michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 16, 2005 12:14:51 GMT 4
CONSTITUTIONALISM Sometimes equated with the "Rule of Law", holds that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority depends on enforcing limitations.
For more than 60 years much of the legislation passed and much of what officials have done, is in violation of the Constitution. Federal/State governments, esp. Federal, have assumed powers which have no foundation in any of the provisions of the Constitution. Many of these powers are justified by saying they need to deal with the "bad guys", but they are increasingly being used to deprive ordinary citizens of their rights.
Our government has continually tested the waters of public tolerance, IE. Waco, Ruby Ridge, The Patriot Act, Katrina, trying to see how much they can get away with. It is not just a few governmental "corporate" officials who pose an occasional threat. Entire governmental institutions are criminal in execution and intent.
A few decades ago, most officials would say they were bending the Constitution a little for the needs of the moment, until the crisis was over. Lately, the crisis, such as terrorism, will never be over! It seems that now our officials say "F___ the Constitution!", and they get away with it.
And we let them get away with it. Do we ever call our representatives and voice our concern that a piece of proposed legislation would be in violation of the Constitution? The provisions of the Constitution have been ignored or discarded because no pressure from the people has been brought to sustain them.
How long will we allow our Constitution to be compromised by the wind of political changes and special interest demands? Must our own blood be shed to get people to take the Constitution seriously again?
Michelle
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Sept 17, 2005 23:41:32 GMT 4
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
> * 29 have been accused of spousal abuse > * 7 have been arrested for fraud > * 19 have been accused of writing bad checks > * 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses > * 3 have done time for assault > * 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit > * 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges > * 8 have been arrested for shoplifting > * 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits > * 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...
Can you guess which organization this is?
Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep primarily the Americans and, by default, the rest of us in line.
Someones gotta be joking.....
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 18, 2005 2:09:54 GMT 4
This is of major importance to every American. It was aired on public access TV in 1997 .
The current composite figure for cities, counties, state and federal governments of liquid investment funds is in excess of 60 trillion dollars. That's right folks, our whining that they're broke feds, states, counties, cities, school districts, all of them, are hiding and using public monies.
The United States was established for the public to rule, for everyone's prosperity, not just a few. This country is going down the tubes because, "we have greed taking place on an unprecedented level in all levels of city, county, state/federal government. Empire building, power mongering."
All one has to do is request and read the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR] from these institutions. You can see the incredible wealth that is rightfully ours. Read about government investment pools and how they continue to unlawfully tax the people.
Our politicians are lying to our face. Why do you think they shell out tons of cash over and above salaries paid to public servants?
Take your time, it's long, and read more at: www.nonwo.com/biggestgame/ Then, get mad, spread the word, and don't forget to come back here and comment.
I want my country back, NOW! Michelle
|
|
james
Full Member
Posts: 62
|
Post by james on Sept 18, 2005 4:54:45 GMT 4
Someones gotta be joking..... No joke Anwaar and this is just the misdemeanor list it's the crimes against humanity list that makes my blood boil and all 535 of them are guilty of that.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 24, 2005 22:02:40 GMT 4
15 points based upon historical evidence:
1st: In 1863, Lincoln instituted martial law. He ordered that the states (people) either conscribe troops and provide money in support of the North or be recognized as an enemy of the nation. This martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today - what it means is that the President has dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by the government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders.
2nd: The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter "Corp. U.S.") owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.
3rd: In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment. The national constitution's 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are respectively numbered 14th, 15th and 16th amendments in their constitution.
4th: The corporation began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
5th: As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system-again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.
6th: Almost simultaneously with the last fact (also in 1913), Corp. U.S. passes and adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. It must be noted that this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that it did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations. We agree, considering that they were created under the authority of Corp. U.S.
7th: Next (also 1913) Congress passed and entered the 17th amendment as ratified, even though the states had no opportunity to ratify the same. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected.
8th: In 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for re-election in 1913 by popular vote are seated in Corp. U.S. capacity only.
9th: In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters WWI and passes their Emergency War Powers, and Trading with the Enemies Acts.
10th: In 1918, President Wilson is re-elected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where in the new Corp. U.S., only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation. The only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers.
11th: In 1933, the Trading with the Enemies Act is adjusted to recognize the people of the United States of America as enemies of Corp. U.S.
12th: In 1944, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, Corp. U.S. is quit claimed to the International Monetary Fund, and becomes a foreign controlled private corporation.
13th: Some time after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. They create an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and a depository account number in the Social Security General Trust Fund (GTF). They give you the Social Security card which identifies you as the single person with authority to control the entity they created (on review: you may notice that the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, the GTF is its beneficiary and you were made its Trustee.) More importantly: this capacity does not limit you or your capacity to act in your sovereign capacity in any way.
14th: In 1968, at the national governors' conference in Lexington, Kentucky, the IMF leaders of the event proposed the dilemma the State governors were in for carrying out their business dealings in Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, alleging that if they did not do something to protect themselves the people would discover what had been done with their money and would likely kill them all and start over. They suggested the States form corporations like Corp. U.S. and showed the advantages of the resultant uniform codes that could be created, which would allow better and more powerful control over the people.
15th: By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 26, 2005 2:02:40 GMT 4
THAT DARN PATRIOT ACT!!!!Published at the NATION, Sept. 22, 2005 www.thenation.com/doc/20051010/cornThe FBI Fails (For Now) to Grab Subpoena Powers David Corn Has the FBI failed in a Bush-blessed, attempted power-grab? With several key provisions of the controversial Patriot Act set to expire later this year, Congress has been working for months on legislation that would extend and perhaps restrict those provisions. Most of the debate has concerned whether the Patriot Act went too far and has focused on the measure's Section 215, which allows the FBI to obtain library records and other "tangible things" in a terrorism or national security investigation by obtaining a warrant from the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. But the FBI, with the presumed approval of the White House, has been pushing for power that would go beyond that of the controversial Section 215. In particular, the bureau has wanted the new Patriot Act measure to award it the right to issue administrative subpoenas. With an administrative subpoena, an FBI agent could--without going to a court or a grand jury--demand that a person or institution hand over any record on another person or organization: financial papers, health records, library records, e-mails and more. The order would be subject to judicial review only if the recipient--say, an Internet service provider--opposed the order. Administrative subpoenas would give the FBI greater power than Section 215 and national security letters. (With a national security letter, the FBI can, without bothering a court, obtain a limited set of information--certain financial documents, credit reports and Internet-use records. But a federal court last year declared national security letters unconstitutional. The Bush Administration has filed an appeal.) Moreover, as Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, notes, "The FBI wants this administrative subpoena power forever"--that is, with no sunset provision. Beating back the FBI's demand for this authority would be a victory for the civil liberties community. And so far, the FBI has been losing. Opposition to FBI administrative subpoenas has united civil libertarians of the left and right. Nancy Libin, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, notes that administrative subpoena power is "really kind of scary. The FBI would have the right to approach any business or person and say, 'Hand over whatever we want,' and a gag order would be attached. You can't challenge the subpoena. You can't talk about it. If an FBI agent wants a grand jury subpoena, he has to go through a prosecutor. It's not just an agent issuing a subpoena. Administrative subpoenas would make Section 215 moot." Paul Rosenzweig, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a prominent champion of the original Patriot Act, says, "I don't like administrative subpoenas. Judges have to be involved. A law that permits the uninhibited exercise of executive authority is bad." And Suzanne Spalding, former assistant general counsel at the CIA, argues that "removing courts is a mistake." In its search for administrative subpoena authority, the FBI turned to the Senate Intelligence Committee. In May, as the committee was considering legislation to reauthorize parts of the Patriot Act, Valerie Caproni, the FBI's general counsel, testified before it, claiming that the bureau desperately needs administrative subpoenas for its terrorism investigations: "We cannot wait to disrupt terrorist acts or to prosecute terrorist crimes after they occur. To stay a step ahead of the terrorists, investigators need tools allowing them to obtain relevant information as quickly as possible." She noted that regulatory agencies that probe healthcare fraud and child abuse can issue administrative subpoenas. But as Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee pointed out in a subsequent report, Caproni, upon being questioned, "could not document significant past or current instances when national security investigations faltered or were hindered due to lack of an administrative subpoena authority." The Democrats also noted that the administrative subpoena power available to other agencies is far more limited than what the FBI has been seeking. And when the Democrats proposed providing administrative subpoena power to the FBI for "emergency use," Republicans on the committee, apparently fronting for the FBI, voted against it. Emergency authority was not good enough; the FBI wanted full and everyday use of this wide-ranging power. Why has the FBI been hellbent on administrative subpoena authority? Rosenzweig says he suspects it is a case of bureaucratic "gimme, gimme, gimme." Robert Litt, a former federal prosecutor and past senior Justice Department official, notes that the FBI "hates having to go through the Department of Justice to get information. But going to an assistant US Attorney to get a subpoena is hardly that burdensome." Litt says the FBI's current drive for administrative subpoena authority is part of a years-long effort to expand the bureau's power that predates September 11, 2001. After 9/11 the Bush Administration proposed antiterrorism legislation that included a provision that would allow the FBI to issue administrative subpoenas. But Congress resisted and stuck to the notion that the FBI's authority to obtain records ought to be subject to judicial review. Congress did relax pre-existing restrictions, giving birth to the infamous Section 215. "None of us who participated in drafting Section 215 thought it would become so controversial, given that we retained FISA court procedures," says Beryl Howell, who at the time was general counsel for the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee. "Originally the FBI wanted administrative subpoenas so they would not have to go to court to get third-party records, so they could bypass courts and prosecutors. Section 215 was a disappointment for the FBI." The FBI lost the battle in 2001 but did not forget about the issue. In June the Republican-controlled Intelligence Committee, led by chairman Pat Roberts, approved Patriot Act legislation that granted the FBI administrative subpoena authority. Under this bill it would be a crime in some instances for the recipient of such a subpoena to tell anyone that he or she had received one. Democratic members of the committee complained that such a gag order "could prevent the recipient of an FBI administrative subpoena from exercising First Amendment rights to protest government action, including by bringing abuses to the attention of members of Congress or Inspectors General." By winning over the Senate Intelligence Committee, the FBI had only managed to clear a low hurdle. "The intelligence committees on the Hill are generally viewed as being held hostage by the agencies they oversee, but the judiciary committees are not," says one former senior Capitol Hill staffer. "Judiciary committee members tend to be more familiar with law enforcement and civil liberties issues and sometimes more skeptical of additional authority. It's par for the course for the FBI to go to the intelligence committees, which say yes, and then it's the judiciary committees' job to say no or to work out a compromise. Usually this happens behind closed doors, with staff aides on the different committees holding informal discussions. But not this year." As the Senate Intelligence Committee was doing the FBI's bidding, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--which also have jurisdiction over the reauthorization of the Patriot Act--signaled that they were cool to idea of administrative subpoena authority. The Republican chairmen of the committees--Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr. and Senator Arlen Specter--both opposed the proposal. They were not swayed by the FBI argument that it has extensive powers to obtain evidence when conducting criminal investigations and should be able to do the same in terrorism and national security cases. "The problem," says Howell, "is that in a criminal investigation there are procedures built in to counterbalance any FBI overreaching. A subpoenaed party can complain to a judge. Grand jury investigations proceed under court supervision. These safety valves do not exist in national security investigations, which tend to be broader investigations than criminal investigations. That's why members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats--have been skeptical of granting the FBI this power." And as Kate Martin points out, if the FBI is investigating suspected terrorists as part of a criminal investigation, it can use all the available criminal tools. A Senate aide who worked on this matter adds, "Given all the concerns regarding Section 215 and the sensitivity of third-party records, people recognized that if you take judges out of the equation--which is what an administrative subpoena does--that would be a step back." Sensenbrenner, a conservative Republican, and Specter, a moderate Republican, ended up crafting different versions of the new Patriot Act legislation. The bill produced by Sensenbrenner's committee (and approved by the full House) preserved the controversial parts of the Patriot Act and extended these measures for ten years. The bill written by Specter's committee (and OK'd by the Senate) applied several new restrictions to these provisions and gave them four more years of life. But both pieces of legislation left out administrative subpoena authority. (The Senate Intelligence Committee's Patriot Act legislation was essentially shoved aside.) Next, the two measures will go to a House-Senate conference, where Specter, Sensenbrenner and other senators and representatives will attempt to produce a compromise bill acceptable to both houses. This might offer the FBI one more shot at obtaining administrative subpoena authority, but Congressional aides say it's unlikely the bureau can overcome opposition from the chairmen of the judiciary committees. But before the House approved its Patriot Act update, Representative Jeff Flake, a Republican, passed a little-noticed amendment that would bolster national security letters. This amendment, according to civil liberties advocates, could eventually become a backdoor for administrative subpoena authority. "The only difference between Flake's amendment and Roberts's administrative subpoena proposal," says Kate Martin, "is that Roberts would permit the seizure of every kind of record and thing, and the Flake amendment only involves those categories of records covered by the existing national security letters. If the Flake amendment gets passed in the final version of this legislation, the FBI will simply try to expand its coverage to everything else." While civil liberties advocates appear to have thwarted the FBI on outright administrative subpoena authority, the bureau has not declared this case closed. The latest tussle is just another round in a battle that is expected to continue. "It's hard to see stopping something bad as a win," says an aide for a Democratic senator who opposed the administrative subpoena proposal. "But we're going to have to come back again and again to keep stopping it." Indeed, in late July--after the House and Senate had produced versions of the Patriot Act legislation without administrative subpoena authority--FBI director Robert Mueller was still urging Congress to hand the FBI such power. "The FBI is always persistent," says Beryl Howell. "They don't give up."
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Sept 26, 2005 20:36:04 GMT 4
Well said Michelle. Here is an email from a group of friends; The Million Email March to Stop John Roberts TAKE ACTION NOW at www.trotn.comThousands and thousands of your fellow citizens are speaking out right now to oppose the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court. They are telling our senators that they don't want a justice who won't let us see any of his memos for the last 20 years. They are telling them they don't want a justice who tried to hide his leadership role in the extremely reactionary Federalist Society. They are telling them the most unpopular second term president in history does NOT have any mandate to appoint his own personal crony to such a position of absolute power. And they need to hear from you too. The question we must ask ourselves is this: If YOU had the power to cast the deciding vote on John Roberts, would you vote your conscience on principle or not? That is how you need to tell your senator they must vote as well, because you DO have that power. We are the American people, and our representatives we elected are there to listen to us and want we really want Especially if you are from Vermont or Wisconsin you must immediately contact Leahy, Feingold and Kohl and tell them they got it WRONG on Roberts in the judiciary committee and they need to correct their error. We already have a president who is incapable of ever admitting or correcting any mistake. We don't need that from our senators too. But whatever state you are from it is important for you to use the action form below to send a personal message to both your senators at one time, plus you can send a letter to the editor of your nearest daily newspaper, all with one click www.trotn.comWho were the self-appointed media pundits who dared to tell us Roberts was a done deal before the hearing even started? Who co-ordinated the corporate media campaign that poisoned our minds with the words of defeatism and submission? Indeed, who has unwittingly collaborated with the right wing talking points merchants by speaking those words of betrayal and resignation out of their own mouths? Why NOT demand what we really want? We are the people of the United States. We don't have to settle for less than we really deserve, a true mainstream justice who will rule fairly for all the people, not just on behalf of a minority of corporate crony friends. How dare anyone tell us Roberts is the best we can hope for. The best we can hope for is what we are BRAVE enough to demand as is our RIGHT by the mandate of our numbers speaking out. TAKE ACTION NOW at www.trotn.comor to get no more simply email to no_more@trotn.com
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 27, 2005 9:00:56 GMT 4
You can read here how the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee caved on Roberts' nomination: www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092205Y.shtmlPresident Bush originally nominated Judge Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist died, the president renominated Roberts to be Chief Justice. Roberts is only 50 years old, so he could be in this position for a very long time. How swell for the neo con's well thought out map to the future. If he becomes Chief Justice, this will have an enormous impact on the Court and on Americans' lives and liberties for decades. Earlier,speaking of memos Roberts wrote during the Regan administration, Senator Russ Feingold [D, WI] said, " in memo after memo, his writings were highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others." By the way, Feingold voted yes because he considered the nominee "a lawyer's lawyer," not an ideologue. [HUH?!!! I'm not kidding here, guess he figured we'd forget that earlier statement] This does not bide well for a chief justice who must consider the opinions of his colleagues and attempt to achieve consensus on the Court. Roberts has chosen to hide his views on privacy, women's health and reproductive freedoms, and a host of other fundamental rights. The Senate and the American people can only conclude that his hostility on these issues is indicative of his agenda. If confirmed as the most senior member of the federal judiciary, Roberts could roll back 70 years of hard-won social justice progress. These things are bad enough. But recently, a serious ethical transgression has come to light that simply disqualifies Roberts from serving on the nation's highest court. In July of this year, Roberts sat on a three-judge D.C. Court of Appeals panel hearing the "Hamdan" case, and voted to uphold the Bush administration's use of military tribunals to try prisoners held on terrorism accusations at Guantanamo Bay. Yet at the same time, he was interviewing for the Supreme Court position with some of the very same Administration officials named in that lawsuit. On July 15th, Roberts met with President Bush [also named a defendant in the suit] for his final Supreme Court interview, and ruled in favor of the Administration in the Hamdan case. Roberts' failure to recuse himself in the Hamdan case demonstrates that he is willing to put his own interests, and those of the Bush Administration, above the ethical standards required of his profession. Judge Roberts should not be allowed to take a seat on our nation's highest court let alone serve as its Chief. Please, please, urge your senators to vote no on Roberts!
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Sept 27, 2005 10:03:28 GMT 4
I followed the link (trotn.com)and signed the No Roberts petition. I included the following in the Personal Message box: Dear sirs; It is What he DID'NT say during his Confirmation Hearings that makes him unnaceptable. Surely a prospective Chief Justice is familiar with the phrase the truth,THE WHOLE TRUTH,and nothing but the truth... Thank you for your time.
It took about three minutes.And I feel very good about doing it.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 28, 2005 9:01:20 GMT 4
PROTESTERS REGISTER DISGUST WITH LEGISLATOR'S PAY GRABHarrisburg, PennsylvaniaHey, this is great AMERICA IS WAKING UP!!!!! At least 1,500 Pennsylvanians stormed their capital in protest over a 16 percent to a 54 percent pay raise the General Assembly approved in July, 2005. The sneaky peats voted it in after midnight, a favorite tactic used by our Washington Congressional members.
An acquaintance who attended the protest and said that the lawmakers hid from them. See in the article where they went as far as to removed their names from their parking spaces. What a bunch of cowardly weenies!
Massive corruption isn't limited to the federal government; it is rampant at all levels of government and institutions. [ Have you read about Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, from reply #2 above @ www.nonwo.com/biggestgame/ ]?
It appears that citizens throughout the United States have had enough and are beginning to reclaim their voice, and power. This just makes my day! MichelleMessage delivered From: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review By Brad Bumsted STATE CAPITOL REPORTER Tuesday, September 27, 2005 www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_378194.htmlHARRISBURG -- At least 1,500 taxpayers braved rain Monday to convey outrage to state lawmakers about the Legislature's 16 percent to 54 percent pay raise the General Assembly approved in July. Chanting "oink, oink" and "no pay raise," protesters demanded a repeal of what they called an illegal pay hike and threatened reprisals at the polls next year. "It's time for a political enema," Eric Epstein, the rally's organizer, told the crowd. The protesters delivered petitions with 129,000 signatures calling for repeal of the law to Gov. Ed Rendell, Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer, R-Altoona, and House Speaker John Perzel, R-Philadelphia. A 25-foot inflatable pig at the top of the Capitol steps presided over the protest, one of the largest at the Capitol in recent years. Frank Kane, spokesman for the Department of General Services, which oversees the Capitol grounds, estimated the crowd at 1,500 to 2,000 people. A similar-sized crowd represented doctors seeking medical malpractice reform in 2003. Building trade unions brought in about 15,000 workers in 1997, Kane said. "No place else do I know that you can vote yourself a raise," said protester Michele Diehl, 41, of Greensburg, the Westmoreland County coordinator for a group spawned by the pay hike called Pacleansweep.com. "They're very arrogant about it and condescending to taxpayers," said Diehl, a stay-at-home mom who homeschools her children. What angers her most is that lawmakers "hide in their offices and won't take responsibility," she said. The scarcity of lawmakers to answer to protestors quickly became apparent to the crowd. Senators' names had been removed from their prime parking spots in front of the Capitol. The protestors rang cow bells and blew whistles, making noise that was clearly audible to legislative staffers in first-floor offices. Aides to Rendell, Perzel and Jubelirer would not let Bob Durgin, a Harrisburg radio talk show host, inside offices when he tried to deliver the petitions. Beth Williams, Perzel's press secretary, said the speaker's office wasn't big enough for Durgin, the boxes of petitions and about 50 people accompanying him. She asked Durgin to place the petitions on a table outside the speaker's door. "Where's the speaker?" the crowd chanted. "We want the speaker." Williams first said Perzel was inside meeting with staff, and later said that he was doing his job presiding over the House. When the crowd continued to press to see Perzel personally, Williams told reporters, "The governor originally came up with the idea of the pay increase." Kate Philips, Rendell's press secretary, said that wasn't true. She said Rendell only sought increases for his Cabinet members. Top state officials and judges also got raises under the bill. The same scene played out in Rendell's outer office, with protestors demanding to see him. Some shouted "coward" and "where's the governor?" Rendell was in Philadelphia, Philips said. Jubelirer wasn't available, either. David Atkinson, his executive assistant, said Jubelirer was aware the petitions were being delivered and knew how many had signed them. "This is a prodigious effort, an impressive effort," Atkinson said. What affects senators most is hearing from constituents, he said. Several bills to repeal the raises are pending in the House. Atkinson said he has heard the Senate also will draft a version. Some legislators have said they work hard and deserve the raise. That doesn't sit well with Gerald Schiller, 67, a retired Westinghouse and PPG employee from Penn Hills. "It's just outrageous. They claim they work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's just not true," Schiller said. "They're lying. It's an insult to taxpayers." His brother, Frank Schiller, 73, a retiree from Wilkins Township, said he's angered by legislators taking the raise now as unvouchered expenses and giving themselves a raise when they already get an automatic cost-of-living increase each year. The unvouchered expenses clause sidesteps a state constitutional prohibition against lawmakers raising their pay during their term. About half of state legislators are taking the raise early. Many people attending the rally said they were bothered by lawmakers' voting on the raises in the middle of the night with no debate or public input. Doing it after midnight was "unconscionable," said Mary Bach, of Murrysville, a Franklin Regional school board member. What's needed for substantive reform of the Legislature is a state constitutional convention, said former state Rep. Pat Carone of Lebanon, who represented a House district in Butler County from 1991-98 as a Republican and a Democrat. A constitutional convention -- the last was held in 1967-68 -- could be used to reduce the size of the Legislature, Carone said. The 253-member assembly is the largest full-time legislature in the nation. The numbers are "unwieldy," Carone said, and contribute to the dearth of sound public policy in Pennsylvania. "The dilemma is that only the Legislature can call a constitutional convention." Brad Bumsted can be reached at bbumsted@tribweb.com or (717) 787-1405.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 1, 2005 16:26:02 GMT 4
SORRY FOLKS, HERE'S THE BAD NEWS ON JUDGE ROBERTS I am so disgusted! Michelle:
Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate Thursday, September 29, 2005:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Oct 2, 2005 8:26:03 GMT 4
I thought I might add this:
WASHINGTON - September 29 - People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas released the following statement regarding the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States.
"We are deeply disappointed that John Roberts has been confirmed to a lifetime position as Chief Justice of the United States. Nominees for powerful lifetime positions on the Supreme Court have an obligation to demonstrate that they have a basic commitment to Americans’ constitutional rights and legal protections. We believe that Judge Roberts did not meet this burden. Now that he has been confirmed, we wish John Roberts well, and hope that he will use his intellect and his abilities to serve all Americans with a fair and even hand. Only time will tell his place in history.
We applaud those who opposed Judge Roberts based on his record and his testimony. We are disappointed with those Democrats and moderate Republicans who chose to support Judge Roberts, despite his long record of working to undermine rights and legal protections, his evasive answers to the Senate, and the Bush administration’s continued refusal to release key documents that would have illuminated his record and approach to the Constitution. But we are pleased that many of those same senators have said they would oppose any effort by President Bush to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor with an ideologue who would push the Court to the right.
The stakes are particularly high with the replacement for O’Connor, a mainstream conservative who often provided the decisive vote to uphold many rights and legal protections. Whoever is confirmed to take Justice O’Connor’s seat will be crucial to freedom from discrimination in the workplace, in education, in housing, and in the voting booth; privacy and reproductive rights; environmental protection; religious liberty; and immigrant rights.
We commend Senators Reid and Leahy for their joint appeal to President Bush to reject ideological activists to replace Justice O’Connor, and choose a mainstream nominee who can draw broad, bipartisan support.
With Roberts leading the Court for as many as 40 years, the O’Connor seat is the tipping point. Her successor will determine our rights and freedoms for years to come. Within the next few days, the fight for our future could begin all over again. The choice rests with the President." #### The Roberts era. One shudders to contemplate it. The highest court in the land is now in the hands of the guy who carried Ken Starr's notebooks around. This is horrible.Just horrible...
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 4, 2005 3:47:54 GMT 4
Today, Bush picked White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.
As the New York Times reports, this "Longtime Confidante of Bush has Never Been a Judge." While a partner of a Dallas law firm, Miers first worked for Bush as his personal attorney in 1993. She subsequently served as counsel to his gubernatorial campaigns, and was involved in the litigation effort in Bush vs. Gore . Before being named White House counsel earlier this year, she served as the President's staff secretary, reviewing every piece of paper that crossed his desk.
Now in the past, some of our Supreme Court Justices did not have judicial histories, but these are different times today. This seat is one of extreme importance because it will be critical in the balance with respect to rulings on congressional authority, as well as a woman's right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of constitutional law in the United States. The choice to replace O'Connor, a key swing vote, could be pivotal.
And come on folks, she's Bush's personal attorney. And then there's this: Even former White House speechwriter, David Frum, questioned Miers' suitability for the post: "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal:She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." [It hurts when I laugh]Need I say more?!
Here's some facts on Harriet Miers from MoveOn.org and what you might want to do:This morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers is a long-time political appointee, campaign counsel, personal lawyer and Bush loyalist who has never served as a judge. Ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown taught us that vital national positions must be filled with qualified candidates, not political friends with limited experience. With such a thin public record, how can Americans know Harriet Miers' approach to critical issues like corporate power, privacy and civil rights? Right now we urgently need more information, and we need your help to get it. In the next few hours the Internet will fill with facts, anecdotes and rumors about Harriet Miers. We need your help to sort through it all, select the relevant and important details, and let us know what you find—decentralized, grassroots research. We've set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We'll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn's course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time. You can post facts right now at: www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-5216511-yBwV.Q6PJ_uCwVOV.nJ3ww&t=3Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research. 1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School 1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes 1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell 1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association 1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors 1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council 1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar 1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign 1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush 1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm 1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp 2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary 2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush 2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy 2004—Selected as White House Counsel There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including: What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council? What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission? What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for? What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role? Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush? It's important that we move quickly in answering these questions. The Bush spin machine has been prepared for this nomination for some time and is already cranking at full speed. The strategy is to move Miers through as an enigma. We need to make sure the facts about her views are known. This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together. Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find at: www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-5216511-yBwV.Q6PJ_uCwVOV.nJ3ww&t=4Thanks for all that you do, –Ben, Marika, Rosalyn, Joan and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Monday, October 3rd, 2005
|
|
Anwaar
Administrator
Speak the truth and keep on coming.
Posts: 463
|
Post by Anwaar on Oct 5, 2005 21:44:31 GMT 4
Here is more on Miers; Miers' Views, Actions Draw More Scrutiny AP - Wed Oct 5,10:20 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers backed equal rights for gays, favored the advancement of women and minorities, and packed a Smith & Wesson revolver as she exercised her right to bear arms. And some of her actions clearly suggest she opposes abortion. Decade-old writings, a 1989 campaign questionnaire — even a ticket purchase from years past — are getting closer scrutiny as Republicans and Democrats furiously try to figure out where President Bush's choice stands on the most contentious issues. Source : news.yahoo.com/fc/us/Supreme_Court
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 6, 2005 7:38:36 GMT 4
40 Years of Executive Orders Trashes Our Constitutional Guarantee of Liberty
A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is bypassed.
Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen.
It should be noted that over time, some of the following Executive Orders have been rescinded or replaced by others. But the true terror to our liberty rests with the ease in which they can be issued and how earlier orders are frequently replaced by those of a more draconian nature:
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation. General Frank Salzedo, chief of FEMA's Civil Security Division stated in a 1983 conference that he saw FEMA's role as a "new frontier in the protection of individual and governmental leaders from assassination, and of civil and military installations from sabotage and/or attack, as well as prevention of dissident groups from gaining access to U.S. opinion, or a global audience in times of crisis."
The Violent Crime Control Act of 1991 provides additional powers to the President of the United States, allowing the suspension of the Constitution and Constitutional rights of Americans during a "drug crisis". It provides for the construction of detention camps, seizure of property, and military control of populated areas.
When the Constitution of the United States was framed it placed the exclusive legislative authority in the hands of Congress and with the President. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "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." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.
Perhaps it can be summed up succinctly in the words of conservative activist Howard J. Ruff. "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."
|
|