers by their parents?

The most recent, and most embarrassing in the series of headline splashes, and it appears we're going for the tri-fecta, is that the University of Nebraska - Lincoln College of Education and Human Science had invited William Ayers, to speak to its students in November. Fire and brimstone hailed down on the college the minute the word hit the streets, in the form of floods of phone calls and emails. College of Education Dean Marjorie Kostelnik said, "It's been a universally negative response." How shocking!

I happened to hear this wonderful tidbit from Rush Limbaugh. I was incensed. Within two minutes I was dialing the Office of Admissions. It just so happens I have a high school senior who is corresponding currently with six different colleges in an effort to narrow down to his top three to four choices. Among his six prospects, one won't find any ivy league school on the list, but one would have found UNL, until a week ago. It may be that we can't afford to send him to his preferred conservative schools and since so many colleges and universities are incredibly liberal, why pay $20,000 per year for indoctrination when you can pay $7,000? UNL was the fallback choice only because of the in-state tuition and the ability to cut expenses by living at home. I was struggling with my distaste for this option, and once again, it's like God was urgently phoning in a message. He said, "Wondering about sending your kid to UNL? Wonder no more, my child!" What in the world are the odds that as several early decision dates loom and the Obama / Ayers connection is being hotly debated in the media, my state's, nay, my city's university invites the guy to speak? Coincidence? I think not.

I called the Office of Admissions specifically, because I wanted to let that department know how the invitation to Ayers would affect my son's decision to attend. One thing I've learned in life; I'm not unique. If I'm thinking something, so is someone else. There have to be other parents out there who feel exactly the same way as myself. Trouble is, so often, people don't take the time or trouble to voice to the offending party what caused their decision. I thought that voice needed to be heard. Upon reaching the receptionist, I was transferred to a counselor, who, unbelievably, had neither ever heard of Ayers nor had any knowledge of the invitation. I let this poor woman, who must have been living under a rock for the past six months, know who William Ayers is. I sketched out his background and I made sure I told her that I hadn't just taken someone else's word for it, I'd looked into the issue myself. I informed her that if the University had William Ayers on it's campus, my son would not being choosing UNL next fall and neither of my other children would seriously give the school its consideration in the future. I further informed that there are some people who should be the object of universal scorn in our society, and this fellow is one of those people. I compared Ayers' impending visit to that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to Columbia University in 2007.

The very polite, kind counselor informed that she was unaware of this particular issue but appreciated that I was expressing my concerns and my opinion. She further informed me that the University was open to all points of view. PC message received, loud and clear. I accepted the offer to be transferred to the Communications Director.

Finding myself connected to the voice mail of that director rather than the live person came as no surprise to me, as I imagined how many phone calls she was now receiving. I left a message for her. Considering the "We Are the World" attitude I was given by the Admissions' Counselor, I felt it important to take on the ridiculous world of academia nonsense regarding taking into account "all points of view". Finally, I expressed my concern as a taxpayer, who had zero desire to participate in funding such an endeavor. I was actually very pleased to have gotten the voice mail; I didn't have to talk to a PC press person but was able to get my message across.

At the time I made my calls, the University was sticking to its invitation. The next day, Friday, October 17, my husband handed me a copy of the Omaha World-Herald for my reading "enjoyment" on a flight. The headline read "UNL invitation to Ayers raises furor". Towards the beginning of the article, I was pleased to read that one of the regents, a Randy Ferlic, urged donors to withhold funds and gave his opinion on how the decision to invite Ayers reflected on the University's Chancellor and staff, "[it] speaks volumes of the arrogance". And how. Not much further reading in the article allowed readers to sample some of that arrogance.

Chancellor Perlman stated, "In this instance, it is unfortunate that a lecture directed toward an academic subject has become implicated in a political campaign. Nothing in his presence suggests that the university supports his personal or political philosophy or condones any of his former conduct."

I'm with Randy Ferlic. Speaks volumes of the arrogance, alright. What is actually most arrogant about it is that it is possible for a man who oversees the education of thousands of students every year, to be completely ignorant of the fact that Mr. Ayers didn't stop being a radical just because he "went on to gain a measure of respect in the education world", as the Herald informed its readers in the typical mainstream media oh-so-unbiased-way. Ayers acceptance in the world of academia is not an endorsement of Bill Ayers; it's an indictment of academia. One wonders whether Mr. Perlman has bothered to read the "100 academic articles and 17 books" that Mr. Ayers has written. No one can accuse Bill Ayers of being stupid, that's for sure. He is actually very intelligent. He realized he could have more impact on radicalizing society by infusing his Marxist, anarchist viewpoint into the academic world. He teaches teachers how to teach. Not only is he an unrepetent terrorist who wanted to overthrow American society, he decided he could do a better job of that by tinkering with the educational system. And apparently, the educational system is only to warmly ready to accept him.

The defense of the invitation and explanation of its history is definately more arrogant even than the Chancellor's ignorance and an insult to the citizens of the state of Nebraska who took the time to let their voices be heard. The school was very quick to point out that a private donation was being used to fund the event at which Ayers was scheduled to speak. It was actually money raised by the University of Nebraska Foundation. This is a fantastic group. This isn't the first time its done something marvelous like this; there has been another statewide flap recently (yes, another one) regarding an effort to repeal Affirmative Action throughout the state. This helpful foundation has used some of its funds to fight this effort.

The chronicle of the process of engineering the invitation, and its review by the College of Education is just too rich:

Education Dean Marjorie Kostelnik said that when the college invited Ayers to the conference in February, some on the selection committee were vaguely aware of his controversial past, 'but it wasn't high on their radar screen'. They were focused on his academic credentials.

Officials in the college learned more about Ayers after he became a figure in the campaign. They decided then not to withdraw the invitation but to make clear to him that he was to speak only on his research.

Well, that's just fantastic. I'm sure that would do the trick, really.

But Kostelnik's rationalization and defense of the decision to hold to the invitation gets even better. Somewhat ironically, one of the better stories quoting Kostelnik appeared in my hometown's newspaper on Thursday, Oct. 16. The Sioux City Journal article reports:

She said Ayers is an expert in two areas that are of interest to the university's teaching students: teaching methods that help assure students of all socio-economic backgrounds receive quality education; and research designed to increase teachers' understanding of how people think and learn.
Kostelnik said Ayers was invited before he emerged as a controversial figure in the presidential campaign but that faculty members who decided to invite him, including herself, had a superficial knowledge of his past.
During a faculty discussion of whether he should be invited, his violent past "never came up," Kostelnik said.
When his invitation was announced at a faculty meeting in August, a faculty member asked if the group knew who Ayers is. Kostelnik said more research was done on his radical activities, and the group that decided to invite him stuck with its initial decision.
"The group was very clear to me they were purely interested in his research perspectives," she said.

I'd love for one of these pinheads to define a "quality education" and what the hell someone like Bill Ayers has to substantively say about educational "research".

I like Regent Ferlic more and more as I think about what he had to say about the arrogance. But he had even more to add:

If the university invites Ayers to speak on educational reform, he said, perhaps the university might want to consider having Osama bin Laden to speak about religion.

This is not about a Democrat or Republican issue, or the elections. This is about the University of Nebraska, and we should not allow staining of the people's university.

Amen, brother! This guy deserves a Bozo button, a medal, something. This is real straight talk. Meanwhile other university Regents, the President of the University, for Pete's sake, and the state's governor, were all doing the political tap dance of offering a negative opinion but stating that their respective offices provided no outlet for stopping Ayers' attending the event. Can anyone say "No controlling legal authority?" Good grief.

Citing "safety concerns", the invitation was rescinded on Monday of this week. A pointy-headed spokesperson breathlessly informed that there had been threats of violent disruption, even a vague death threat against Ayers. Ok, maybe, but likely poppeycock. There have been reports that big money donors threatened to withhold funding if Ayers visited the campus.

I'd withhold my funds anyway. I know that after listening to the staements of some of these university people, I'm still not going to consider sending any of my kids to the school, rescinded invitation or no. And like my phone call, I'm going to be sure to let them know why. I actually think this issue, the world of academia is the biggest threat to our society. The whole sorry situation with Ayers being invited to UNL and its fallout is a beautiful illustration of why. I'm just mightily embarrassed that it happened in my state.

Of course, it's obviously not the only thing to be embarrassed about. South Dakota's looking reeeaaal good right about now....

Did Barney Frank Contribute a New Word to the Political Lexicon? Did He Say "Changeinism"?

2008-10-22T23:27:00.000-05:00

On Monday of this week, Rep. Barney Frank spoke about a stimulus package recently proposed by House Democrats:

I think at this point, there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending. At this time, I think deficit fear needs to take a second seat. I do think this is a very important time for a very big dose of changeinism[?].

Yes, I believe later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I believe there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money.

On Glenn Beck's Tuesday radio show, Glenn discussed these statements with the show's producer, Stu, when both discovered Frank's apparently newly coined word. And it's a gem. On the first two rounds of listening to the audio clip, it sounded as if Frank may have been saying "changelism".

Stu pondered whether or not the word "changelism" means "change by vandalism".

The show's first caller postulated that the word new word was a combination of socialism + change.

The second caller speculated that Frank really meant that the country needs a big dose of Keynesianism. The theory of Keynesian economics was largely employed during the New Deal. A number of Keynesian principles have been with us ever since (think the Fed). The central tenet of this theory is that government intervention in the economy promotes prosperity and stability.

Stu's and the callers' theories are viable prospects. "Vandalism + change", upon examination, is a good candidate because Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership are promoting a policy that could be construed as vandalism ala Robin Hood; we all know that Obama's central campaign theme has been that of "change". By "spreading the wealth around" through higher taxation of anyone with an income over $250,000, and giving a "tax credit" to 95% of Americans, 40% of whom pay no income taxes at all, Obama / Robin Hood promises to steal (hence, vandalism) from the rich and give to the poor. Delving further into the vandalism theme, one could also say that these tax policies would cap or discourage the level of achievement to which business owners and workers would aspire, cause the loss of jobs when small businesses have to lay off workers to pay the higher taxes, slow down spending by the rich on goods and services made and performed by workers, and thereby wreck the economy. This would be a change, that's for sure, and wrecking something is vandalism. Hence, change by vandalism.

The second viable intrepretation, change + socialism, would fit Barack Obama and the Congressional leadership's proposed plans. Outright socialism would certainly be a change for America. Although many of these kinds of policies have been creeping into government by stealth for many years, there is a historical American antipathy for openly, unabashedly admitting that certain policies are socialist.

The third proposed intrepretation is "Keynesian". The interventionist, tinkering policies employed to head off and lessen the Great Depression have continued to be used by degrees ever since the early 1930's, are certainly already being used to deal with the "financial meltdown" and their expansion are being aggressively advocated by Washington leadership.

Perhaps it was Frank's speech impediment. Perhaps he misspoke. Did he coin a new word? He probably meant "Keynesianism". It's unlikely a clarification will be called for, much less answered. In any case, "changeinism" is at least more entertaining. If we're going to go down in flames as a country, it would be nice to at least have fun doing it, right?

Unfortunately, there is no misconstruing the remainder of his statement. The ridiculous policy measures Frank is proposing are exactly the wrong thing to do at this time. They come at a moment when the United States has for the first time in its history ecrued a $1 trillion deficit in one year. Because of the continuing massive overspending, the country's creditors are considering downgrading the country's credit rating. A number of nations are calling for "a new world order" and even one world currency. Dangerous and unprecedented powers have been granted to the same administration officials whose Keynesian-style tinkering with the country's financial system helped sew the sides of a financial meltdown. These powers were granted despite the vast majority of the public rising up in efforts to prevent it. In the legislative branch, the very same corrupt politicians who are not being called into account for their aggressive advocating and engineering of the very policies that led to the mortgage meltdown are now leading the way to "fix it". There is now an astounding volume of money being churned off the printing presses to fund all of the bailouts and forced government purchases of shares in private banks. The unchecked flood of currency into the financial system can lead no where but to massive inflation, perhaps on levels found only in such places as Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic.

Yeah right, we really need a big dose of "changeinism" or a bigger dose of Keynesiam, as semi-defined by Barney Frank. But that doesn't actually seem like change at all. Ironically, it's a continuation and expansion of the abysmal failure of the current administration's and Congressional leadership's policies. Maybe that's what changeinism really means. If Frank was attempting to contribute a new word the American political lexicon, perhaps it was the much-touted change hybrized with "continuism" and "expanison" to disguise the actually villified "more of the same".

Lynn De Rothschild: "Obama Tax 'Cuts' Are Biggest Welfare Program Since Welfare Began

2008-10-15T23:19:00.000-05:00

After Wednesday night's debate, FoxNews' Greta Van Susteren interviewed Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a prominent former Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser who recently came forward to support John McCain.

Mrs. De Rothschild informed Greta that Sen. Obama's purported tax cuts for 95% of Americans is not a tax cut at; it's a welfare program disguised as a tax cut. She pointed out that the Obama campaign fails to mention that under the Obama plan, 40% of the 95% are people who currently pay not taxes at all. The 40%, some 60 million people who again, currently don't pay any taxes, would receive money from the government through a "tax credit". Mrs. De Rothschild stated further:

It's the biggest welfare plan in the guise of a 'tax cut' since welfare began. This is not a tax cut.

In addition, she pointed out that analysts have confirmed that this plan would cost $1 trillion dollars. Greta then asked how the plan would be funded.

Barack Obama isn't going to get all that money from the other 5% of taxpayers.

Greta inquired:

So, you're saying the rest of the taxpayers, would have to pay for it?

Mrs. De Rothschild replied in the affirmative. She concluded by explaining that John McCain's tax plan would cut taxes for people who are paying taxes today.

Obama to ACORN 12/07: "We're going to be calling all of you in, to help shape the agenda."

2008-10-15T23:15:00.000-05:00

At the Heartland Democratic Presidency Forum, in December 1, 2007, in Des Moines, IA, a number of community organizing groups gathered through the efforts of Deepak Barghava, leader of the ACORN entity for community reinvestment and fair housing. Senator Barack Obama was in attendance. There is a Youtube video for the event, included at the bottom of the page. It begins with Barghava addressing the crowd stating:

All of this change is coming to a society that is still deeply structured by racism and sexism and unless we change course, these divisions and walls that still separate us will get bigger, not lower. And of course, [inaudible] of community organizing from which everyone in this room comes, which is the power of many, which can change the world

That is why we have created the Campaign for Community Values, bringing together hundreds of grassroots community organizations, from across the United States, to begin today, to continue through the elections to get justice in America for everyone."

Following this recitation, an unidentified woman questioned Senator Obama:

If elected President of the United States, would you agree to meet with a delegation of representatives of these various community organizations, [inaudible] would you agree to within the first 100 days to sit down with them?"

In reply Sen. Obama stated the following:

Yes, but first, let me just say, before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in, to help shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations, so that you have input into the agenda of the next Presidency of the United States of America.

This statement completely contradicts comments Senator Obama made on Tuesday, October 14, to reporters who questioned him about his relationship with the organization. Here is what he said:

Taking a break from debate preparations, Obama told reporters during a brief press conference this afternoon, "My relationship to ACORN is pretty straightforward. It's probably 13 years ago when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN and my partner in that representation was the U.S. Justice Department in having Illinois implement what was called the "motor voter" law, to make sure that people could go to DMVs and driver's license facilities to get registered. It wasn't being implemented. That was my relationship, and is my relationship to ACORN."

He said he had further interactions with the group through its Chicago office, in his capacity as a local elected official. "But they are not advising our campaign," Obama asserted.

Senator Obama, there is no avoiding saying, is one of the most slippery politicians to ever walk on two feet. Outright deceptions are hiding in plain sight in every direction on the mounting contradictions Mr. Obama himself has amazingly managed to perpetrate, with the direct aid of the media. Take careful notice that Sen. Obama stops just a nanometer short in his statement. "But they are not advising our campaign". We could do a, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", considering the tortured, parsed language being employed. Perhaps ACORN is not advising Sen. Obama's campaign. But they have done ~~staging and lighting~~, I mean, "get out the vote efforts" for his campaign to the tune of $800,000, or least their subsidiary, ancillary, or, let's all just face it, its front group has done so. And perhaps they are not advising his campaign but they will, he promised "have input" into his Presidency. If you examine the unbelievably careful wording here, you could actually say that Mr. Obama didn't technically lie. ACORN's subsidiary did get out the vote work for his campaign. ACORN and many other community organizing groups will help shape his administration's agenda. It just didn't or is not going to do both, at the same time. The diabolical kind of rhetorical foresight that must go into preparing these statements is both hard to ignore or deny.

But, as with everything else Obama, these associations have connections rather like the invisible yet rooted, tubular growth found in a mushroom's "fairy-ring" in the forest. Or perhaps it would be more apt to apply the analogy of cockroaches. For every one you see, there are about 80,000 of them hiding in the wall.

Senator Obama's site "Fight the Smears" has presented to its visitors a list of facts regarding Mr. Obama's relationship with the infamous ACORN, available, one must add, by using the handy "Not the Smear You're Looking For? Search All Smears" search box in the upper right hand corner of the site's homepage. By the way, I'm really not making that up. Besides the parody that title is, in and of itself, since when does a politician need a site dedicated entirely to all the "smears" against him, let alone an entire searchable database of them? If the consequences to the country of an Obama Presidency weren't so serious, it would actually be hysterically funny. "Not the Smear You're Looking For?" How many do there have to be, for the love of Pete? There is only one thing, really, that can be true: Either the "Republican Attack Machine" is so completely out of control in this election cycle that they are making up loads of smears (again, enough to fill a searchable database) about an opponent, or, there are so many troubling things about a candidate, that they had to dedicate an entire website to fending off the coming attacks.

Anyway, to las cucrachas. As noted, by using the handy "Search All Smears" tool, one finds that Sen. Obama not only plainly contradicted himself yesterday, to reporters, despite the tap dance act, he contradicts himself on his own websites by his own campaign's statements and those of his supporters."Fight the Smears" reports the following:

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

In his capacity as an attorney, Barack represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law. For his work helping enforce the law, called “Motor Voter,” Barack received the IVI-IPO Legal Eagle Award in 1995.

The "Obama for America" campaign site includes the option for visitors to participate in a "Community Blog". One of these posts, by a Sam Graham-Felsen, dated February 21, 2008, details, among other things, how Obama himself, addressing ACORN leaders, said the following in November 2007:

I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

Again, if one carefully parses the words used by Obama, he didn't technically lie with his own words. While claiming ACORN was "not part of Project Vote", he states they were "smack dab in the middle of it". This one's a little trickier than the "advising, campaigning, get out the vote, presidency", sleight of tongue trick, but it can be done and here's how: Technically, you could be in the middle of something and not be a part of it. You know, like, um, like,.....an Oreo cookie! Yeah, that' s it. The frosting is, smack in the middle of the cookie, but it's not technically part of the chocolaty wafer things on either side. They are, technically, separate entities. So one could, technically say, that the overall "cookie" here was the general get out the vote effort during the election cycle in question. But, the wafers (Project Vote) and the frosting (ACORN) were separate parts of that cookie, but not really together.

Something that is yet another root, tentacle, or cockroach, pick whichever analogy you want to use, is that at least at this point, Project Vote and ACORN are working together.

: From Project Vote Home Page

The snapshot at the right is a blurb found on Project Vote regarding the large number of new voters the organization had registered, together. A search of the site doesn't give any informatoin on Project Vote's history with ACORN, just its inception date of 1982 and its general mission.

As with a number of these questionable associations, the tentacles reach in many directions, but trying to grab onto clear facts is difficult.

In any case, the diabolical planning here must just keep teams of rhetoricians very busy at the Obama campaign. Between those careful sentence crafters and the maintenance staff of the "Fight the Smears" site, there is absolute job security for anyone employed by Obama. Maybe that's why he thinks campaigning for President makes you qualified to be President. The rest of us just have no idea how hard it is to manage all of these people, afterall, it requires a very large staff.

Is API (African Press International) Legit? They say Michelle Obama Admits Barack was adopted by his Indonesian step-father

2008-10-14T23:12:00.001-05:00

In a quick perusal, there are a lot of anti-Obama posts on this wordpress.com blog. Perhaps others are more familiar with this site than myself. Is this some kind of legitimate news agency?

In this post, they have a story with the following headline:

"Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API."

I've been personally very hesitant to buy in for two seconds to viability or truthfulness of the Philip Berg lawsuit regarding Senator Obama's legitimacy to run for President as a result of the natural born citizenship issue.

In my opinion, there are so many very substantive problems with Mr. Obama's past, his associations, his positions, his prevaricating, and his policies, that this type of thing is a red-herring. That being said, why doesn't he just allow someone credible to a majority of the public to examine the so-called "vault" version of his birth certificate so we can all move on?

America's Right, a blog maintained by writer and law student Jeff Schreiber, has a balanced report of the Berg suit, in other words, with an ample amount of proper skepticism, yet actual contacts with Mr. Berg. He posted information about this API story with the same, yet more eloquent kind of questioning I've expressed. You can read his post here.

I'd appreciate comments on the credibility of API.

Obama to Kids: "Take an adult to the Polls...Tell Them to Vote for You, By Voting for Sen. Obama"

2008-10-14T23:08:00.000-05:00

The Obama-Biden Campaign Website is a Virtual Treasure Trove of Interesting Information, if You Don't Mind Getting Creeped Out...

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like they are now officially living in the twilight zone? Leaving aside for a moment the rapid socialization of most of our economic system, etc., etc., does anyone else but me feel like they are being barraged with so much weirdness at once that it's impossible to absorb? I'm talking about things such as my daughter (a braver troller than I) discovered on the "Obama for America" site:

10 Ways Kids for Obama can get involved:

Create a Kids for Obama Group on My.Barackobama.com. For example, Chicago Kids for Obama or DC Kids for Obama and throw a party!
Write a letter or editorial to your local news paper, expressing "Why Barack Obama should become the next US President".
Find a Pen Pal - it could be in your school, city, state, or another state. Write and discuss different ways you can get involved.
Draw a picture of Senator Barack Obama or "an expression of Democracy". For example, the Senator sitting in the White House or working on Capitol. Hill. You can send your drawing to the Obama for America Campaign Headquarters in Chicago and it will be posted for the Senator to see.
Implement T-Shirt Thursday. Get friends to wear an official Obama for America T-Shirt to school.
Take an adult (voting age) to the polls on Election Day and encourage them to vote for you, by voting for Senator Obama.
Post an official Obama for America Campaign sticker/logo on your school bag.
Wear an Obama for America Campaign button and/or clothing.
Host a Senator Barack Obama House Party or sleep-over.
Contribute to the Kids for Obama Blog .

I think Johan Goldberg, author of Liberal Facism, does a better of job explaining how problematic this creepy appeal to children is:

Since Plato’s Republic, politicians, intellectuals, and priests have
been fascinated with the idea of “capturing” children for social-
engineering purposes. This is why Robespierre advocated that chil-
dren be raised by the state. Hitler—who understood as well as any
the importance of winning the hearts and minds of youth—once re-
marked, “When an opponent says ‘I will not come over to your side,’
I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already...You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short
time they will know nothing but this new community.’” Woodrow
Wilson candidly observed that the primary mission of the educator
was to make children as unlike their parents as possible. Charlotte
Perkins Gilman stated it more starkly. “There is no more brilliant
hope on earth to-day,” the feminist icon proclaimed, “than this new
thought about the child...the recognition of ‘the child,’ children as
a class, children as citizens with rights to be guaranteed only by the
state; instead of our previous attitude toward them of absolute per-
sonal [that is, parental] ownership—the unchecked tyranny...of
the private home.”

Mr. Goldberg's book is nearly at the top of my list must-read history books. In addition to his regular columns posted twice weekly at National Review Online, he regularly posts on the site's blog "The Corner", and on the site's blog devoted exclusively to the book, entitled, appropriately, LIberal Fascism.

Chris Dodd: “I’d like to thank the Academy…”

2008-10-14T03:06:00.000-05:00

Washington, D.C. – Post Senate Bailout Vote Award Ceremony

From the halls of the United States Senate:

In a self-congratulatory ceremony Wednesday evening, after the Senate passed the bailout bill, Master of Ceremonies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, presented the much-coveted award for Best Performance as the Senate’s Most Shameless Grifter, to Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Prior to turning over the microphone to Sen. Dodd for his acceptance speech, Sen. Reid, for the umpteenth time in the last two weeks, heaped praises on his esteemed colleague, noting how important his leadership in the Senate has been over the years, and particularly in passing the bailout bill.

Award winner Dodd proudly stepped in front of the microphone, saying the bill’s passage was due to “the tone of the Senate leadership”. Dodd, not to be outdone by Leader Reid, made sure he heaped loads of praise on Reid’s leadership, which included pointing out how Reid had made the so very gracious invitation to Senators McConnell and Gregg to work on the bill. Dodd explained that “this moment wouldn’t have come” without all of this great leadership. “I’d be remiss as well if I didn’t thank other people who were critically important in this….” Our coverage ends abruptly at this point as the on-the-scene pool cameraman from whom we received our footage was suddenly struck by a mysterious wave of nausea and didn’t finishing cleaning off his shoes before Dodd stepped away from the microphone….

Following the ceremony, a reporter questioned the president of The Academy for Corruption in Government, on the likely reason for Sen. Dodd having been chosen for the award over Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was widely believed to have been a shoo-in. Stevens was recently indicted by the U.S. Justice Department and is currently standing trial for not properly reporting thousands of dollars of home improvement work from a contractor.

“The reason Sen. Dodd was chosen over Sen. Stevens, is simple: Sen. Stevens was disqualified. Once he was being held accountable for his actions, he was no longer eligible for the award. In order to meet the criteria of ‘Shameless’, you can’t be held accountable and you have to appear before the press, make speeches on the Senate floor, and play, or at least create the appearance of playing, a central role in creating legislation that is somehow related to the problem caused by the original graft. Besides, while Stevens is definitely a grifter, his actions are small potatoes compared to Dodd’s. Dodd not only received preferential treatment for mortgages from failed Countrywide, but he’s ground zero in the biggest financial collapse in the history of the country. Once we found out he was the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, he was the front runner,” explained the Academy president.

The Award ceremony following the House of Representatives vote on the same bill is expected to receive little attention as Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts is expected to win in a landslide. “Of course the envelope is sealed,” grinned the Academy president, “But, the outcome isn’t likely to surprise anyone. Who can think of anyone whose further up to their neck than Barney Frank in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the financial meltdown? And who has anyone ever known that is more shameless, except former Pres. Clinton, and since he’s not in the running, Frank’s clearly the odds-on favorite.”

Joe Biden: Official Obama Babysitter, Prolific Do-It-Yourselfer

2008-10-14T01:57:00.000-05:00

For those of us who have been wondering why on earth Barack Obama choose Washington’s most prolific Gaffe-o-matic, Senator Joe Biden, as his running mate, we now have the answer. And good ole’ Joe gave it to us himself in last night’s debate:

“But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice.”

Hello!? To me, the most damning comment he made all night (and yes, that’s saying something considering the many lies he told) and wonder of wonders….nary a soul in the media seems to have picked up on it, at least not that I've seen yet. Maybe he doesn’t need to be in the room for just the major decisions….maybe the minor ones, too. There might be an upside to this. Perhaps his constant gaffe-spewing and fact-twisting will so befuddle Obama, he’ll be too confused sorting it all out to implement as many of his scary poh-luh-sees. Wishful thinking, unfortunately.

Besides confirming for many of us what we already knew, which is Barack Obama is so inexperienced (not to mention scary) to be president that he needs a babysitter, Sen. Biden also unveiled a side of himself of which we were heretofore unaware: he spends a lot of time at….drum roll please….Home Depot.

Ok, so let’s picture it: you’re in the plumbing department trying to figure out which part you need to buy to stop your toilet from running incessantly and you’re thinking, “Do I need that gasket-thingy or should I buy the whole toilet repair kit?” As these things often go, you now realize you’re toilet seems to have been one of those that was manufactured in Bangladesh for six months but then discontinued so the parts don’t seem to be available. Looks like you’re going to have to replace all the guts inside the tank…wonderful. Suddenly, you’re startled out of your reverie over this grim prospect when along comes Senator Joe Biden, whose just strolling down the aisles looking for….looking for….uh, uh…replacement batteries (rechargeable, of course) for his Ipod which he listens to on his daily commute from Wilmington to D.C. on the train, (I mean, Amtrak, at $125 one-way). Although Joe Biden is, of course, someone who would spend loads of time at Home Depot, he’s somehow gotten himself lost. Recognizing him instantly (because you have followed his stellar political career ardently) you present yourself to him and begin to earnestly discuss the economic issues of the day. Yeah, right….

The key to dispelling this whole phony lie of an invitation to “….walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time…” is that Home Depot is a do-it-yourself store. Key words: “do it yourself”. As in self-reliance. And if you choose not to do-it-yourself it’s a bit spendy to pay for the recently added option of having Home Depot do it for you. The vast majority of items there are keyed toward home improvement projects, decorating, etc., my little illustration of an encounter with frequent shopper Biden notwithstanding. I would surmise that most of the people who shop at Home Depot don’t buy their toilet parts and batteries there unless they’ve already been shopping there for the home décor and improvement stuff. You know, the fluff and extras people do when they have extra money. Just how many whiny people looking for a government hand-out actually shop there? People who actually have money to spend. I do have a goofy question: Is it possible that businesses are now paying for product placement during political debates? If so, Home Depot owes Mr. Biden about $1 million. With 70 million viewers, ad rates should have been almost as much as the Super Bowl. Anyway…

While there were others who noticed the selection of a supposedly “middle-class” buzzword like Home Depot from a list of such words by the Obama V.P. debate prep team, I haven’t heard anyone comment on how devastated good ‘ole Joe would be if Messiah Obama were to meet an untimely end after his coronation, I mean, inauguration as President:

“God forbid that would ever happen, it would be a national tragedy of historic proportions if it were to happen.”

This one takes the prize as creepiest comment of the night. Does anyone else’s skin just start crawling when purportedly intelligent people turn into venerating droolers? If nothing else, I’ve learned through this election that there are far more dangerous things than, gulp, devout Christians. Seriously, there is even something more dangerous than the recent rise of the pseudo-religion that is earth-worshipping global warming fanaticism. It’s the idol worship of a man that has become so prevalent it just falls right off the lips of said idol’s running mate with far too little notice.

Obama Was Co-Counsel Against Citibank in 1994 Suit for "Red-lining" - Can You Say ACORN?

2008-10-10T23:04:00.001-05:00

Senator Obama Has Said He "Never Organized With ACORN" or "Worked For Them in Any Capacity" and Has Pointed Fingers at Wall Street and Bush's Policies, Anyone, and Everyone But Himself (or His Own Party) in the Sub-Prime Mortgage Mess...

But His Associations and Prior Activities Put in Him Directly At Ground Zero of the Financial Crisis and Only Raise Many More Questions

On June 12, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's campaign set up a website dedicated to fighting "viscous rumors" about the candidate. The site, entitled "Fight the Smears" seems to have a "smear du jour" which it addresses and lists nineteen separate issues on which the campaign apparently feels its candidate has been unfairly "smeared" to date. For instance, the issue of the day, October 9, regards Sen. Obama's "tangential" relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist-turned Professor of Education and author, William Ayers.

One of the issues addressed concerns the now widely discussed organization, ACORN. The group's acroynm stands for Associatons of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and describes itself as:

The nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country. Since 1970, ACORN has been building community organizations that are committed to social and economic justice, and won victories on thousands of issues of concern to our members, through direct action, negotiation, legislative advocacy and voter participation. ACORN helps those who have historically been locked out become powerful players in our democratic system.

ACORN has a purportedly separate, incorporated entity, that was specifically created to address housing issues:

National non-profit ACORN Housing has been providing free housing counseling to low and moderate income homebuyers since 1987. We have opened HUD-certified, Fannie Mae-approved housing counseling offices across the US, helping over 50,000 families to achieve homeownership.

Obama's "Fight the Smears" site includes a page with "acornrumor" in the address bar. This page states that "Obama never organized with ACORN." In addition, the Campaign asserts that Obama never trained for ACORN nor was he employed by them in any other capacity other than his representation of the organization in a 1995 suit against the Justice Department for violations of the "Motor Voter" law in Illinois. Finally, the campaign reports that ACORN was not involved in Obama's 1992 effort "Project Vote". The Fight the Smears site addresses accusations by a Ken Blackwell that the campaign describes as a "voter suppression guru". If Mr. Blackwell, whoever he is, was the only party questioning Mr. Obama's associations with ACORN, he might be worth looking into. Rumor aside, there is no question that Sen. Obama has a long history with ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and an investigative reporter for National Review, has spent months intensively investigating Senator Obama, including his connections with William Ayers and the Annenburg Challenge, and with ACORN. One of many, the article "Inside Obama's ACORN" best details the organization's true history, intent, and Obama's connection with it.

Any spinning Obama and his campaign have done notwithstanding, Mr. Kurtz has done his homework. He cites many sources for his articles. One of those mentioned in "Inside..." is an LA Times article, which quotes ACORN's Madeleine Talbot:

" 'He got people to vote with their feet' on the issue, organizer Madeleine Talbot said. At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor. But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff."

Perhaps Obama and Company intend to play the careful parsing of words game on this issue. It's wildly reminiscent of "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." However, this one doesn't pass "the smell test". Mr. Kurtz's article begins with, "What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along?" Mr. Kurtz may not know how right he was. Unbelievably, on the Obama campaign site, there is a "Community Blog" post by a Sam Graham-Felsen dated February 21, 2008, which details, among other things, how Obama himself, addressing ACORN leaders in November, 2007 said:

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”

The unbridled arrogance of Mr. Obama, his campaign, and the media truly leaves one speechless. None of these superior beings apparently anticpates that any of us know how to read or work our way around a search engine.

It is not surprising that the tip-toeing through the tulips on the ACORN issue is in full swing, considering the recent public outrage at the possibility of additional ACORN funding being slipped into the recent Bailout Bill and rapidly mounting reports of voter fraud by the organization.

The community organizations element of ACORN is the official entity currently embroiled in voter registration fraud in twelve states throughout the country. ACORN's Political Director in Ohio, Mari Engelhardt, admitted on Tuesday, October 7, that it couldn't "perfectly" prevent fraud. ACORN attorney Teresa James admitted, "We do not have the resources to know if a particular card is fictitious."

Late this evening (Oct. 9), a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge issued a temporary restraining order against Ohio Attorney General Jennifer Brunner because, to paraphrase the information relayed by Greta Van Susteren during her show, On the Record, "Brunner is not doing enough to investigate voter fraud." The Attorney General intends to appeal the ruling. Despite my extensive efforts to discover detailed information about the ruling, there is nothing as of yet available online.

Apparently, all of the above concerns prompted House of Representatives Minority Leader from Ohio, John Boehner, to call today for all federal funding to ACORN to stop as well as for a prohibition against any candidates for federal office contracting with ACORN for campaign work.

Obviously, the outcome of the voter fraud problems are yet to be determined as are any actions that result from Sen. Boehner's proposals. The second appeal from Boehner results directly from the fact that Barack Obama, despite denying any connection with ACORN, contracted with Citizen's Services, Inc, a subsidiary of ACORN for services rendered to his campaign in the amount of $800,000. As an article in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on August 22, 2008, details, Citizen's Services, Inc. was described on an ACORN publication in 2006 as "'ACORN's campaign services entity"'. Besides ACORN's own publication, the article also details that the headquarters of Citizen's Services, Inc., are listed as existing at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters. As the links above note, there is ample information available that confirms the assertion is true. I intend to spend further time looking at the address, 1024 Elysian Fields, New Oreleans, LA, and for further newinformation on ACORN and Citizen's Services, Inc., as my researching their addresses reveals a large number of other organizations at the same address, which must mean this is a huge building or there are some questions that need to be raised. Further, the tax-exempt database I linked for the ACORN address above displays that ACORN keeps its money in an offshore bank account in the Virgin Islands, which I find just plain odd.

It is clear that Citizen's Services and ACORN are essentially one and the same. The Obama for America campaign initially reported a varied list of services that the group was supposed to have performed (see the sidebar in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article linked above) that seem curiously out of place, considering the nature of the organization. The campaign ultimately revised its reports, citing simple filing error. The revision is to report the services of Citizen's as "field work".

Not only is it disturbing that Mr. Obama and his campaign believe that denying any connection to ACORN is plausible, it is disturbing that the ACORN entity in Louisiana appears to be registered as the incorporated housing entity. It is troubling because the organization receives federal funds and calls in to question why this federally funded group would have any connection with an affliate that performs campaign services. There is a clear conflict of interest, at the very least. ACORN, in any form, having been the recipient of tax dollars, should not be working for any political candidates nor should it be endorsing them. The left-wing publication The Nation, proudly crowed on February 23, 2008, that ACORN's PAC had given Obama it's "important endorsement". Yes, in addition to ACORN's many other tentacles, the organization seems to have a Political Action Committee. The above mentioned "Community Blog" is actually a report of ACORN's endorsement of Obama for President.

The only relationship Obama publicly owns in regards to ACORN is his work as an attorney for them in suing the Justice Dept. per the Motor Voter Law. Besides all of the other connections, it appears that there is another legal case Mr. Obama has failed to mention.

In 1994, Obama was one of the attorneys listed on a lawsuit against Citibank in which the plaintiffs claim the bank was engaged in "red-lining" or refusing to grant mortgages to people in particular neighborhoods in Chicago.

Clicking here will allow you to see actual documents for a case that reference Obama case. It is a .PDF file. You can search for Obama by hitting the CTRL + F keys.

Clicking here will allow you to see detailed records of the case at a site called "The Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House"

Note that the case is entitled "Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank". Due to the nature of such a case, which, to the best of my understanding, requires an individual private citizen or citizens as plaintiffs, and not a non-profit organization, ACORN's name is not listed anywhere in the documentation. In order for the plaintiff to have standing in the case, they have had to have been damaged. Since ACORN as an entity doesn't apply for mortgages on private homes for itself, it cannot sue banks, and so the organization most likely found some victims to prove its point.

Even if this particular case has no connection whatever to ACORN, and that looks most likely not plausible at this stage, it is clearly a tactic straight out of the ACORN playbook. There is no denying that Mr. Obama engaged in filing a lawsuit that had the same purpose as pushing for more and more people to be granted loans who couldn't afford them. These kinds of measures share not only the same purpose, they had the same effect: the collapse of the sub-prime lending market, in addition to terrible monetary policy by the FED, have led us to the current financial crisis.

Citibank likely rejected loan applications for homes in the neighborhoods that were "red-lined" because they were graded as areas for high-risk of default or were of market values that were so low, the costs of establishing and servicing mortgages for homes in those areas exceeded any potential profit. In other words, Citibank was likely employing sound business practice and attempting to avoid granting mortgage loans to people who they had deemed were at high risk for default.

Lawsuits like Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank directly contributed to forcing banks to grant risky mortgages. It again, is not surprising that Obama makes no mention of any such measures taken by "community organizations" or attorneys that helped to lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Instead, he blames the Bush policies and capitalism. There is no question that Pres. Bush, his Treasury Secretary, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board deserve much blame for the current crisis, but the entire strategy of giving loans to people who couldn't afford them, gets at least half of the blame.

Besides his involvement in the Citibank suit, Obama received $105,849 from Fannie Mae and its employees since being elected to the Senate in 2006. That makes him the #3 recipient on the list. He is only topped by Connecticut Sen. Dodd at $133,900 and Massuchusetts Sen. John Kerry at $111,000. The list actually records all donations received from 1989-2008. Dodd has been in office since 1981, meaning the amount he has received may have been spread out over the last seven years, and the same is true for Sen. Kerry, who has also been in office for much longer than the term of the report. Sen. Obama has been campaigning for much of his first term in the Senate, and has reportedly spent 141 actually serving in Washington, D.C., since taking office. That means he received $756 in contributions from Fannie Mae and its employees for every day he served.

It's hard to imagine that kind of money has no influence on a politician's policy decisions. Further, it causes one to wonder why Fannie Mae executives and employees thought the Senator was so worthwhile an investment? Could it be that the continued reckless practices of out-of-control lending were concepts he particularly endorsed? Put together with his involvement the Citibank suit, tax policies of forced "fairness", belief that healthcare is a "right", and intent to tax businesses at high rates, it doesn't take a leap to understand that Fannie Mae would find a friend in Barack Obama.

The questions that beg asking are: Where is the media to ask these questions? Why didn't they dig up the information about the Citibank suit?

Barack Obama and William Ayers

2008-10-10T19:20:00.000-05:00

Although there was vague talk of Barack Obama "palling around" with former terrorist turned college professor William Ayers, President-Elect Obama did much more than just "pal around".

Barack Obama has known Bill Ayers for a long time, perhaps dating back as long ago as 1987. This post examines the length and extent of the relationship and includes supporting information through many links to independent news sources and more.

Senator Obama’s relationship with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn is much longer and more involved than he has admitted to. Apparently he believes the American people would find these relationships troubling, as he has changed his explanation of the length and extent multiple times.

William Ayers was a founding member of the radical 1960s terrorist group, the Weatherman, which later changed it’s name to the Weather Underground, when women began to join in. The group was a “spin-off” of another radical group, Students for a Democratic Society. The Weatherman felt that the SDS’s tactic were not radical enough to produce the changes to society they were seeking. A Chicago Daily Observer article in April of this year, laid out Bill Ayers’ “resume” as a Weather Underground member.

Ayers’ wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the Weather Underground, and considered the more actively violent of the couple. She was on the FBI’s ten most wanted list for a time, and remained “on the run”, until she and her husband turned themselves in in 1980. She was ultimately pardoned by President Bill Clinton just before he left office, along with 139 others. Obama’s relationship with Dohrn should be featured nearly as prominently and considered just as troubling as his relationship with Ayers. Dohrn’s prevented from obtaining a law license due to her criminal record, but has and does work for law firms. She regularly works against juvenile justice laws. Ayers cites her theories in the book Obama reviewed.

There is also a likely connection between Mr. and Mrs. Obamas and Mr. and Mrs. Ayers in another way: Wikipedia, not known for its “conservative” bent, cites the fact that Dohrn for the law firm of Sidley-Austin from 1984-1988. It is well-known that Barack Obama was a summer associate of this firm in 1989 where he met his wife, Michelle who was a full-time associate there. Michelle was a summer associate during the summer of 1987. In other words, Bernardine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were working at the same law firm, at the same time, for about a year and a half. Perhaps it is only coincidence, but as one examines the life and associations of the Obamas, one seems to find a myriad of them.

It is widely known that Mr. Ayers is unrepentant, it is also likely known that as recently as 2001, he stated that he wished he’d “done more”. In a 2002 interview, Ayers stated, among other things:

I’m as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist.

And:

“No here is surprised by what I think.”

After spending a number of years on the run, Ayers returned to Chicago and became a Professor of Education at the state’s university.

Obama supporters and others have suggested that the fact that Bill Ayers has long been a college professor, and has “gained a measure of respect” in the academic world must mean he is an acceptable member of society. But Ayers has never expressed remorse or changed his agenda. Whatever one might think of Ayers, he is not a stupid man. In true Alinksy fashion, Mr. Ayers decided to move his radical tactics into the world of academia. He has decided to follow the advice Alinsky gave violent ’60s radicals like himself: bring about revolution from within the system. Ayers teaches teachers. He has written many books on the subject of education and youth justice. No one who has read these materials or examined the positions he espouses, who values the traditions of our society, or the founding principles of our government would believe Mr. Ayers should be anywhere near the educational field.

Senior Fellow at the Ethics in Public Policy Center and National Review online contributor, Stanley Kurtz, has extensively investigated Barack Obama, particularly his connections to Bill Ayers. His investigation has included thorough, first hand examination of documents. He best states Bill Ayers educational and juvenile justice philosophies and clear evidence that Obama must be aware of them:

Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise. The point of Ayers’ education theory is that the United States is a fundamentally racist and oppressive nation. Students, Ayers believes, ought to be encouraged to resist this oppression. Obama was funding Ayers’ “small schools” project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it.”

Obama was perfectly aware of Ayers’ radical views, since he read and publicly endorsed, without qualification, Ayers’ book on juvenile crime. That book is quite radical, expressing doubts about whether we ought to have a prison system at all, comparing America to South Africa’s apartheid system, and contemptuously dismissing the idea of the United States as a kind or just country.”

The fact that academia has accepted this man into its circles is not an endorsement of Ayers, it is an indictment of academia.

No one is precisely certain when Barack Obama and Bill Ayers met. As you have read and will continue to read, so many of the groups in Chicago that Obama has worked for, or with are inter-related. Recall that the Woods Fund was the first entity to fund the Developing Communities Project, which Obama worked for and directed from 1985-1988.

The initial story “floated” by the Obama campaign in February, was reported to Politico’s Ben Smith. Obama campaign manager, David Axelrod said:

Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school,” he said. “They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”

Obviously, this statement simply doesn’t “pass the smell test”. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn children are adults. Barack and Michelle Obama’s children are still in elementary school. The campaign soon attempted to “correct” this error of Axelrod’s by explaining that the Obama children attend the same lab school at the University of Chicago that the Ayers children attended earlier.

In an April Democratic Presidential Primary debate, ABC New’s George Stephanopolous asked Barack Obama about the relationship. He stated:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis”

In an October 9 interview with ABC New’s Charles Gibson, Obama answered a question about Ayers this way:

Why don’t we just clear it up right now. I’ll repeat again what I’ve said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I’ve ‘palled around with a terrorist’, all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.”

At the third and final Presidential debate on October 15, the subject of Ayers came up again. Senator Obama said:

So let’s get the record straight. Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago. Forty years ago, when I was 8 years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts. Ten years ago he served and I served on a school reform board that was funded by one of Ronald Reagan’s former ambassadors and close friends, Mr. Annenberg. Other members on that board were the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper. Mr. Ayers is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And he will not advise me in the White House. So that’s Mr. Ayers.

None of the statements made by Senator Obama squares with the many facts to the contrary. An noted, there is no real way of knowing exactly when Barack Obama and Bill Ayers met and became friends or where working together. Several reporters were left with the impression by the Obama campaign that the relationship began in 1995 with the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. As you will read, this is simply false.

Evidence suggests that the relationship may have begun as early as 1987. Bill Ayers’ father, Thomas, led a coalition for school reform in Chicago that was coordinated by Bill Ayers. One member of the Coalition was the Developing Communities Project, which you will recall, was directed by Obama from 1985-1987.

While some elements of the relationship are not entirely clear, there are many aspects that are beyond doubt. For instance, in 1993, Sen. Obama and Bill Ayers both became members of the Woods Fund board of directors.

In 1995, Ayers chose Obama to be founding President of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, which was funded through a grant Ayers worked to secure to implement education programs, and whose primary purpose to was to politicize and radicalize students. One program implemented was a model of a U.N. school; a school based on the tenets of the United Nations. By the group’s own report:

There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools.”

In addition to failing to have any positive impact on student achievement, extensive evaluation of the CAC’s own documents show that money from this entity was also disbursed to ACORN and the Developing Communities Project.

Very recently, a review of tax returns for both of the boards on which Ayers and Obama sat together, the Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenburg Challenge, reveal that large sums of money were distributed from them to a number of very controversial groups, including ACORN. Other recepients were Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church, the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, the Small Schools Network, and South Shore African Village Collaberative. Most people are familiar with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity (more further on). The Children and Family Justice Center which was founded and is directed by Bernardine Dohrn. The Small Schools Network was founded by Bill Ayers and Michael Klonsky. Ayers and Klonsky were both members of the Students for a Democratic Society. While Ayers went on to form the Weathermen group, Klonsky joined the Communist Party USA. The South Shore African Village Collaberative, reports, Stanley Kurtz, in his article “Wright 101″, is an Afrocentric group. This line of thinking, in a nutshell, is a separatist attitude for blacks.

In addition to work on both of the Woods Fund and the CAC together, there is yet another Ayers-Obama relationshiop: In 1997 Obama wrote a glowing review of Ayers book A Kind and Just Parent: Children of the Juvenile Court for the Chicago Tribune. Stanley Kurtz, read the book and made the following remarks:

Ayers’s title, he explained in the book, is meant to ‘bristle with irony’ as a commentary on an American ’society out of control.’ Ayers expressed the same sentiment more bluntly in an interview published in the New York Times shortly after 9/11, when he not only dismissed the notion of the United States as a ‘just and fair and decent place,’ but said the claim ‘makes me want to puke.’

The book also virtually defines the phrases ‘liberal guilt’ and ’soft on crime.’

The entire episode of Obama having reviewed an Ayers book is not significant only because it is yet another piece of evidence that Mr. Obama knew Ayers longer, and much better than he has been willing to admit, it provides insight into his own point of view on the subject of juvenile justice. Further, it spins off yet another connection to Ayers.

Michelle Obama, as Dean of Student Services and Director of the University Community Services Center at the University of Chicago, convened a panel regarding a piece of juvenile justice legislation that featured both Barack Obama and Bill Ayers. Obama was fighting the passage of the piece of legislation, which would have moved juveniles from juvenile court to adult court after two violent felonies.

Besides his work with William Ayers on the Woods Fund, and at the CAC, Obama also held his first political “coming out” at William Ayers’ and Bernardine Dohrn’s home.

Keating 5 Prosecutor Bob Bennett Speaks 10/6: McCain Exonerated

2008-10-07T22:41:00.000-05:00

Keating 5 Prosecutor Bob Bennett, self-acknowledged Democrat, spoke with attorney Mark Levin about the investigation on Levin's radio show Monday, October 6.

(The following is a transcript of the portion of the interview that is pertinent to the Keating 5 case. For a full transcript of the entire interview, which also includes an interesting conversation about the Iran-Contra scandal, visit this post. For audio of the full show, which Levin posts to his website go to marklevinshow.com.)

Mark: Well, first of all, your book, In the Ring: Trials of a Washington Lawyer. We’ve linked to that on marklevin.com. It’s a terrific book and that is why I want to talk to you.

Bob: Thanks, Mark, yeah.

Mark: You have a chapter on the Keating 5. And Bob, this is very important, now, because, people are bringing up, i don’t want to drag you into politics, but people are bringing up William Ayers, and suddenly this Keating 5 thing pops up again. Why don’t you tell us, give us a thumbnail sketch of what happened there and what was the deal about John McCain.

Bob: I’ll stick to the public record. What my role was - I was hired by a bi-partisan Senate Ethics Committee to investigate what was known as “The Keating 5″. And in essence, what it was, was that there was something called the Direct Investment Rule which Charles Keating was opposed to. What it did was it basically said that Savings and Loans, which he owned one, couldn’t, were limited in where they could invest their money. Senator DiConcini scheduled a meeting with several Senators to meet with the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and pressure them.

And, Senator McCain attended that meeting. And one thing led to another and the Ethics Committee conducted an investigation. And I investigated it for a long, long time, well over a year. For the purpose of determining whether or not the Senators, including McCain, violated any standards, rules, ethical prohibitions. And at the end of the investigation, I concluded that Senator McCain and Senator Glenn should be exonerated, that is, that there should be no further action against them, but that was rejected by the Committee and there were some twenty-six days of public hearings.

As you know, Mark, ’cause on the occasions we’ve met, I- we argued some. I’m a Democrat, as you know. But, I had to call it the way the evidence dictated, and I called it that John McCain did nothing wrong. How Heflin, who at the time, was the Chairman of the Committee, was very concerned that there be twenty-six days of hearings with only Democrats in “the docks”, so to speak, so my recommendation about exonerating Senators Glenn and McCain was rejected and we went forward. But… it’s….and at the end of the day, it was pretty clear, from all the evidence, that there was no violation by Senator McCain.

I’m sorry to be so long but that’s in a nutshell, what happened.

Mark: Well, it’s important, because it’s a long time ago, we have five and a half million people listening and we gotta get this right, Bob. And, it seems to me, that based on what you’re saying, based on what I’ve read in your book, and what you’ve said before, frankly, that he was thrown into this for political reasons, and it’s being raised again, you don’t have to answer the last part, I’m commenting, it’s being raised now for political reasons. John McCain is not an unethical man, can you, can we agree on that?

Bob: Let me say this: from all the evidence, he’s not a friend of mine, although I guess, in the spirit of full disclosure, years after the Keating case, just this past year, he hired me as a lawyer, to represent him in connection with this dispute about lobbying he was having with the New York Times. But, at the time I made my findings, I was totally independent, and I’m not a surrogate of his in this political…. You know, I represent too many people on both sides of the aisle. But the direct, that as background, I certainly saw nothing in my investigation that would call into question, John McCain’s ethics. When he learned that there had been a referral to the Justice Department by the regulators, uh, he withdrew from any assistance to Keating and in fact, got into a big argument with Charles Keating, who called McCain “a wimp”, which did not sit well with the Senator. So, I certainly, based on my investigation in that case, saw nothing to call in to question John McCain’s ethics.

Mark: And you’ve represented, you’re right, people of all political stripes and so on.

Mark Levin Speaks with Bob Bennett about Keating 5 and Iran-Contra

2008-10-05T11:18:00.000-05:00

For the complete broadcast which includes this interview, follow this link.

Mark Levin (Levin): Well, I want to welcome Bob Bennett to the show. Bob Bennett is one of the most exceptional and successful lawyers in the nation. He's represented everybody from Bill Clinton to Caspar Weinberger. He happens to be the older brother of a man I deeply admire and who is a terrific radio host, Bill Bennett. How are you, sir?

Bob Bennett (Bennett): Fine, Mark, how have you been?

Levin: I'm very well. Do you remember meeting me a few times?

Bob: "Oh, I remember, absolutely."

Levin: I was the handsome one, remember?

Bob: You were the good looking one, I remember that.

[laughter]

Levin: Well, first of all, your book, In the Ring: Trials of a Washington Lawyer. We've linked to that on marklevin.com. It's a terrific book and that is why I want to talk to you.

Bob: Thanks, Mark, yeah.

Levin: You have a chapter on the Keating 5. And Bob, this is very important, now, because, people are bringing up, i don't want to drag you into politics, but people are bringing up William Ayers, and suddenly this Keating 5 thing pops up again. Why don't you tell us, give us a thumbnail sketch of what happened there and what was the deal about John McCain.

Bob: I'll stick to the public record. What my role was - I was hired by a bi-partisan Senate Ethics Committee to investigate what was known as "The Keating 5". And in essence, what it was, was that there was something called the Direct Investment Rule which Charles Keating was opposed to. What it did was it basically said that Savings and Loans, which he owned one, couldn't, were limited in where they could invest their money. Senator DiConcini scheduled a meeting with several Senators to meet with the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and pressure them.

As you know, Mark, 'cause on the occasions we've met, I- we argued some. I'm a Democrat, as you know. But, I had to call it the way the evidence dictated, and I called it that John McCain did nothing wrong. How Heflin, who at the time, was the Chairman of the Committee, was very concerned that there be twenty-six days of hearings with only Democrats in "the docks", so to speak, so my recommendation about exonerating Senators Glenn and McCain was rejected and we went forward. But... it's....and at the end of the day, it was pretty clear, from all the evidence, that there was no violation by Senator McCain.

I'm sorry to be so long but that's in a nutshell, what happened.

Levin: Well, it's important, because it's a long time ago, we have five and a half million people listening and we gotta get this right, Bob. And, it seems to me, that based on what you're saying, based on what I've read in your book, and what you've said before, frankly, that he was thrown into this for political reasons, and it's being raised again, you don't have to answer the last part, I'm commenting, it's being raised now for political reasons. John McCain is not an unethical man, can you, can we agree on that?

Bob: Let me say this: from all the evidence, he's not a friend of mine, although I guess, in the spirit of full disclosure, years after the Keating case, just this past year, he hired me as a lawyer, to represent him in connection with this dispute about lobbying he was having with the New York Times. But, at the time I made my findings, I was totally independent, and I'm not a surrogate of his in this political.... You know, I represent too many people on both sides of the aisle. But the direct, that as background, I certainly saw nothing in my investigation that would call into question, John McCain's ethics. When he learned that there had been a referral to the Justice Department by the regulators, uh, he withdrew from any assistance to Keating and in fact, got into a big argument with Charles Keating, who called McCain "a wimp", which did not sit well with the Senator. So, I certainly, based on my investigation in that case, saw nothing to call in to question John McCain's ethics.

Levin: And you've represented, you're right, people of all political stripes and so on. Let me askyou a little bit about that if i could segue.

Bob: Sure.

Levin: Casper Weinberger, you represented him in the Iran-Contra matter. I represented Attorney General Meese. Now, what kind of a man for you, was Casper Weinberger?

Bob: Oh, I think he was the tops. I mean, I have never seen such prosecutorial abuse in my life as I saw in the Weinberger case as I saw in, by former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh. It was a terrible abuse of power. You know, Weinberger was the former Secretary of Defense and yet, Walsh was, I was about to say he was so close to me as you are now, but we're not very close we're on the phone [laughter], but I was about three feet away from the man, and he, Walsh, basically said to me and my partner, Karl Rauh, he said, "If you'll turn on Ronald Reagan, we'll give you a no jail-misdemeanor plea." I left the meeting shaking my head and I said to Carl, who was the former U.S. Attorney in Washington, "Do you belive what we just heard? This guy's gunning for Ronald Reagan." And it was one of the most incredible experiences I've had in my life. Weinberger was just a class act and a real statesman. You know, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, he was a conservative Republican and I'm a democrat. But he was one terrific human being.

Levin: As a side note, I remember having to go into the vault there in the Justic Department, you know, our hands were tied there lots of times, weren't they Bob?

Bob: Yeah sure.

Levin: And reading some of the Grand Jury stuff, which we're only allowed to read, and we could use it, but we had to write it down by hand [Bob: Yeah, right] or whatever, and I remember going back to Ed Meese and saying, "These bastards are trying to indict you. I said, "I can't believe it." And they wanted to indict Schultz, and they wanted to indict Weinberger. I said, "My God, these guys are getting out of control."

Bob: Well, you know, Mark, Weinberger thought he was a cooperating witness for Walsh, you know, being Secretary of Defense and having all of the government [inaudible], it wasn't unusual for him to get requests, and for five years, he thought he was a cooperating witness because if you remember, he was opposed, vehemently opposed to the sale of arms to Iran, and he then got a target letter. I really appreciate you mentioning the book, In the Ring. I do have two chapters in the book, one is dedicated in the book to the Keating 5 and a chapter in the book dedicated to this Weinberger case.

Levin: Do you still represent Bill Clinton?

Bob: No, no, that matter is over with.

Levin: I don't mean...I mean, if he needs something, does he still call on Bob Bennett, or does he have a bunch of lawyers?

Bob: You know, I wouldn't tell you if he did, Mark.

Levin: Ok.

Bob: You know, If I could just make a point, because you mentioned it earlier on, I just hope that Senators Obama and McCain stick to the issues and I'm really worried, I know you feel [Mark: Not really.] as I do, that this politics of personalization, these politics of personal destruction, is awful and I just hope they just get on and discuss the issues.

Levin: Well, you know, hope is what it is, my friend.

Bob: Yeah.

Levin: One of these days, a nice thick steak, how do you like your steak done?

Bob: Well, I like it, I prefer it on the well done side.

Levin: I do, too.

Bob: If you talk to any real, you're going to get calls, this is the only thing you're going to get calls on [laughter], I'm told real cattle people, they won't eat their steak raw or rare, they want it done, they really don't want it rare or raw, I'm so curious...

Levin: I've had lunch a couple of times with Bill in years past. How does he like it, well done or doesn't it?

Bob: As long as it doesn't bite back, Bill likes it. [laughter]

Levin: Ok, folks, get this book. It's a fascinating book: In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer. It's got a chapter right there on the Keating 5, a chapter on Weinberger, and a there's a lot more than that.

Rankings

2008-10-01T13:25:00.001-05:00

The Presidents

This is a ranking of the Presidents determined not by the perceived popularity, success, effectiveness or impact of their Presidency alone, but is also based on their accomplishments as a whole, and finally, also on as their character.

1. George Washington

George Washington is without a doubt the greatest man to ever hold the office of President of the United States. He has no rival other than John Adams in the number of his lifetime accomplishments. Among those accomplishments were that he was commander of the first revolutionary group to ever see true success and he was the first President of a republic which was a truly new experiment in history. Without his leadership, willingness to serve, and humility, the newly established nation may not have held together. Finally, he ranks among an elite few to give up absolute power. Indeed, his name belongs beside Cincinnatus, another man who gave up absolute power, twice.

2. John Adams

John Adams is a man that would have no rival, even Jefferson, if it had not been for Washington. It is indeed his own doing that he is not the greatest man our republic has ever seen, because he nominated Washington to be Commander of the Continental Army. He was the casting director of the Revolution, if you will. He is the first great orator to hold the office, in fact, warranting the title "Cicero of America". His oratorical skills led to the acquittal of the British soldiers caught up in the melee that came to be known as the Boston massacre and helped to sway the delegates at the second Continental Congress to vote for independence. The following is a list of his many accomplishments, and we've probably missed some:

He was also a delegate to the First Continental Congress
Served the committee that wrote the Declaration of Independence, but all credit does belong to Thomas Jefferson
Colonial Ambassador to France
Contributed much to articulating the concepts of liberty and republican government through his writings of the Novanglus essays,Thoughts on Government, and In Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
Worked tirelessly to secure much needed loans from the Netherlands
Negotiated the first treaty of trade and commerce between America and a foreign power (Netherlands) after the end of the Revolution
One of the negotiators of the Treaty of Paris (1783)
First Ambassador to the Court of St. James, and therefore first American in an official capacity to meet with King George III after the Revolutionary War
Wrote the bulk of the Constitution for the state of Massachusetts
First Vice President of the United States
Second President of the United States

Mr. Adams was an avid reader of books and had a large library he bequeathed to his eldest son, John Quincy. He believed strongly in education and the pursuit of virtue in both public and private life. One of the reasons we have ranked Mr. Adams so high on our list is that he was a man of principle who did his best to live them, and largely succeeded. One of his principles was an opposition to slavery. He gave most of his life in service to his country and he did it out of a deep belief, not a pursuit of power.

We believe he is largely overlooked, despite his service and accomplishments because of his personal demeanor, which could be perceived as brusque and vain. More importantly, though, he was not a popular President in an environment in which the faction of party was actively at work. He was not able to perceive the many players working against him, some of which were in his own Cabinet. Several actions during his time in office left such a bad feeling, and the campaign with Jefferson was so acrimonious, his memory seemed to suffer permanent damage.

Fortunately, for the benefit of all who are interested in an accurate study of American history, the excellent book by David McCullough, entitled, simply, John Adams, has reopened this chapter of history for all of us to re-examine. For more information about this book, please visit this page.

3. Thomas Jefferson

4. Abraham Lincoln
5. James Madison
6. Ronald Reagan
7. Harry S. Truman
8. Theodore Roosevelt
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. John Quincy Adams
11. Andrew Jackson
12. James Monroe
13. James K. Polk
14. John F. Kennedy
15. Gerald Ford
16. Grover Cleveland
17. William McKinley
18. Andrew Johnson
19. Ulysses S. Grant
20. Franklin D. Roosevelt
21. Calvin Coolidge
22. Chester A. Arthur
23. Rutherford B. Hayes
24. Benjamin Harrison
25. George H. W. Bush
26. James A. Garfield
27. Zachary Taylor
28. William Henry Harrison
29. Herbert Hoover
30. John Tyler
31. Millard Fillmore
32. William Howard Taft
33. George W. Bush
34. Lyndon B. Johnson
35. Franklin Pierce
36. Martin Van Buren
37. Warren G. Harding
38. Jimmy Carter
39. James Buchanan

40. Richard Nixon

41. Bill Clinton

42. Woodrow Wilson

Why the Title?

2008-10-01T13:24:00.001-05:00

In 1768, British soldiers were posted in Boston to help British officials enforce the Townshend Acts. What ultimately followed is an illustration of the many dangers risked by the insertion of a standing army into the midst of a free people, an unfortunate tragedy.
On March 5, 1770, a confrontation between an angry merchant and a lone sentry posted in front of the Customs House devolved into an angry mob hurling chunks of ice, coal, and stones against a group of quickly assembled reinforcements. When one of the soldiers fell after someone threw a wooden club at him, and someone in the crowd yelled, "Fire!", the shooting began. Five people were killed.
The British soldiers were put on trial with all emphasis on administering it fairly. It was with great difficulty that a defense team was assembled. John Adams, a respected attorney from nearby Braintree, agreed to lead the defense. Adams knew he was risking his reputation, but firmly believed in the principle that every man deserves a fair trial.
Against all odds, Adams and his team were able to uncover the truth of the incident and expose it to the juries. The troops' leader, Captain Preston, was tried separately first, and acquitted.
In the second trial of the soldiers, Adams gave a brilliant closing argument.
It contained a universal truth :

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence; nor is the law less stable than the fact..."

All but two of the soldiers, were acquitted. The two were convicted of manslaughter as there was evidence that they had fired directly into the crowd.
John Adams' representation of the British soldiers cost him much business and set him at odds with is fellow citizens for some time. Eventually, though, his fellow patriots came to respect him for what he had done. Adams' actions and the administration of justice in the case proved that despite all differences, men of principle can act justly under the rule of law.
Adams statement about facts, like many truths, has that universal and teaches that we must face truths, even when we don't like them.

Patriots

2008-10-01T13:22:00.001-05:00

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

The man behind the golden EIB microphone Rush Limbaugh.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The man who hosts the show thats the last beacon of truth in a troubled time! Sean Hannity!

The king of the sick, twisted freaks, Glenn Beck.

A true conservative leader Jim DeMint.

The strongest member of the House Steve King of Iowa.

The patriot of energy independence T. Boone Pickens.

The culture warrior Bill O'Reilly.

A man of truth and courage Jon Voight.

An honest man Dick Morris.

Author of Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg.

Robert Bork

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska voted against the bail-out, and showed tremendous strength as did so many Republicans and some Democrats in the House

Founding Documents

2008-10-01T13:19:00.002-05:00

Full Texts and Links

Some Important Documents on Which Our Country Was Founded

Please note that I am continuing to work on this page - so it is somewhat "untidy"!

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Ultimately, 56 brave men signed the Declaration. To learn more, visit this site.

The United States Constitution

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 1 - Legislative powers; in whom vested

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2 - House of Representatives, how and by whom chosen Qualifications of a Representative. Representatives and direct taxes, how apportioned. Enumeration. Vacancies to be filled. Power of choosing officers, and of impeachment.

1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the elector in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.

2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.(The previous sentence was superseded by Amendment XIV). The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.

5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3 - Senators, how and by whom chosen. How classified. State Executive, when to make temporary appointments, in case, etc. Qualifications of a Senator. President of the Senate, his right to vote. President pro tem., and other officers of the Senate, how chosen. Power to try impeachments. When President is tried, Chief Justice to preside. Sentence.

1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding five words were superseded by Amendment XVII) for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. (The words in italics were superseded by Amendment XVII)

3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of the President of the United States.

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

7. Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law.

Section 4 - Times, etc., of holding elections, how prescribed. One session in each year.

1. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,(The words in italics were superseded by Amendment XX) unless they by law appoint a different day.

Section 5 - Membership, Quorum, Adjournments, Rules, Power to punish or expel. Journal. Time of adjournments, how limited, etc.

1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.

3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6 - Compensation, Privileges, Disqualification in certain cases.

1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Section 7 - House to originate all revenue bills. Veto. Bill may be passed by two-thirds of each House, notwithstanding, etc. Bill, not returned in ten days to become a law. Provisions as to orders, concurrent resolutions, etc.

1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

2. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

3. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have the power

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States:

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes:

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States:

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures:

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States:

7. To establish post-offices and post-roads:

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries:

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court:

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations:

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water:

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years:

13. To provide and maintain a navy:

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces:

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions:

16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress:

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9 - Provision as to migration or importation of certain persons. Habeas Corpus , Bills of attainder, etc. Taxes, how apportioned. No export duty. No commercial preference. Money, how drawn from Treasury, etc. No titular nobility. Officers not to receive presents, etc.

1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importations, not exceeding 10 dollars for each person.

2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Modified by Amendement XVI)

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.

7. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10 - States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.

1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

2. No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

3. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in a war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 1- President: his term of office. Electors of President; number and how appointed. Electors to vote on same day. Qualification of President. On whom his duties devolve in case of his removal, death, etc. President's compensation. His oath of office.

1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:

2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.(The clause in italics was superseded by Amendment XII)

3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

4. No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

5 . In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. (This clause has been modified by Amendment XX and Amendment XXV)

6. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

7. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2 - President to be Commander-in-Chief. He may require opinions of cabinet officers, etc., may pardon. Treaty-making power. Nomination of certain officers. When President may fill vacancies.

1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

3. The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3 - President shall communicate to Congress. He may convene and adjourn Congress, in case of disagreement, etc. Shall receive ambassadors, execute laws, and commission officers.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he may receive ambassadors, and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

4 - All civil offices forfeited for certain crimes.

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Section 1- Judicial powers. Tenure. Compensation.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2 - Judicial power; to what cases it extends. Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court Appellate. Trial by Jury, etc. Trial, where

1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states, between a state and Citizens of another state, between Citizens of different states, between Citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign states, Citizens or subjects. (This section modified by Amendment XI)

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment of.

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

Section 1 - Each State to give credit to the public acts, etc. of every other State.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2 - Privileges of Citizens of each State. Fugitives from Justice to be delivered up. Persons held to service having escaped, to be delivered up.

1. The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states.

2. A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

3. No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.(This clause superseded by Amendment XIII)

Section 3 - Admission of new States. Power of Congress over territory and other property.

1. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress.

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4 - Republican form of government guaranteed. Each State to be protected.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

Constitution: how amended; proviso.

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which , in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Certain debts, ect. declared valid, Supremacy of Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, Oath to support Constitution, by whom taken. No religious test.

1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the confederation.

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

What ratification shall establish constitution.

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

I - Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II - Right to keep and bear arms

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III - Conditions for quarters of soldiers

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV - Right of search and seizure regulated

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V - Provisons concerning prosecution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI - Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII - Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII - Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX - Rule of construction of Constitution

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

XI - Judicial Powers Construed

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

XII - Manner of Choosing a President and Vice-President

This Amendment altered Article 2 Section 1 Part 2

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified July 27, 1804.

1. The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; - The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.(The words in italics were superseded by Amendment XX)

3. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such numbers be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

XIII - Slavery Abolished

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

XV - Race no bar to voting rights

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XVI - Income taxes authorized

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

XVII - U.S. Senators to be elected by direct popular vote

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the Legislature of any State may empower the Executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct.

3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

XVIII - Liquor Prohibition

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919.

Altered by Amendment XXI

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

XIX - Giving nationwide suffrage to women

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XX - Terms of the President and Vice-President

This Amendment altered Article 1 Section 4 Part 2 and Article 2 Section 1 Part5

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933

1. The terms of the President and the Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice-President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice-President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article (October 1933).

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

XXI - Repeal of Amendment XVIII

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

1. The Eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

XXII - Limiting presidential terms of office

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more that two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once.

2. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

XXIII - Presidential vote for the District of Columbia

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

2. A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

3. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XXIV - Barring poll tax in federal elections

This Amendment altered Article 1 Section 2 Part 3

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23,1964.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or any other tax.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XXV - Presidential disability and succession

This Amendment altered Article 2 Section 1 Part 5

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

5. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits within four days to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

XXVI - Lowering the voting age to 18 years

This Amendment altered Article 1 Section 9 Part 4

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified June 30, 1971.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

XXVII - Congressional Pay

This Amendment altered Article 1 Section 3 Part 1 and Article 1 Section 3 Part 2

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.

HAMILTON OR MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:

TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.

An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.

It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.

PUBLIUS.

General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind. This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears. So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists. Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question. Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS.

1 The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

These are just two of the Articles. Full texts of all 85 are available at The Avalon Project, on this page.

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
reported by James Madison : September 10

Tuesday September 10, 1787 [FN1]

IN CONVENTION

Mr. GERRY moved to reconsider Art XIX. viz. "On the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the States in the Union, for an amendment of this Constitution, the Legislature of the U. S. shall call a Convention for that purpose." [see Aug. 6.] [FN2] This Constitution he said is to be paramount to the State Constitutions. It follows, hence, from this article that two thirds of the States may obtain a Convention, a majority of which can bind the Union to innovations that may subvert the State-Constitutions altogether. He asked whether this was a situation proper to be run into.

Mr. HAMILTON 2ded. the motion, but he said with a different view from Mr. Gerry. He did not object to the consequence stated by Mr. Gerry. There was no greater evil in subjecting the people of the U. S. to the major voice than the people of a particular State. It had been wished by many and was much to have been desired that an easier mode for [FN3] introducing amendments had been provided by the articles of [FN4] Confederation. It was equally desireable now that an easy mode should be established for supplying defects which will probably appear in the New System. The mode proposed was not adequate. The State Legislatures will not apply for alterations but with a view to increase their own powers. The National Legislature will be the first to perceive and will be most sensible to the necessity of amendments, and ought also to be empowered, whenever two thirds of each branch should concur to call a Convention. There could be no danger in giving this power, as the people would finally decide in the case.

Mr. MADISON remarked on the vagueness of the terms, "call a Convention for the purpose," as sufficient reason for reconsidering the article. How was a Convention to be formed? by what rule decide? what the force of its acts?

On the motion of Mr. Gerry to reconsider

N. H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. GEO ay. [FN5]

Mr. SHERMAN moved to add to the article "or the Legislature may propose amendments to the several States for their approbation, but no amendments shall be binding until consented to by the several States."

Mr. GERRY 2ded. the motion

Mr. WILSON moved to insert "two thirds of" before the words "several States"- on which amendment to the motion of Mr. Sherman

N. H. ay. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN6]

Mr. WILSON then moved to insert "three fourths of" before "the several Sts" which was agreed to nem: con:

Mr. MADISON moved to postpone the consideration of the amended proposition in order to take up the following,

"The Legislature of the U. S. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem necessary, or on the application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part thereof, when the same shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the Legislatures of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Legislature of the U S:" [FN7]

Mr. HAMILTON 2ded. the motion.

Mr. RUTLIDGE said he never could agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property and prejudiced against it. In order to obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition: [FN7] "provided that no amendments which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the 4 & 5 sections of the VII article"-The postponement being agreed to,

On the question on the proposition of Mr. Madison & Mr. Hamilton as amended

N. H. divd. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo ay. [FN9]

Mr. GERRY moved to reconsider art: XXI and XXII. from the latter of which "for the approbation of Congs." had been struck out. He objected to proceeding to change the Government without the approbation of Congress, as being improper and giving just umbrage to that body. He repeated his objections also to an annulment of the confederation with so little scruple or formality.

Mr. HAMILTON concurred with Mr. Gerry as to the indecorum of not requiring the approbation of Congress. He considered this as a necessary ingredient in the transaction. He thought it wrong also to allow nine States as provided by art XXI. to institute a new Government on the ruins of the existing one. He Wd. propose as a better modification of the two articles (XXI & XXII) that the plan should be sent to Congress in order that the same if approved by them, may be communicated to the State Legislatures, to the end that they may refer it to State Conventions; each Legislature declaring that if the Convention of the State should think the plan ought to take effect among nine ratifying States, the same shd. take effect accordingly.

Mr. GORHAM. Some States will say that nine States shall be sufficient to establish the plan, others will require unanimity for the purpose. And the different and conditional ratifications will defeat the plan altogether.

Mr. HAMILTON. No Convention convinced of the necessity of the plan will refuse to give it effect on the adoption by nine States. He thought this mode less exceptionable than the one proposed in the article, and [FN10] would attain the same end.

Mr. FITZIMMONS remarked that the words "for their approbation" had been struck out in order to save Congress from the necessity of an Act inconsistent with the Articles of Confederation under which they held their authority.

Mr. RANDOLPH declared, if no change should be made in the [FN11] this part of the plan, he should be obliged to dissent from the whole of it. He had from the beginning he said been convinced that radical changes in the system of the Union were necessary. Under this conviction he had brought forward a set of republican propositions as the basis and outline of a reform. These Republican propositions had however, much to his regret, been widely, and in his opinion, irreconcileably departed from. In this state of things it was his idea and he accordingly meant to propose, that the State Conventions shd. be at liberty to offer amendments to the plan; and that these should be submitted to a second General Convention, with full power to settle the Constitution finally. He did not expect to succeed in this proposition, but the discharge of his duty in making the attempt, would give quiet to his own mind.

Mr. WILSON was against a reconsideration for any of the purposes which had been mentioned.

Mr. KING thought it would be more respectful to Congress to submit the plan generally to them; than in such a form as expressly and necessarily to require their approbation or disapprobation. The assent of nine States be considered as sufficient; and that it was more proper to make this a part of the Constitution itself, than to provide for it by a supplemental or distinct recommendation.

Mr. GERRY urged the indecency and pernicious tendency of dissolving in so slight a manner, the solemn obligations of the articles of confederation. If nine out of thirteen can dissolve the compact, Six out of nine will be just as able to dissolve the new one hereafter.

Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of Mr. King's idea of submitting the plan generally to Congress. He thought nine States ought to be made sufficient: but that it would be best [FN12] to make it a separate act and in some such form as that intimated by Col: Hamilton, than to make it a particular article of the Constitution.

On the question for reconsidering the two articles, XXI & XXII-

N. H. divd. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay. [FN13]

Mr. HAMILTON then moved to postpone art XXI in order to take up the following, containing the ideas he had above expressed, viz Resolved that the foregoing plan of a Constitution be transmitted to the U. S. in Congress assembled, in order that if the same shall be agreed to by them, it may be communicated to the Legislatures of the several States, to the end that they may provide for its final ratification by referring the same to the Consideration of a Convention of Deputies in each State to be chosen by the people thereof, and that it be recommended to the said Legislatures in their respective acts for organizing such convention to declare, that if the said Convention shall approve of the said Constitution, such approbation shall be binding and conclusive upon the State, and further that if the said Convention should be of opinion that the same upon the assent of any nine States thereto, ought to take effect between the States so assenting, such opinion shall thereupon be also binding upon such State, and the said Constitution shall take effect between the States assenting thereto"

Mr. GERRY 2ded. the motion.

Mr. WILSON. This motion being seconded, it is necessary now to speak freely. He expressed in strong terms his disapprobation of the expedient proposed, particularly the suspending the plan of the Convention on the approbation of Congress. He declared it to be worse than folly to rely on the concurrence of the Rhode Island members of Congs. in the plan. Maryland has voted on this floor; for requiring the unanimous assent of the 13 States to the proposed change in the federal System. N. York has not been represented for a long time past in the Convention. Many individual deputies from other States have spoken much against the plan. Under these circusmtances can it be safe to make the assent of Congress necessary. After spending four or five months in the laborious & arduous task of forming a Government for our Country, we are ourselves at the close throwing insuperable obstacles in the way of its success.

Mr. CLYMER thought that the mode proposed by Mr. Hamilton would fetter & embarrass Congs. as much as the original one, since it equally involved a breach of the articles of Confederation.

Mr. KING concurred with Mr. Clymer. If Congress can accede to one mode, they can to the other. If the approbation of Congress be made necessary, and they should not approve, the State Legislatures will not propose the plan to Conventions; or if the States themselves are to provide that nine States shall suffice to establish the System, that provision will be omitted, every thing will go into confusion, and all our labor be lost.

Mr. RUTLIDGE viewed the matter in the same light with Mr. King. On the question to postpone in order to take up Col: Hamilton's motion

N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN14]

A Question being then taken on the article XXI. It was agreed to unanimously.

Col: HAMILTON withdrew the remainder of the motion to postpone art XXII, observing that his purpose was defeated by the vote just given;

Mr. WILLIAMSON & Mr. GERRY moved to re-instate the words "for the approbation of Congress" in art: XXII which was disagreed to nem: con:

Mr. RANDOLPH took this opportunity to state his objections to the System. They turned on the Senate's being made the Court of Impeachment for trying the Executive-on the necessity of 3/4 instead of 2/3 of each house to overrule the negative of the President-on the smallness of the number of the Representative branch,-on the want of limitation to a standing army-on the general clause concerning necessary and proper laws-on the want of some particular restraint on navigation acts-on the power to lay duties on exports-on the Authority of the General Legislature to interpose on the application of the Executives of the States-on the want of a more definite boundary between the General & State Legislatures-and between the General and State Judiciaries-on the the unqualified power of the President to pardon treasons-on the want of some limit to the power of the Legislature in regulating their own compensations. With these difficulties in his mind, what course he asked was he to pursue? Was he to promote the establishment of a plan which he verily believed would end in Tyranny? He was unwilling he said to impede the wishes and Judgment of the Convention, but he must keep himself free, in case he should be honored with a seat in the Convention of his State, to act according to the dictates of his judgment. The only mode in which his embarrassments could be removed, was that of submitting the plan to Congs. to go from them to the State Legislatures, and from these to State Conventions having power to adopt reject or amend; the process to close with another General Convention with full power to adopt or reject the alterations proposed by the State Conventions, and to establish finally the Government. He accordingly proposed a Resolution to this effect.

Docr. FRANKLIN 2ded. the motion

Col: MASON urged & obtained that the motion should lie on the table for a day or two to see what steps might be taken with regard to the parts of the system objected to by Mr. Randolph.

Mr. PINKNEY moved "that it be an instruction to the Committee for revising the stile and arrangement of the articles agreed on, to prepare an Address to the People, to accompany the present Constitution, and to be laid with the same before the U. States in Congress."

[FN15] The motion itself was referred to the Committee, nem: con:

[FN15] Mr. RANDOLPH moved to refer to the Committee also a motion relating to pardons in cases of Treason-which was agreed to nem: con:

Adjourned

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

THE objects of the laws of England are fo very numerous and extenfive, that, in order to confider them with any tolerable eafe and perfpicuity, it will be neceffary to diftribute them methodically, under proper and diftinct heads ; avoiding as much as poffible divifions too large and comprehemive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other ; both of which are equally productive of confufion.

NOW.

.P 118

The RIGHTS OF PERSONS.

BOOK I.

Ch. 1.

NOW, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong ; or, as Cicero ^d, and after him our Bracton ^b, has expreffed it, fanctio jufta, jubens honefta et prohibens contraria ; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are RIGHTS, and WRONGS. In the profecution therefore of thefe commentaries, I fhall follow this very fimple and obvious divifion ; and fhall in the firft place confider the rights that are commanded, and fecondly the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.

The Whiskey Rebellion

BY AUTHORITY
By the president of the United States of America

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, combinations to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States and upon stills have from the time of the commencement of those laws existed in some of the western parts of Pennsylvania.

And whereas, the said combinations, proceeding in a manner subversive equally of the just authority of government and of the rights of individuals, have hitherto effected their dangerous and criminal purpose by the influence of certain irregular meetings whose proceedings have tended to encourage and uphold the spirit of opposition by misrepresentations of the laws calculated to render them odious; by endeavors to deter those who might be so disposed from accepting offices under them through fear of public resentment and of injury to person and property, and to compel those who had accepted such offices by actual violence to surrender or forbear the execution of them; by circulation vindictive menaces against all those who should otherwise, directly or indirectly, aid in the execution of the said laws, or who, yielding to the dictates of conscience and to a sense of obligation, should themselves comply therewith; by actually injuring and destroying the property of persons who were understood to have so complied; by inflicting cruel and humiliating punishments upon private citizens for no other cause than that of appearing to be the friends of the laws; by intercepting the public officers on the highways, abusing, assaulting, and otherwise ill treating them; by going into their houses in the night, gaining admittance by force, taking away their papers, and committing other outrages, employing for these unwarrantable purposes the agency of armed banditti disguised in such manner as for the most part to escape discovery;

And whereas, the endeavors of the legislature to obviate objections to the said laws by lowering the duties and by other alterations conducive to the convenience of those whom they immediately affect (though they have given satisfaction in other quarters), and the endeavors of the executive officers to conciliate a compliance with the laws by explanations, by forbearance, and even by particular accommodations founded on the suggestion of local considerations, have been disappointed of their effect by the machinations of persons whose industry to excite resistance has increased with every appearance of a disposition among the people to relax in their opposition and to acquiesce in the laws, insomuch that many persons in the said western parts of Pennsylvania have at length been hardy enough to perpetrate acts, which I am advised amount to treason, being overt acts of levying war against the United States, the said persons having on the 16th and 17th of July last past proceeded in arms (on the second day amounting to several hundreds) to the house of John Neville, inspector of the revenue for the fourth survey of the district of Pennsylvania; having repeatedly attacked the said house with the persons therein, wounding some of them; having seized David Lenox, marshal of the district of Pennsylvania, who previous thereto had been fired upon while in the execution of his duty by a party of armed men, detaining him for some time prisoner, till, for the preservation of his life and the obtaining of his liberty, he found it necessary to enter into stipulations to forbear the execution of certain official duties touching processes issuing out of a court of the United States; and having finally obliged the said inspector of the revenue and the said marshal from considerations of personal safety to fly from that part of the country, in order, by a circuitous route, to proceed to the seat of government, avowing as the motives of these outrageous proceedings an intention to prevent by force of arms the execution of the said laws, to oblige the said inspector of the revenue to renounce his said office, to withstand by open violence the lawful authority of the government of the United States, and to compel thereby an alteration in the measures of the legislature and a repeal of the laws aforesaid;

And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, when such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always, that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time;

And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four, and of the independence of the United States of America the nineteenth.

G. WASHINGTON,

By the President,

Edm. Randolph

Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794

1796

Friends and Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it 7 It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils 7 Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the twenty-second of April, I793, is the index of my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this con duct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Geo. Washington.

The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress, December 2, 1823:

. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the results have been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgement of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

The late events in Spain and Portugal shew that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have thought it proper, on any principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, even those most remote, and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . . .

PRESIDENT HARRY S. TRUMAN'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS, MARCH 12, 1947

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:

The gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before a joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are involved.

One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey.

The United States has received from the Greek Government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance. Preliminary reports from the American Economic Mission now in Greece and reports from the American Ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek Government that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation.

I do not believe that the American people and the Congress wish to turn a deaf ear to the appeal of the Greek Government.

Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.

When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications, and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five per cent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry, and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings.

As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible.

Greece is today without funds to finance the importation of those goods which are essential to bare subsistence. Under these circumstances the people of Greece cannot make progress in solving their problems of reconstruction. Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel and seeds. These are indispensable for the subsistence of its people and are obtainable only from abroad. Greece must have help to import the goods necessary to restore internal order and security, so essential for economic and political recovery.

The Greek Government has also asked for the assistance of experienced American administrators, economists and technicians to insure that the financial and other aid given to Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy and in improving its public administration.

The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by Communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A Commission appointed by the United Nations security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia on the other.

Meanwhile, the Greek Government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy.

The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid but these are inadequate.

There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn.

No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek government.

The British Government, which has been helping Greece, can give no further financial or economic aid after March 31. Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.

We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis. But the situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.

It is important to note that the Greek Government has asked for our aid in utilizing effectively the financial and other assistance we may give to Greece, and in improving its public administration. It is of the utmost importance that we supervise the use of any funds made available to Greece; in such a manner that each dollar spent will count toward making Greece self-supporting, and will help to build an economy in which a healthy democracy can flourish.

No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. The Government of Greece is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents eighty-five per cent of the members of the Greek Parliament who were chosen in an election last year. Foreign observers, including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the Greek people.

The Greek Government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States condones everything that the Greek Government has done or will do. We have condemned in the past, and we condemn now, extremist measures of the right or the left. We have in the past advised tolerance, and we advise tolerance now.

Greece's neighbor, Turkey, also deserves our attention.

The future of Turkey as an independent and economically sound state is clearly no less important to the freedom-loving peoples of the world than the future of Greece. The circumstances in which Turkey finds itself today are considerably different from those of Greece. Turkey has been spared the disasters that have beset Greece. And during the war, the United States and Great Britain furnished Turkey with material aid.

Nevertheless, Turkey now needs our support.

Since the war Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of effecting that modernization necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.

That integrity is essential to the preservation of order in the Middle East.

The British government has informed us that, owing to its own difficulties can no longer extend financial or economic aid to Turkey.

As in the case of Greece, if Turkey is to have the assistance it needs, the United States must supply it. We are the only country able to provide that help.

I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time.

One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion. This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, upon other nations.

To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations, The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had totalitarian regimes forced upon them against their will. The Government of the United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania, and Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other countries there have been similar developments.

At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.

One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.

The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio; fixed elections, and the suppression of personal freedoms.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.

Moreover, the disappearance of Greece as an independent state would have a profound effect upon those countries in Europe whose peoples are struggling against great difficulties to maintain their freedoms and their independence while they repair the damages of war.

It would be an unspeakable tragedy if these countries, which have struggled so long against overwhelming odds, should lose that victory for which they sacrificed so much. Collapse of free institutions and loss of independence would be disastrous not only for them but for the world. Discouragement and possibly failure would quickly be the lot of neighboring peoples striving to maintain their freedom and independence.

Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.

We must take immediate and resolute action.

I therefore ask the Congress to provide authority for assistance to Greece and Turkey in the amount of $400,000,000 for the period ending June 30, 1948. In requesting these funds, I have taken into consideration the maximum amount of relief assistance which would be furnished to Greece out of the $350,000,000 which I recently requested that the Congress authorize for the prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war.

In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such financial and material assistance as may be furnished. I recommend that authority also be provided for the instruction and training of selected Greek and Turkish personnel.

Finally, I ask that the Congress provide authority which will permit the speediest and most effective use, in terms of needed commodities, supplies, and equipment, of such funds as may be authorized.

If further funds, or further authority, should be needed for purposes indicated in this message, I shall not hesitate to bring the situation before the Congress. On this subject the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government must work together.

This is a serious course upon which we embark.

I would not recommend it except that the alternative is much more serious. The United States contributed $341,000,000,000 toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world freedom and world peace.

The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than 1 tenth of 1 per cent of this investment. It is only common sense that we should safeguard this investment and make sure that it was not in vain.

The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.

If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.

Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.

I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Congressional Budget Office Says True Cost of Stimulus Bill is $3 Trillion+

Happy Birthday to Ronald Reagan

HR1 House Republican "No" Vote: Principled Opposition or Negotiating Tactic?

Argument for Evolution or Just a Coincidence?

Yet Another Obama Cabinet Nominee Has Tax Problems...This time it's Daschle

Conservatives Suffering From Stockholm Syndrome

Fox's O'Reilly Can't Apparently Use Footage From His Own Network: Chuckie Schumer "Doesn't Care" About the "Fairness Doctrine"?

BLOGGERS: "Gird Your Loins" and Guard Your Data. Change.gov Scrubbing is a Red Flag

BREAKING: Two Omaha, Nebraska Students Suspended for "Inappropriate Remarks" About Barack Obama & Secret Service Investigates Another for a "Threat"

Hey Brit Hume: How about trying to put a CONSERVATIVE on your "All Star Panel?"

Rep. Michelle Bachmann on What the Rahm Emmanuel Appointment Means: "It Looks Like The Sopranos"

Obama Spokeswoman Says Obama Has Been "Unequivocal" on "$250,000", Then Lowers Threshold to $45,000 - $50,000

MORTIFIED to be a Nebraskan! High taxes, licensing witch-hunts, ridiculous Safe Haven Law, UNL invited Bill Ayers. Get me outta here!

Did Barney Frank Contribute a New Word to the Political Lexicon? Did He Say "Changeinism"?

Lynn De Rothschild: "Obama Tax 'Cuts' Are Biggest Welfare Program Since Welfare Began

Obama to ACORN 12/07: "We're going to be calling all of you in, to help shape the agenda."

Is API (African Press International) Legit? They say Michelle Obama Admits Barack was adopted by his Indonesian step-father

Obama to Kids: "Take an adult to the Polls...Tell Them to Vote for You, By Voting for Sen. Obama"

The Obama-Biden Campaign Website is a Virtual Treasure Trove of Interesting Information, if You Don't Mind Getting Creeped Out...

Chris Dodd: “I’d like to thank the Academy…”

Joe Biden: Official Obama Babysitter, Prolific Do-It-Yourselfer

Obama Was Co-Counsel Against Citibank in 1994 Suit for "Red-lining" - Can You Say ACORN?

Barack Obama and William Ayers

Keating 5 Prosecutor Bob Bennett Speaks 10/6: McCain Exonerated

Mark Levin Speaks with Bob Bennett about Keating 5 and Iran-Contra

Rankings

Why the Title?

Patriots

Founding Documents

Full Texts and Links

Some Important Documents on Which Our Country Was Founded

The Declaration of Independence

The United States Constitution

Constitution: how amended; proviso.

Constitution of the United States : Article VI

Certain debts, ect. declared valid, Supremacy of Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, Oath to support Constitution, by whom taken. No religious test.

Constitution of the United States : Article VII

What ratification shall establish constitution.

Constitution of the United States : Bill of Rights

Constitution of the United States :Amendments XI - XXVII

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checksand Balances Between the Different DepartmentsFrom the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.

HAMILTON OR MADISON

General IntroductionFor the Independent Journal.HAMILTON

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787reported by James Madison : September 10

Tuesday September 10, 1787 [FN1]

IN CONVENTION

The Whiskey Rebellion

BY AUTHORITY By the president of the United States of America A PROCLAMATION

Washington's Farewell Address 1796

1796

Monroe Doctrine; December 2, 1823

Truman Doctrine

PRESIDENT HARRY S. TRUMAN'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS, MARCH 12, 1947

Constitution of the United States :
Amendments XI - XXVII

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks
and Balances Between the Different Departments
From the New York Packet. Friday, February 8, 1788.

General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
HAMILTON

The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
reported by James Madison : September 10

BY AUTHORITY
By the president of the United States of America

A PROCLAMATION