As Congress held more hearings on Benghazi, the poster boy for all Pompous Ass Clowns, Senator John Kerry, presumably sucking up to Obama (in order to get the Sectretary of State position), but giving just enough criticism on the State Department, probably in order to make him look like an upgrade over Hilary Clinton, defended the Administration and saying that Congress shares some blame. Really!
I am not a Hiliary Clinton fan, but she has more capability in her big toe than Kerry ever or will have.
Kerry, of Vietnam War Protestor fame, said Congress should have funded better security efforts.
Another Democratic Senator, who name I could not re-call, but whose intellect is wanting, even tried to defect the quest for the truth by blaming Mitt Romney for "unfairly" blaming Obama for the Benghazi mess.
The quest for the truth was not in play today, however if Romney blamed the Benghazi debacle on Obama, he did so in the context that Obama lied about the terrorist attacks, instead choosing to chalk it up to a riot of a anti-Mohammed video.
And lie about it Obama did. The motive, not apparent at first, was as simple as to supportuntil the elections were over, Obama's advertising that Al Qaeda was finished. It would not do for Al Qaeda Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM) to be given the blame for what they did to four Americans at the Banghazi consulate. It would have questioned Obama's foreign policy creds in what people thought was a tight election.
What is also lost, besides holding Obama liable for lying, is the bigger sin in not responding to Americans pinned down by the terrorists. Unforgiveable.
Also unanswered is the Obama lie about ordering a response, in which the execute order has never appeared - likely because there was none. And why are Americans miltary leaders getting removed left and right?
If there is some alturistic motive about lying to the American people, then lets hear it. But not responding, when we had the capability, to Americans taking fire and pinned down is pathetic and reprehensible.
And make no mistake about it, the Republicans are to blame for not getting to the facts over Benghazi. It makes it seen like all of Congress is a rich boys club pulling the wool over the People's eyes.
The day after I posted the above, Obama comes out and nominates Kerry for Secretary of State - I told you so. It was thanks for standing up and giving excuses for he Adminstration in the Benghazi hearings.
Then Yahoo conducts an on-line poll with the question: Is John Kerry a strong choice for Secretary of State?
With 112,957 voting:
Yes, he has what it takes: 45%
No, he's not the right pick: 55%
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
Mychal Massie recently sent out an e-mail with his top five political speeches of all time. Now that's a hard choice to make, trying to choose five of the best speeches from all of the great American patriots since the Founding Fathers, but I think I'll go with Mychal Massie's list. In fact, over the new month or two, I'll post these speeches which you can also find through the Mychal Massie link on the left hand side.
Madison's speech was instrumental in getting the new States to accept a Bill of Rights for which affirms our God granted rights, some of which are under assault and are in danger of being modified or going away as I write this.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the House. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a Committee of the whole, I think we might have rose and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended upon what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures of the several States, conformably to the fifth article of the constitution.
I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe, that if Congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them.
I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.
It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.
But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures.
I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.
It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated, because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption.
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:
"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;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Sixthly, That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:
But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.
Seventhly, That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
Eighthly, That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.
Ninthly, That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.
The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.
But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.
It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.
But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.
In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established.
Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.
It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the
In the next place, I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares that the number of Representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one Representative to every State which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the State conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of Representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the Government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the Legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the House of Representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever Congress should go into the consideration of amendments.
There are several minor cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the Legislature to ascertain its own emolument, is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of Government, is likely to be abused. Perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone, therefore, so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation shall operate until there is a change in the Legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service.
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind of those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controversy amounts to a particular sum; this, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped, will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution.
I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.
These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentleman will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the Government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow-citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.
Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this House the subject of amendments, and also stated such as I wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support, I shall content myself, for the present, with moving "that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the States, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States." By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the House. I should advocate greater despatch in the business of amendments, if I were not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the Government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow- citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government.
Madison's speech was instrumental in getting the new States to accept a Bill of Rights for which affirms our God granted rights, some of which are under assault and are in danger of being modified or going away as I write this.
Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights
I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the House. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a Committee of the whole, I think we might have rose and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended upon what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures of the several States, conformably to the fifth article of the constitution.
I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe, that if Congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them.
I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.
It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.
But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures.
I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.
It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated, because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption.
The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:
First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.
That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.
Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:
"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;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."
Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."
Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Sixthly, That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:
But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.
Seventhly, That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.
Eighthly, That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.
Ninthly, That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.
The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.
But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.
It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.
In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.
But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.
In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.
It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established.
Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.
It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.
I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the
In the next place, I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares that the number of Representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one Representative to every State which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the State conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of Representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the Government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the Legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the House of Representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever Congress should go into the consideration of amendments.
There are several minor cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the Legislature to ascertain its own emolument, is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of Government, is likely to be abused. Perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone, therefore, so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation shall operate until there is a change in the Legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service.
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind of those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controversy amounts to a particular sum; this, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped, will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution.
I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.
These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentleman will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the Government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow-citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.
Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this House the subject of amendments, and also stated such as I wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support, I shall content myself, for the present, with moving "that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the States, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States." By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the House. I should advocate greater despatch in the business of amendments, if I were not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the Government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow- citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Hypocrite
President Barack Obama assured the grieving, Sandy Hill Elementary School community of Newtown on Sunday that "you are not alone" and vowed sternly to wield "whatever power this office holds" in a quest to prevent future mass shootings.
"We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. In the coming weeks, I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents, and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have?" Obama said.
All this coming from the man who with Eric Holder refuses to answers questions on the infamous Justice Department planned and lead gun running scandal called "Fast and Furious" which exported over 2,000 assault weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels,... resulting in a low ball estimate of 3,000 murders of Mexican citizens and two Federal Law Enforcement officers. Hypocrite.
Obama is all over the place and the news concerning the heinous murder of children and adult school teachers and staff,..as he should be, but is absent on Fast and Furious and absent on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Libya which resulted in four American deaths. Hypocrite.
And just when you thught you heard enough there is a reported Obama fund raiser going out with a video of Obama's speech about Sandy Hill, asking for contributions. Hypocrite.
"We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. In the coming weeks, I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents, and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have?" Obama said.
All this coming from the man who with Eric Holder refuses to answers questions on the infamous Justice Department planned and lead gun running scandal called "Fast and Furious" which exported over 2,000 assault weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels,... resulting in a low ball estimate of 3,000 murders of Mexican citizens and two Federal Law Enforcement officers. Hypocrite.
Obama is all over the place and the news concerning the heinous murder of children and adult school teachers and staff,..as he should be, but is absent on Fast and Furious and absent on the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Libya which resulted in four American deaths. Hypocrite.
And just when you thught you heard enough there is a reported Obama fund raiser going out with a video of Obama's speech about Sandy Hill, asking for contributions. Hypocrite.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Impending Tax Changes in 2013
Everybody's taxes are going up, even though the grand Poobah himself, Obama, declared that raising taxes during a poor economy (indeed a recession) is a bad idea. We are on the verge of virtually everything going up,...taxes, food, fuel, housing, interest rates,....everything.
The great descent, indeed a free fall, over the Fiscal Cliff is no myth. Just wait and see. If Congress and this President do nothing before 31 December, on 1 January 2013 you will see the changes outlined in the chart below, courtesy of Bankrate.com and also viewable on the Yahoo Finance article here.
The great descent, indeed a free fall, over the Fiscal Cliff is no myth. Just wait and see. If Congress and this President do nothing before 31 December, on 1 January 2013 you will see the changes outlined in the chart below, courtesy of Bankrate.com and also viewable on the Yahoo Finance article here.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Benghazi,...Maybe We'll Find Out Some Answers Soon
Such as:
1. Why did the Administration, for up to two weeks following the attack that left the U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans dead, continually refer to the terrorist attack as caused by a populat riot against a anti-muslim video?
2. Who pressured Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations, to back up the Administration claims of a riot gone wild? Why is she unrepetent?
3. Why did the U.S. military assets in the region not respond, given the response time of one to two hours, when Americans held out against terrorists for up to seven hours?
4. Why did the President say on television that he ordered the military the respond, but no media has followed up to determine when did he order it, and/or ask for a written copy of the execute order?
5. Why were key military leaders removed , one frm AFRICOM, General Ham and the Naval Admiral, Rear Admiral Gaudette, in days following this failure to protect American citizens?
6. Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified behind closed doors before the Senate Intelligence Committee about the attack in November and told congressonal leaders that the intelligence report that went to the White House clearly dicatated a planned terrorist attack. If Ambassador Rice was given intelligence from the White House, who changed it from terrorist attack to "mob frenzy" and who ordered it?
Along with Clinton testifying, an "independent review" by the State Department on the findings concerning how the Libyan threats and consulate security were handled.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Tea Party Revival
Grover Nordquist Predicts Second Tea Party Wave which is a no-brainer considerating how out of control the Federal Government is with spending (and wasting) taxpayers money and having the audacity to ask for even more taxes!!
The Republican Party, under the butt clown Boehner looks to waffling by agreeing to tax increases furthering the ire and subsequent wrath of Americans, or at least those Americans with American values.
The Republican Party, under the butt clown Boehner looks to waffling by agreeing to tax increases furthering the ire and subsequent wrath of Americans, or at least those Americans with American values.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Jobs Truths
A couple examples of what you are not hearing in the mainstram media concerning the jobs situation. Although you did hear that the unemployment rate dropped down to 7.7%. Do you wonder why? Two things actually, the Obama Administration changing the way unemployment is figured, dropping the long term unemployed who have stopped looking for work or those who have taken menial part time jobs from the accounting, and, the fact that over 600,000 of the reported new jobs created in the last 5-6 months have been government employees.
73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government by Terence P. Jeffrey of CNS News, see report here.
Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.
By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.
In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.
And another indication of Obama's failed economy that you won't see in the mainstream media is that Citigroup Plans to Cut 11,000 Jobs read the full article here, by Jennifer Booton.
To save more than $1 billion annually, Citigroup said this week that it plans to axe 11,000 jobs -- mostly in operations and technology -- and tighten expenses company wide.
The New York-based bank will realize about $900 million in savings in 2013, followed by more than $1.1 billion in annual savings beginning in 2014, though a Citi executive hinted in an interview with FOX Business's Elizabeth MacDonald that more cuts could be on the horizon.
"I don't think anyone can come to the conclusion the bank is going to sit back and do nothing else," the person told MacDonald. "(Citi CEO Michael) Corbat said in October he now wants to focus on operational efficiency; layoffs shouldn't be a surprise."
The latest round of cuts, which will result in a pre-tax charge of $1 billion in the fourth quarter and another $100 million in the first half of 2013, is expected to provide Citigroup the flexibility it needs to reinvest in profitable lines of business and in emerging markets.
Citibank's plan is obviously in response to Obama's plan to raise taxes across the board not to mention the obscene costs that Obamacare will bring to all businesses.
73% of New Jobs Created in Last 5 Months Are in Government by Terence P. Jeffrey of CNS News, see report here.
Seventy-three percent of the new civilian jobs created in the United States over the last five months are in government, according to official data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June, a total of 142,415,000 people were employed in the U.S, according to the BLS, including 19,938,000 who were employed by federal, state and local governments.
By November, according to data BLS released today, the total number of people employed had climbed to 143,262,000, an overall increase of 847,000 in the six months since June.
In the same five-month period since June, the number of people employed by government increased by 621,000 to 20,559,000. These 621,000 new government jobs created in the last five months equal 73.3 percent of the 847,000 new jobs created overall.
And another indication of Obama's failed economy that you won't see in the mainstream media is that Citigroup Plans to Cut 11,000 Jobs read the full article here, by Jennifer Booton.
To save more than $1 billion annually, Citigroup said this week that it plans to axe 11,000 jobs -- mostly in operations and technology -- and tighten expenses company wide.
The New York-based bank will realize about $900 million in savings in 2013, followed by more than $1.1 billion in annual savings beginning in 2014, though a Citi executive hinted in an interview with FOX Business's Elizabeth MacDonald that more cuts could be on the horizon.
"I don't think anyone can come to the conclusion the bank is going to sit back and do nothing else," the person told MacDonald. "(Citi CEO Michael) Corbat said in October he now wants to focus on operational efficiency; layoffs shouldn't be a surprise."
The latest round of cuts, which will result in a pre-tax charge of $1 billion in the fourth quarter and another $100 million in the first half of 2013, is expected to provide Citigroup the flexibility it needs to reinvest in profitable lines of business and in emerging markets.
Citibank's plan is obviously in response to Obama's plan to raise taxes across the board not to mention the obscene costs that Obamacare will bring to all businesses.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Unbelieveable News, Mid December Edition
Several things in the news struck me as unbelieveable.
Obama approval rises. Unbelieveable as the jobless rate climbs; as Obama in the shadow of the looimg fiscal cliff hasn't met face to face with Congress since November 16th and now has went on vaction through the end of December; as the federal debt climbs to well over $16 Trillion, and as Obama asked Congress to do away with the debt limit and let him spend on whatever he wants to spend it on.
Unbelieveable that Obama is spending $4 million of tax payer money for his vacation while people reside in New York and New Jersey without power or running water while FEMA sits idly by; and Obama renders his suport for unions fighting against the "right to work" legislation being pushed by more and more states. Why would anyone be against the right to work without paying union dues? Because the Unions want workers to be forced to pay union dues to work so they have a bigger war chest to put forth a political agenda to keep Obama and other socialist/communist in charge.
Unbelievable that a West Point Cadet quits West Point without incuring any pay back costs for his education nor required military service. Then he is allowed to run his stinking pie hole about how his "rights" were abused because West Point is a culture that promotes prayer and religious activities and "disrespects nonreligious cadets". Well here's a clue you ass clown of a human being, there are no non-religious people when people are shooting at you. And the main reason people are trying to kill us now days is because WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION, no matter what Preident Obama says.
Oh, by the way, the Cadet's name is Page, and he is being medically disqualified because of clinical depression and anxiety. He (Page the whiner) said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year. Page plans of living with his grandparents - probably drawing social security disability for emotional problems. I for one am glad as hell he did not get into a position to lead this country's best.
Obama approval rises. Unbelieveable as the jobless rate climbs; as Obama in the shadow of the looimg fiscal cliff hasn't met face to face with Congress since November 16th and now has went on vaction through the end of December; as the federal debt climbs to well over $16 Trillion, and as Obama asked Congress to do away with the debt limit and let him spend on whatever he wants to spend it on.
Unbelieveable that Obama is spending $4 million of tax payer money for his vacation while people reside in New York and New Jersey without power or running water while FEMA sits idly by; and Obama renders his suport for unions fighting against the "right to work" legislation being pushed by more and more states. Why would anyone be against the right to work without paying union dues? Because the Unions want workers to be forced to pay union dues to work so they have a bigger war chest to put forth a political agenda to keep Obama and other socialist/communist in charge.
Unbelievable that a West Point Cadet quits West Point without incuring any pay back costs for his education nor required military service. Then he is allowed to run his stinking pie hole about how his "rights" were abused because West Point is a culture that promotes prayer and religious activities and "disrespects nonreligious cadets". Well here's a clue you ass clown of a human being, there are no non-religious people when people are shooting at you. And the main reason people are trying to kill us now days is because WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION, no matter what Preident Obama says.
Oh, by the way, the Cadet's name is Page, and he is being medically disqualified because of clinical depression and anxiety. He (Page the whiner) said his condition has gotten worse since his father killed himself last year. Page plans of living with his grandparents - probably drawing social security disability for emotional problems. I for one am glad as hell he did not get into a position to lead this country's best.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Labor Unions Destroying Businesses
Mychal Massie and the Daily Rant on Unions, specifically the Hostess (Twinkee) case. I was wondering just how thankful members of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union were this past Thanksgiving. Specifically those formerly employed by Hostess.
The brilliant job of guidance and concern the union provided and showed for the Hostess workers has to stand as one of their pivotal achievements. Their example of negotiation was a stellar example of the reason the members had paid their dues for so many years. Given the choice of accepting the concessions requested by Hostess and keeping their jobs, the union ordered the workers to strike. The union's idea being that they would show those evil owners who had explained that the concessions were necessary because their liabilities were 2.5 greater than their assets.
Of course, I'm being facetious. My point is that the union people will suffer because of the action Hostess was forced to take because of the union bosses.
Union president, Frank Hurt, may have opined that "Hostess Brands is making a mockery of the labor relations system that has been in place for nearly 100 years." But as Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn pointed out the arithmetic speaks for itself saying: "We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike."
Thus, Hostess is scheduled to close its doors, and the inflexible union employees found their Thanksgiving a somber event. Their Christmas will not be any better. It's reasonably uncertain that they will receive their first unemployment check by Christmas. But their union president will suffer no such concerns.
This should be a grime reminder to Walmart employees who have been under assault to become unionized for at least several years. And it should certainly be a reminder to other union members that businesses cannot continue to yield to every union demand. It should also give workers cause to question not only why they need union representation but also to consider why unions are even needed.
Meritorious pay raises, reasonable participation in health co-pays, the number of vacation and sick days, can be worked out without union gangsters and thugs using threats and intimidation. Union protests may make for good theater on the evening news, but it doesn't help companies like Hostess stay in business.
The brilliant job of guidance and concern the union provided and showed for the Hostess workers has to stand as one of their pivotal achievements. Their example of negotiation was a stellar example of the reason the members had paid their dues for so many years. Given the choice of accepting the concessions requested by Hostess and keeping their jobs, the union ordered the workers to strike. The union's idea being that they would show those evil owners who had explained that the concessions were necessary because their liabilities were 2.5 greater than their assets.
Of course, I'm being facetious. My point is that the union people will suffer because of the action Hostess was forced to take because of the union bosses.
Union president, Frank Hurt, may have opined that "Hostess Brands is making a mockery of the labor relations system that has been in place for nearly 100 years." But as Hostess CEO Gregory F. Rayburn pointed out the arithmetic speaks for itself saying: "We simply do not have the financial resources to survive an ongoing national strike."
Thus, Hostess is scheduled to close its doors, and the inflexible union employees found their Thanksgiving a somber event. Their Christmas will not be any better. It's reasonably uncertain that they will receive their first unemployment check by Christmas. But their union president will suffer no such concerns.
This should be a grime reminder to Walmart employees who have been under assault to become unionized for at least several years. And it should certainly be a reminder to other union members that businesses cannot continue to yield to every union demand. It should also give workers cause to question not only why they need union representation but also to consider why unions are even needed.
Meritorious pay raises, reasonable participation in health co-pays, the number of vacation and sick days, can be worked out without union gangsters and thugs using threats and intimidation. Union protests may make for good theater on the evening news, but it doesn't help companies like Hostess stay in business.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Humor - Mohammed Changes his Name
~ Warning: this is not Politically Correct,.....as if we care. Thanks Wayne ~
Mohammad entered his classroom on the first day of school.
"What's your name?" asked the teacher.
"Mohammad," he replied.
"You're in Australia now," replied the teacher, "So from now on you will be known as Kevin." Mohammad returned home after school.
"How was your day, Mohammad?" his mother asked.
"My name is not Mohammad. I'm in Australia and now my name is Kevin."
"Are you ashamed of your name? Are you trying to dishonor your parents, your heritage, your religion? Shame on you!" And his mother beat him. Then she called his father, who beat him again.
The next day Mohammad returned to school. The teacher saw all of his bruises. "What happened to you, Kevin?? she asked.
"Well miss, shortly after becoming an Australian, I was attacked by two f*$%king Arabs."
Mohammad entered his classroom on the first day of school.
"What's your name?" asked the teacher.
"Mohammad," he replied.
"You're in Australia now," replied the teacher, "So from now on you will be known as Kevin." Mohammad returned home after school.
"How was your day, Mohammad?" his mother asked.
"My name is not Mohammad. I'm in Australia and now my name is Kevin."
"Are you ashamed of your name? Are you trying to dishonor your parents, your heritage, your religion? Shame on you!" And his mother beat him. Then she called his father, who beat him again.
The next day Mohammad returned to school. The teacher saw all of his bruises. "What happened to you, Kevin?? she asked.
"Well miss, shortly after becoming an Australian, I was attacked by two f*$%king Arabs."
Friday, November 30, 2012
Government Assault on Religious Liberties
Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. CEO and founder, David Green:
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees.
We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage. But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.
We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs.
It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. Yet that's not true.
The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. Yet it won't exempt them for reasons of proven religious beliefs.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than 500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our employees.
We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start at 80% above minimum wage. But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.
We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four years running.
Our government threatens to fine a family for running its business according to its beliefs.
It's not right. I know people will say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the same for everybody. Yet that's not true.
The government has exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of convenience or cost. Yet it won't exempt them for reasons of proven religious beliefs.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice. With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the government is going to make that much more difficult. The government is forcing us to choose between following our faith and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of companies but will not except Christian organizations including the Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media, please pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Lame Stream Media - Lap Dogs for Highest Bidder?
Lame Stream Media - Lap Dogs for Highest Bidder? We have often accused the main stream (aka lame stream) media as beng lap dogs for Obama and any George Soros sponsored causes. Now if appears some of them are also lap dogs for foreign governments manipulating the news to benefit these foreign countries.
New reports, buried by liberal media reveals CNN is paid by foreign governments to produce content disguised as news.
Former CNN Journalist Amber Lyon: "I started getting employees at CNN, longtime employees, approaching me saying, “You should investigate this. This is very suspicious. Something’s going on here.”
"And we found out that, which was really, I felt defrauded as a journalist, we found out that at the same time I was being detained and risking my life to expose the Bahrain regime, CNN International is taking money from them in exchange for producing content that it airs on CNN International. Content disguised as news."
"I mean one of these programs, the reporter, Richard Quest, was reporting live from Bahrain for a week. And on a program called iList, and that program made Bahrain seem progressive. And the crown prince was a reformer."
"And as an employee at CNN, I was never told that this was going on. Also viewers are not being told that CNN is being paid by state regimes some with horrific human rights records to air content disguised as news, which they’re often not even telling the viewers that this content was paid for by government. And, Alex, on a journalistic level, this is horrific."
From the Alex Jones Channel:
The Amber Lyon story is just the latest in a series of articles that expose the total Joseph Goebbels like censorship rampant in mainstream media today. The first one I posted several weeks ago exposed how the NY Times basically just regurgitates whatever government officials tell them, while the other showcased how an NPR reporter covering D.C. had to leave and do her own thing out of frustration. This is precisely why alternative media sites are taking off. They provide the only outlets left for genuine journalism.
So back to Amber. Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK's Guardian writes in his blockbuster article:
"In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives' abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime."
Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.
Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she "saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn't believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting."
New reports, buried by liberal media reveals CNN is paid by foreign governments to produce content disguised as news.
Former CNN Journalist Amber Lyon: "I started getting employees at CNN, longtime employees, approaching me saying, “You should investigate this. This is very suspicious. Something’s going on here.”
"And we found out that, which was really, I felt defrauded as a journalist, we found out that at the same time I was being detained and risking my life to expose the Bahrain regime, CNN International is taking money from them in exchange for producing content that it airs on CNN International. Content disguised as news."
"I mean one of these programs, the reporter, Richard Quest, was reporting live from Bahrain for a week. And on a program called iList, and that program made Bahrain seem progressive. And the crown prince was a reformer."
"And as an employee at CNN, I was never told that this was going on. Also viewers are not being told that CNN is being paid by state regimes some with horrific human rights records to air content disguised as news, which they’re often not even telling the viewers that this content was paid for by government. And, Alex, on a journalistic level, this is horrific."
From the Alex Jones Channel:
The Amber Lyon story is just the latest in a series of articles that expose the total Joseph Goebbels like censorship rampant in mainstream media today. The first one I posted several weeks ago exposed how the NY Times basically just regurgitates whatever government officials tell them, while the other showcased how an NPR reporter covering D.C. had to leave and do her own thing out of frustration. This is precisely why alternative media sites are taking off. They provide the only outlets left for genuine journalism.
So back to Amber. Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK's Guardian writes in his blockbuster article:
"In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives' abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime."
Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.
Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she "saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn't believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting."
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
More Obama Administration Corruption
A United States Air Force general is blowing the whistle on another alleged White House scandal, but few in the news media seem to be listening.
According to General William Shelton, the commanding officer of U.S. Air Force's space command, he was told to alter his testimony before the House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Strategic Forces regarding an Obama White House attempt to award a defense contract to the Lightsquared firm.
Lightsquared is a high-tech company doing business in Virginia that's owned by billionaire Philip Falcone, an Obama friend and campaign contributor.
According to the National Legal and Policy Center, Phil Falcone had visited the White House and made large cash contributions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Soon after, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted his LightSquared a highly unusual waiver that allows the company to build out a national 4G wireless network on the cheap.
Republican lawmakers say that after Falcon's visit, the Obama White House allegedly tried to push through a Lightsquared's proposed wireless network regardless of the objections emanating from military commanders who believed the project could disrupt key U.S. satellite systems.
At a hearing on Thursday, lawmakers on strategic forces subcommittee, especially the Republican chairman, Michael Turner, requested that the House Oversight Committee investigate if Falcone's company garnered any type of special treatment from the White House or from Obama appointees.
The hearing came after a report by a blogger on a news and commentary web site alleged that the Obama White House pressed General Shelton to downplay his concerns about the proposed Lightsquared system.
"Under extremely unusual circumstances, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently granted a company called LightSquared the right to use wireless spectrum to build out a national 4G wireless network. LightSquared will get the spectrum for a song, while its competitors have to spend billions," according to NLPC's Ken Boehm.
President Obama's underlings deny any wrongdoing, and officials at Lightsquared denied the charges that it is receiving preferential treatment from President Obama or his staff.
Republican staff members on the subcommittee say that the decorated General Shelton told the lawmakers that Obama administration officials urged the general to describe Lightsquared's system favorably during his congressional testimony.
During the hearing, General Shelton told committee members that the wireless broadband network manufactured by Lightsquared would have a negative impact on the current Global Positioning System (GPS) relied on by both the U.S. military and private sector users of the GPS.
General Shelton told the committee members: Tests with Defense Department experts, civilian agencies and others "indicate the LightSquared terrestrial network operating in the originally proposed manner poses significant challenges for almost all GPS users."
The general insisted through his spokesperson on Friday that he had not "watered down his testimony due to alleged White House pressure."
According to a source familiar with the Lightsquared probe, many officers at the Pentagon are highly suspicious of the President, the White House staff and even Obama's appointees at the Defense Department.
Another occurrence being probed is that the allegation that Lightsquared at first offered to sell satellite phones on its network, however the Federal Communications Commission allegedly issued a special waiver to the firm thus allowing sell terrestrial-based wireless service to other companies.
Department of Defense officials. such as General Shelton, in the past have raised concerns about interference with GPS users, and the FCC would then promise to disallow a firm to begin operating their network until after intense testing is carried out to ensure there is no disruption to satellite navigation.
The head of the FCC declined to appear before the committee on Thursday, which the chairman, Turner, called an "affront" to the panel.
Meanwhile, Falcone and Lightsquared executives are taking the offensive by giving Obama-friendly journalists at Politico exclusive interviews.
LightSquared CEO. Sanjiv Ahuja, and its billionaire backer, Phil Falcone, denied all allegations that the wireless company used its political pull with the Obama administration to secure approval of its business plans with the Defense Department.
“It’s just very disappointing that people are not seeing the facts here, and [that] this has become a real political issue,” Falcone, a senior executive at the hedge fund firm Harbinger Capital, said during his Politico interview. “It’s not a function of being a Democrat or a Republican, it’s about trying to be an innovator. … It’s very disappointing and frustrating that we are getting stonewalled like this. … I kinda scratch my head every single day and say I can’t believe this is happening.”
Falcone and Ahuja denied receiving special treatment from the White House or the FCC in their ongoing quest to become the nation’s first wholesale wireless broadband provider, according to Politico.
But some observers see things differently. Mike Baker, a political strategist and a former military officer, believes that this investigation needs to be taken to wherever or whomever it leads. He's like to see a special prosecutor appointed.
"This is a very important national security issue, not some politically-motivated witch hunt like the Valerie Plame-CIA case. But we all know that with the news media protecting this president, the chances of anything being done are slim or none," he quipped.
"First of all, we know what motivates politicians and big business. In the middle you have a career officer who is a four-star general. Whom would you believe? What's in it for General Shelton to make up stories?" Baker asks.
"Let's hope General Shelton sticks to his guns and that more Pentagon and Justice Department officials decide enough is enough from this administration," Baker added.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Wisdom of Bill Whittle
Bill Whittle's provides some dead on wisdom and advice for Republicans. Bill Whittl is a political and motivational speaker. The video below is Bill talking at David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend at the Breakers, Palm Beach, Florida. November 15th - 18th, 2012.
Mr Whittle gets it,...as he discusses Mitt Romney, Captialism, failure of Democrat controlled government, ....about Republicans failure to get their message across,...about Obama's debacle over Benghazi when he let four Americans die - then lied about it.
Visit Bill Whittle at his site here.
Go to Blip TV to see this video with all of the comments by those who have watched.
Mr Whittle gets it,...as he discusses Mitt Romney, Captialism, failure of Democrat controlled government, ....about Republicans failure to get their message across,...about Obama's debacle over Benghazi when he let four Americans die - then lied about it.
Visit Bill Whittle at his site here.
Go to Blip TV to see this video with all of the comments by those who have watched.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Nice! Obama Buddy, Egyptian President Morsi, Grants Himself Extra Power
Make no mistake about it, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's agenda is to turn Egypt into a anti-Israel, Sharia loving, Radical Muslim country. Currently there are riots in Egypt over Morsi's declaration that his decisions made as President are above the Egyptian courts.
Morsi, a long time Muslim Brotherhood member, from the same Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization that Obama hosted at the White House which surely made the Founders turn over in their graves, has now granted himself far reaching powers, and, running Christian and moderate Muslim out of the legislative assembly.
This is the same mutt who gave political support to Hamas shooting rockets into Israel population centers.
Now that Morsi and Obama (sounds like a Muslim Law Firm) have brokered some type of pause for peace in the region, it will give Hamas time to re-group from their ass whupping and bring in more rockets from Iran and additional help from Egypt.
Egypt, who was once a force for peace in the Middle East, will turn out to be a major aggressive enemy of Israel once Morsi gets consolidated and Hamas re-arms which is the entire intent of the brokered peace. Add Hezbollah entrenched to Israel's north plus the Iranian nuclear threat and things are dire for Israel.
The below is from an AP article by Hamza Hendawi:
Egypt's Morsi grants himself far-reaching powers
Egypt's president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year's uprising.
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi's allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected — which is not expected before next spring — are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt's first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza's Hamas rulers.
Morsi not only holds executive power, he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament, which was led by the Brotherhood. With two branches of power in his hands, Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third, the judiciary, over recent months.
"Morsi today usurped all state powers; appointed himself Egypt's new pharaoh," pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on his Twitter account. "A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences."
Saturday, November 24, 2012
States Moving Forward on Nullification
Nullification Goes Mainstream; States Defy Washington on Drugs and Health Care, from an article by John Rubino on Dollar Collapse.com, November 9, 2012. Read original article here.
This is a long, by powerful article which will undoubtabley spur debate over States Rights and the issue whether we are still a Constitutional Republic or just a Democracy ruled by special interest groups....aka the George Soros' sponsored anti-American causes and the Labor Unions. As the federal government gradually assimilates the rest of the country, a few states have begun to fight back. From the Kansas City Star:
No state-run health insurance exchanges in Missouri or Kansas
Missouri will be unable to implement a key provision of federal health care law, Gov.Jay Nixon announced Thursday.
Meantime, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacksays he won’t support an application from Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger to establish a state-federal health insurance marketplace.
That means it will be up to the federal government to establish health insurance exchanges in Missouri and Kansas. The exchanges are designed to be online marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can compare and buy private insurance plans.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the states face a Nov. 16 deadline to notify the federal government if they want to run their own insurance exchange. They must be open for business by 2014. When states do not open their own, the federal government will step in and set up an exchange.
“Obamacare,” Brownback said in a news release, “is an overreach by Washington and (Kansans) have rejected the state’s participation. … We will not benefit from it and implementing it could cost Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.”
This kind of rebellion has deep historical roots. From the American Thinker blog:
The Nullification Movement
One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado. If these laws are allowed to stand without challenge from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, then the green light is on for nullifying any federal law — including ObamaCare.
Nullification is based upon the principle that is best described in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
This simple statement asserts that no government may impose its will upon the people without their consent and that if the people make it known that they do not consent then the imposition is nullified. The very first time that a nullification resolution was passed in our history was the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 to nullify the Alien and Sedition acts. The author of this resolution was Thomas Jefferson, who had to write the resolution in secret because if it were known that he was opposed to these acts, he would have been imprisoned, even though he was vice president at the time.
Jefferson had help from another of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution, which nullified the Alien and Seditions Acts in Virginia. These nullification resolutions were never tested in court since in the next presidential election Jefferson became president, repealed the laws and pardoned all those who had been imprisoned under the Alien and Seditions acts. The idea of nullification became popular again in the decade leading up to the War Between the States as many northern states nullified fugitive slave laws.
Now two western states are using the principle of nullification against federal narcotics laws to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Both Colorado and Washington had legalization measures on the ballot, and the measures passed. But Kevin Sabet, the former Obama administration’s drug czar, stated:
“This is a symbolic victory for advocates, but it will be short-lived. They are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.”
But as of yet, agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency have not made a show of force by kicking in the doors of local head shops and hauling shopkeepers off to jail.
If the federal government does take action, it will likely be via lawsuit. They will argue the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. But the Supremacy Clause is not a slam dunk as some would have you think. In Federalist Paper #46 titled, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” Madison comments on the idea of supremacy:
“These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone….”
Ultimately, if the federal government loses, then nullification will be used to do away with many overreaching federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, which has shut down agriculture in California, or to the Clean Air Act, which threatens to cause rolling blackouts across the nation.
But Colorado and Washington are not alone in the nullification movement; six other states are challenging federal law. Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures guaranteeing health-care freedom, and Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize marijuana for medicinal use.
Last spring, Virginia passed legislation prohibiting state and local agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, signed the Health Freedom Act into law which essentially nullifies the Affordable Care Act.
The nullification movement is alive and well, and growing exponentially, and as a result the beltway bandits may see their power greatly diminished.
Some thoughts
Most non-libertarians will like some of these nullification moves and abhor others. Conservatives hate the idea of legal weed, for instance, and liberals can’t tolerate states running their own health care systems. In other words, both sides of the current US political establishment are all for a big, intrusive central government as long as it serves their ends, but dead set against it when it serves their ideological opponents. This philosophical, um, flexibility is what has allowed Washington to grow so steadily. When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow. When democrats take over, the welfare state expands. Neither has the political capital to undo the other’s expansion, so federal power continues to metastasize.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The idea that "When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow" is not true. Look that what Obama has done and wants to do to increase the Government's Police and Security powers,.....the NDAA allowing the military to detain citizens without due process,....wanting to hire 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare and other regulations that he declared unconstitutionally through executive order rather than through the legislative process. Hey, here's a clue - it called the Legislature for a reason!! Allowing Eric Holder's Justice Department to arm Mexican Drug Cartels with thousands of weapons. No! It's not the conservatives who are increasing the police state,.....it's the Socialists who are currently in power.
But now this process has begun to work in reverse. Liberal states are trying to push the feds out of the realms of drugs and sexual behavior, while conservative states are trying to reassert their dominance in economics. The result might be an irregular but steady erosion of federal power.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The erosion of federal power is a good thing when the federal government acts unconstitutionally and against the will of and best interests of the People.
Very few dictators go down without a fight, however, so Washington might decide to make an example of rebellious states by asserting federal supremacy in the courts and then backing up favorable rulings with legal sanctions. Will it succeed or backfire? Who knows, but it will almost certainly energize the libertarian movement that Ron Paul helped create – which would be both educational and entertaining. So by all means, let nullification debate begin.
This is a long, by powerful article which will undoubtabley spur debate over States Rights and the issue whether we are still a Constitutional Republic or just a Democracy ruled by special interest groups....aka the George Soros' sponsored anti-American causes and the Labor Unions. As the federal government gradually assimilates the rest of the country, a few states have begun to fight back. From the Kansas City Star:
No state-run health insurance exchanges in Missouri or Kansas
Missouri will be unable to implement a key provision of federal health care law, Gov.Jay Nixon announced Thursday.
Meantime, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacksays he won’t support an application from Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger to establish a state-federal health insurance marketplace.
That means it will be up to the federal government to establish health insurance exchanges in Missouri and Kansas. The exchanges are designed to be online marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can compare and buy private insurance plans.
As part of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, the states face a Nov. 16 deadline to notify the federal government if they want to run their own insurance exchange. They must be open for business by 2014. When states do not open their own, the federal government will step in and set up an exchange.
“Obamacare,” Brownback said in a news release, “is an overreach by Washington and (Kansans) have rejected the state’s participation. … We will not benefit from it and implementing it could cost Kansas taxpayers millions of dollars.”
This kind of rebellion has deep historical roots. From the American Thinker blog:
The Nullification Movement
One thing overlooked in the uproar surrounding the election is the nullification of federal narcotics law in Washington state and Colorado. If these laws are allowed to stand without challenge from Eric Holder’s Justice Department, then the green light is on for nullifying any federal law — including ObamaCare.
Nullification is based upon the principle that is best described in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
This simple statement asserts that no government may impose its will upon the people without their consent and that if the people make it known that they do not consent then the imposition is nullified. The very first time that a nullification resolution was passed in our history was the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 to nullify the Alien and Sedition acts. The author of this resolution was Thomas Jefferson, who had to write the resolution in secret because if it were known that he was opposed to these acts, he would have been imprisoned, even though he was vice president at the time.
Jefferson had help from another of the founding fathers, James Madison. Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution, which nullified the Alien and Seditions Acts in Virginia. These nullification resolutions were never tested in court since in the next presidential election Jefferson became president, repealed the laws and pardoned all those who had been imprisoned under the Alien and Seditions acts. The idea of nullification became popular again in the decade leading up to the War Between the States as many northern states nullified fugitive slave laws.
Now two western states are using the principle of nullification against federal narcotics laws to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Both Colorado and Washington had legalization measures on the ballot, and the measures passed. But Kevin Sabet, the former Obama administration’s drug czar, stated:
“This is a symbolic victory for advocates, but it will be short-lived. They are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.”
But as of yet, agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency have not made a show of force by kicking in the doors of local head shops and hauling shopkeepers off to jail.
If the federal government does take action, it will likely be via lawsuit. They will argue the Supremacy Clause of the constitution. But the Supremacy Clause is not a slam dunk as some would have you think. In Federalist Paper #46 titled, “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared,” Madison comments on the idea of supremacy:
“These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone….”
Ultimately, if the federal government loses, then nullification will be used to do away with many overreaching federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, which has shut down agriculture in California, or to the Clean Air Act, which threatens to cause rolling blackouts across the nation.
But Colorado and Washington are not alone in the nullification movement; six other states are challenging federal law. Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures guaranteeing health-care freedom, and Massachusetts approved a measure to legalize marijuana for medicinal use.
Last spring, Virginia passed legislation prohibiting state and local agencies from cooperating with any federal attempt to exercise indefinite detention without due process under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Idaho’s Governor, C.L. “Butch” Otter, signed the Health Freedom Act into law which essentially nullifies the Affordable Care Act.
The nullification movement is alive and well, and growing exponentially, and as a result the beltway bandits may see their power greatly diminished.
Some thoughts
Most non-libertarians will like some of these nullification moves and abhor others. Conservatives hate the idea of legal weed, for instance, and liberals can’t tolerate states running their own health care systems. In other words, both sides of the current US political establishment are all for a big, intrusive central government as long as it serves their ends, but dead set against it when it serves their ideological opponents. This philosophical, um, flexibility is what has allowed Washington to grow so steadily. When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow. When democrats take over, the welfare state expands. Neither has the political capital to undo the other’s expansion, so federal power continues to metastasize.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The idea that "When republicans are in charge, the powers of the federal police state grow" is not true. Look that what Obama has done and wants to do to increase the Government's Police and Security powers,.....the NDAA allowing the military to detain citizens without due process,....wanting to hire 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce Obamacare and other regulations that he declared unconstitutionally through executive order rather than through the legislative process. Hey, here's a clue - it called the Legislature for a reason!! Allowing Eric Holder's Justice Department to arm Mexican Drug Cartels with thousands of weapons. No! It's not the conservatives who are increasing the police state,.....it's the Socialists who are currently in power.
But now this process has begun to work in reverse. Liberal states are trying to push the feds out of the realms of drugs and sexual behavior, while conservative states are trying to reassert their dominance in economics. The result might be an irregular but steady erosion of federal power.
Cowboys and Tea Parties comment: The erosion of federal power is a good thing when the federal government acts unconstitutionally and against the will of and best interests of the People.
Very few dictators go down without a fight, however, so Washington might decide to make an example of rebellious states by asserting federal supremacy in the courts and then backing up favorable rulings with legal sanctions. Will it succeed or backfire? Who knows, but it will almost certainly energize the libertarian movement that Ron Paul helped create – which would be both educational and entertaining. So by all means, let nullification debate begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)