We Voted, How all Public & Private Unions are being Demonized
Fred Herrera - Feb 23, 2011 View | Edit | Delete | Viewers
Categories: POLITICS Republican governors are standing together with one of their own through a new website backing embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Pay attention Texas Union members, Active and Retirees have an unhill battle with Rick Perry. He is taking sides with Walker. Soon Perry, will follow suit and strip the very fabric of America. Without the power of collective bargaining the Unions will take the BS, Perry, is getting ready to unleash on the Middle Class. There will be two classes in America the second class citizens ( That is now the middle class ) and the big dollar contributors for the election that will benefit the big corporations, where without the power of the Unions, will hire at minimum wage. To the GOP, middle class is made up of second class citizens. I asked everyone to vote wisely, but I sure as hell was not expecting the demonizing of the American Unions. What these Republican Governors, are doing is trying to take America at the expense of the middle class. They must satisfy their rich contributors for the office they were voted for. As I said before it is time for these Republicans, to pay back the PIPER, for their re/election. We middle class are no more than scum and a burden to America. Remeber that the Koch brothers, were the largest contributors to the GOP Governors fund. For those with only a high school education, be aware that what is to come next is the lowering of the minimum wage. I honestly fear an American Revolution, where it is every Americans' right to work against the GOP. Ask yourself, who do I know that will now be considered a second class citizen, as defined by the GOP..........
As protests continue in Wisconsin over Walker's proposal to curb collective bargaining rights for unions, the Republican Governors Association has launched Stand With Scott -- a website that's also tied to Walker's Facebook page and Twitter accounts. More than 3,000 people said they "like" the page as of 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is getting support from fellow GOP governors in his stance against unions. Gov. Rick Perry, chairman of the GOP governors' group, leads the list of state chief executives praising Walker and his efforts to tackle the state's budget woes by challenging public employee unions and their pension and benefit costs.
Perry said Walker "is in the middle of what will be a defining moment for our country and the conservative movement." Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, vice chairman of the RGA, said Walker is taking the "tough, but necessary, steps to balance the books in Wisconsin and get the state's fiscal house in order."
The site also features testimonials from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (Bubba) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The GOP vs The American working Class
We are headed into an American Revolution. As the prank call to Gov. Walker (R) Wisconsin, clearly states. The Wisconsin, short fall has nothing to do with the budget, and everything to do with destroying the "Middle Class". A song by Helen Reddy, comes to mind" You and Me against the World". These Politicians, mostly Republican, are puppets on a string for the filthy rich. Their orchastrated agenda is to destroy the basic fabric that our country has been based on. It is like history during slavery where American owned slaves. In this case rather than slaves it is puppets on a string destroying the American Middle Class, for the greed of a few. The Koch Brothers, and all of the others that hold the strings are manpulating these puppets to do away with worker's rights, and everything to do with granting the huge tax breaks and the deregulation of certain industries, that help these large corporations. The war against the Unions, is a war with the regular working American. If not for the Unions, we would not have what is enjoyed by the working American..the 40 hr. work week. The fairness in pay to all Americans, not only Union members but to American as a whole. I have said all along that the GOP, would strangle itself in their own greed web, and that is what we see happening today. America, has lost it's democracy base. We are now at the mercy of the likes of Governor's like Walker and our own unstable Republican Rick Perry. It is coming to the point of the "Have" and "the Have Nots". We as Americans need to come together in 2012, and show these Bastards that "We the People" is who they represent, and not the 2%, who line their pockets in return for a corrupt representation in DC; Wheather Democrat or Republican, we must vote for the democracy we have enjoyed in our life time. Obama, is doing a great job and is constantky being demonized by the "Right". I can not tell you if it is out of IGNORANCE or PREJUDISM. But if we Americans do not wake up to reality soon, we will see another Civil War in our own back yards....The GOP vs America....What a shame.
There is nothing new to what we are seeing today in Wisconsin. The destruction of the Middle Class, started back during the Reagan Administration, when again the FILTHY RICH, got all the tax breaks ever given to such a small percentage of the American tax payer. For those of us who consider ourselves "Middle Class", think again. The GOP, is paying back their rich campaign donors like the Koch Brothers. What is happening in Wisconsin, is an orchastrated effort to have two classes of Americans, What used to be known as the Middle Class, will soon be known as the Scum Class, if we let these Republicans have it their way. Unions are credited to of brought the 40 hour work week to America. The overtime pay. Now the Republicans, are tearing at the fabric of America. I advised everyone I talked to, to VOTE WISELY, this past November. I did not tell anyone who to vote for just to make sure their vote was not out of fraustration. For those of us who voted wisely, for those of us that voted out of fraustration, now is the time to come together and fight for the fabric of our NATION, the working American. Soon the Scum Class, will be paying for all of the tax credits given to the rich. Gov. Walker, was well funded by the Koch Brothers, and it is time to pay the PIPER....Think about how many Republican's owe their election or re-election to the likes of the Koch Brothers, FOX Network.....and the list goes on and on. Too many Pipers, are owned by the forementioned. And now for the rest of the story......
Republican Governors are standing together with one of their own through a new website backing embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Pay attention Texas Union members, Active and Retirees have an unhill battle with Rick Perry. He is taking sides with Walker. Soon Perry, will follow suit and strip the very fabric of America. Without the power of collective bargaining the Unions will take the BS, Perry, is getting ready to unleash on the Middle Class. There will be two classes in America the second class citizens ( That is now the middle class ) and the big dollar contributors for the election that will benefit the big corporations, where without the power of the Unions, will hire at minimum wage. To the GOP, middle class is made up of second class citizens. I asked everyone to vote wisely, but I sure as hell was not expecting the demonizing of the American Unions. What these Republican Governors, are doing is trying to take America at the expense of the middle class. They must satisfy their rich contributors for the office they were voted for. As I said before it is time for these Republicans, to pay back the PIPER, for their re/election. We middle class are no more than scum and a burden to America. Remeber that the Koch brothers, were the largest contributors to the GOP Governors fund. For those with only a high school education, be aware that what is to come next is the lowering of the minimum wage. I honestly fear an American Revolution, where it is every Americans' right to work against the GOP. Ask yourself, who do I know that will now be considered a second class citizen, as defined by the GOP..........
As protests continue in Wisconsin over Walker's proposal to curb collective bargaining rights for unions, the Republican Governors Association has launched Stand With Scott -- a website that's also tied to Walker's Facebook page and Twitter accounts. More than 3,000 people said they "like" the page as of 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is getting support from fellow GOP governors in his stance against unions. Gov. Rick Perry, chairman of the GOP governors' group, leads the list of state chief executives praising Walker and his efforts to tackle the state's budget woes by challenging public employee unions and their pension and benefit costs.
Perry said Walker "is in the middle of what will be a defining moment for our country and the conservative movement." Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, vice chairman of the RGA, said Walker is taking the "tough, but necessary, steps to balance the books in Wisconsin and get the state's fiscal house in order."
The site also features testimonials from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (Bubba) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
There is nothing new to what we are seeing today in Wisconsin. The destruction of the Middle Class, started back during the Reagan Administration, when again the FILTHY RICH, got all the tax breaks ever given to such a small percentage of the American tax payer. For those of us who consider ourselves "Middle Class", think again. The GOP, is paying back their rich campaign donors like the Koch Brothers. What is happening in Wisconsin, is an orchastrated effort to have two classes of Americans, What used to be known as the Middle Class, will soon be known as the Scum Class, if we let these Republicans have it their way. Unions are credited to of brought the 40 hour work week to America. The overtime pay. Now the Republicans, are tearing at the fabric of America. I advised everyone I talked to, to VOTE WISELY, this past November. I did not tell anyone who to vote for just to make sure their vote was not out of fraustration. For those of us who voted wisely, for those of us that voted out of fraustration, now is the time to come together and fight for the fabric of our NATION, the working American. Soon the Scum Class, will be paying for all of the tax credits given to the rich. Gov. Walker, was well funded by the Koch Brothers, and it is time to pay the PIPER....Think about how many Republican's owe their election or re-election to the likes of the Koch Brothers, FOX Network.....and the list goes on and on. Too many Pipers, are owned by the forementioned. And now for the rest of the story......
Republican Governors are standing together with one of their own through a new website backing embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Pay attention Texas Union members, Active and Retirees have an unhill battle with Rick Perry. He is taking sides with Walker. Soon Perry, will follow suit and strip the very fabric of America. Without the power of collective bargaining the Unions will take the BS, Perry, is getting ready to unleash on the Middle Class. There will be two classes in America the second class citizens ( That is now the middle class ) and the big dollar contributors for the election that will benefit the big corporations, where without the power of the Unions, will hire at minimum wage. To the GOP, middle class is made up of second class citizens. I asked everyone to vote wisely, but I sure as hell was not expecting the demonizing of the American Unions. What these Republican Governors, are doing is trying to take America at the expense of the middle class. They must satisfy their rich contributors for the office they were voted for. As I said before it is time for these Republicans, to pay back the PIPER, for their re/election. We middle class are no more than scum and a burden to America. Remeber that the Koch brothers, were the largest contributors to the GOP Governors fund. For those with only a high school education, be aware that what is to come next is the lowering of the minimum wage. I honestly fear an American Revolution, where it is every Americans' right to work against the GOP. Ask yourself, who do I know that will now be considered a second class citizen, as defined by the GOP..........
As protests continue in Wisconsin over Walker's proposal to curb collective bargaining rights for unions, the Republican Governors Association has launched Stand With Scott -- a website that's also tied to Walker's Facebook page and Twitter accounts. More than 3,000 people said they "like" the page as of 8:30 a.m. Wednesday.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is getting support from fellow GOP governors in his stance against unions. Gov. Rick Perry, chairman of the GOP governors' group, leads the list of state chief executives praising Walker and his efforts to tackle the state's budget woes by challenging public employee unions and their pension and benefit costs.
Perry said Walker "is in the middle of what will be a defining moment for our country and the conservative movement." Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, vice chairman of the RGA, said Walker is taking the "tough, but necessary, steps to balance the books in Wisconsin and get the state's fiscal house in order."
The site also features testimonials from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (Bubba) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Wisconsin had one of the smallest deficits compared to other states, before Walker took office. His contributors, got massive taxbreaks from Walker, as payback for getting him elected. Now the Wisconsin deficit is ten fold. And the fabric of America " The American Unions" are the ones paying for the greed of Gov. Walker. I really believe this trend will be followed by other Republican governed states. The first Union was organized in Wisconsin. Now it is the Republican run state that is setting the way to dismantle the rights of unions to organize and and have representation. It is a sad time in America. Other states will soon follow suit and disgrace the fabric of the American middle class. If not for the unions there would be no middle class America. As we witness what is going on in Wisconsin is only a preview of what is to come to all soon. I have predicted a revolution here at home and I think my prediction is in a formation form. Next I hate to predict a Civil War, in the land once known as the "Land of the Free". We lost that right when voters voted recklessly for all the wrong reasons. They were punishing America, and Obama, for trying to fix what took decades to break. Obama, was not responsible for the Wall Street bailouts, which have to date not been paid back, though we hear of the bonuses some are getting. I feel like I got slapped. This was George W. Bushes bail out. Obama, is responsible for the loans to the american auto maker industry. If not for those loans we would not have an auto industry. I am happy to say that the motor city is thriving again. They have also paid back the loans with interest, unlike Wall Street, who will never pay any of its bailouts back. I am proud to be American, and prouder to be a Democrat, who can see things for what they are. And now for the rest of the story:
The standoff between Wisconsin's Republican governor and the state Senate's minority Democrats shows no signs of ending soon, as both sides try to claim the high ground in a bitter feud over an anti-union budget bill that has thrust Madison into the national spotlight.
Facing the likely passage of a budget bill that would strip most public employees in the state of collective bargaining rights, the Democratic lawmakers fled the state and vowed to hunker down, blocking any action in the Legislature.
Gov. Scott Walker, who argues the measures are necessary to fix the state's fiscal problems, has called the Democrats' move a "stunt" while pressuring them Friday to "come home" and do their jobs.
Teachers and other union members have intensified the drama with massive rallies at the state capitol this week, drawing the attention and support of national union representatives and Democratic organizers.
Plenty is at stake. As it's written now, the bill would force public workers to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage, changes that Walker says puts them more in line with the private sector. That measure is projected to save the state $300 million over the next two years, to tackle a budget shortfall that the governor says stands at $3.6 billion.
Wisconsin Governor to Missing Democrats: Do Your Job Walker dispatched two state troopers to Democratic leader Mark Miller's home in Monona at the request of Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. Senate Sergeant-At-Arms Ted Blazel said troopers knocked on Miller's door and rang his doorbell, but no one answered.
The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits police from arresting state lawmakers while the Legislature is in session, except in cases of felonies, breaches of the peace or treason. Fitzgerald said he's not looking to have Miller arrested, but he wants to send a signal about the circumstances at the Capitol.
Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who is staying at a Chicago hotel, said that he and his 13 fellow Democrats could stay out of Wisconsin for days or even weeks. They have been missing from the Capitol since Thursday.
The Democrats gained a minor victory Friday when the Assembly, also controlled by Republicans, postponed a vote on the budget until next week.
Republicans have 57 seats in the Assembly but 58 lawmakers must be present in order for them to take up the bill that all 38 Democrats are united against. Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc is the Assembly's lone independent and could be that 58th person Republicans need.
Ziegelbauer told The Associated Press that he wants to meet with Republican leaders to discuss a possible compromise but wouldn't elaborate.
President Obama joined the raging budget battle on Wednesday, accusing Walker of unleashing "an assault" on unions by pressing the cost-saving legislation.
"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said in a White House interview with WTMJ-TV. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends."
"I think everybody's got to make some adjustments, but I think it's also important to recognize that public employees make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens," he continued.
But Walker fired back on Friday.
"I think we're focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing," Walker told Fox News.
Walker said the demands on public employees are "modest" compared with those in the private sector, and are meant to prevent a shutdown, which could result in 6,000 state workers not getting paid.
"We're at a point of crisis," the governor said, adding that he would call out the National Guard if needed to keep state operations, including prisons, running.
Meanwhile, massive protests at the state Capitol entered a fourth day as demonstrators vowed to stay as long as was needed to get the concessions they want.
"Hell no, we won't go!" they chanted inside the Capitol as they banged on drums, sat cross-legged in the halls and waved signs comparing Walker to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Thousands of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts -- including the state's largest, in Milwaukee -- to cancel classes.
Republicans who swept into power in state capitols this year with promises to cut spending and bolster the business climate now are beginning to usher in a new era of labor relations that could result in the largest reduction of power in decades for public employee unions.
The confrontation in Wisconsin comes as organized labor is reeling from a steady loss of members in the private sector. The public sector, with about 7.6 million members, now account for the majority of workers on union rolls, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
.
The standoff between Wisconsin's Republican governor and the state Senate's minority Democrats shows no signs of ending soon, as both sides try to claim the high ground in a bitter feud over an anti-union budget bill that has thrust Madison into the national spotlight.
Facing the likely passage of a budget bill that would strip most public employees in the state of collective bargaining rights, the Democratic lawmakers fled the state and vowed to hunker down, blocking any action in the Legislature.
Gov. Scott Walker, who argues the measures are necessary to fix the state's fiscal problems, has called the Democrats' move a "stunt" while pressuring them Friday to "come home" and do their jobs.
Teachers and other union members have intensified the drama with massive rallies at the state capitol this week, drawing the attention and support of national union representatives and Democratic organizers.
Plenty is at stake. As it's written now, the bill would force public workers to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage, changes that Walker says puts them more in line with the private sector. That measure is projected to save the state $300 million over the next two years, to tackle a budget shortfall that the governor says stands at $3.6 billion.
Wisconsin Governor to Missing Democrats: Do Your Job Walker dispatched two state troopers to Democratic leader Mark Miller's home in Monona at the request of Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. Senate Sergeant-At-Arms Ted Blazel said troopers knocked on Miller's door and rang his doorbell, but no one answered.
The Wisconsin Constitution prohibits police from arresting state lawmakers while the Legislature is in session, except in cases of felonies, breaches of the peace or treason. Fitzgerald said he's not looking to have Miller arrested, but he wants to send a signal about the circumstances at the Capitol.
Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, who is staying at a Chicago hotel, said that he and his 13 fellow Democrats could stay out of Wisconsin for days or even weeks. They have been missing from the Capitol since Thursday.
The Democrats gained a minor victory Friday when the Assembly, also controlled by Republicans, postponed a vote on the budget until next week.
Republicans have 57 seats in the Assembly but 58 lawmakers must be present in order for them to take up the bill that all 38 Democrats are united against. Rep. Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc is the Assembly's lone independent and could be that 58th person Republicans need.
Ziegelbauer told The Associated Press that he wants to meet with Republican leaders to discuss a possible compromise but wouldn't elaborate.
President Obama joined the raging budget battle on Wednesday, accusing Walker of unleashing "an assault" on unions by pressing the cost-saving legislation.
"Some of what I've heard coming out of Wisconsin, where you're just making it harder for public employees to collectively bargain generally seems like more of an assault on unions," Obama said in a White House interview with WTMJ-TV. "And I think it's very important for us to understand that public employees, they're our neighbors, they're our friends."
"I think everybody's got to make some adjustments, but I think it's also important to recognize that public employees make enormous contributions to our states and our citizens," he continued.
But Walker fired back on Friday.
"I think we're focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they're a long ways from doing," Walker told Fox News.
Walker said the demands on public employees are "modest" compared with those in the private sector, and are meant to prevent a shutdown, which could result in 6,000 state workers not getting paid.
"We're at a point of crisis," the governor said, adding that he would call out the National Guard if needed to keep state operations, including prisons, running.
Meanwhile, massive protests at the state Capitol entered a fourth day as demonstrators vowed to stay as long as was needed to get the concessions they want.
"Hell no, we won't go!" they chanted inside the Capitol as they banged on drums, sat cross-legged in the halls and waved signs comparing Walker to former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.
Thousands of teachers have joined the protests by calling in sick, forcing school districts -- including the state's largest, in Milwaukee -- to cancel classes.
Republicans who swept into power in state capitols this year with promises to cut spending and bolster the business climate now are beginning to usher in a new era of labor relations that could result in the largest reduction of power in decades for public employee unions.
The confrontation in Wisconsin comes as organized labor is reeling from a steady loss of members in the private sector. The public sector, with about 7.6 million members, now account for the majority of workers on union rolls, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
.
The Solvable Texas Governor's Mansion fire, Time for Perry to be Honest to himself
Is it a coincidence that the fire at the Governor's mansion fire happened weeks after Anita Perry, moved back into the mansion after a separation from Governor Rick Perry. According to very reliable sources Mrs Perry, left Rick after she caught him and another man in very compromising circumstances in the Governor's office.
I really am not concerned with his sexuality, and his bigotry against the same. What concerns me and should concern all other Texans is the fact that as tax payers we have been paying his 10,000.00 a month rental since June 2008.
I feel that as a Texan and taxpayer, when we see educators, and other essential positions being compromised because of the Perry Texas money deficit, Mr Perry, should move into one of his own homes thus saving a few essential positions that are now on the chopping block. 10,000.00 a month could save several teaching jobs. You do the math 10,000.00 x 36 months equals a few essential positions being rescued.
The Arson Fire was big news for a few weeks, and then nothing else was heard about it. I must ask WHY ? I am happy to see the case has been reopened and the video obtained of the Arsonist, is being studied with high tech forensics.
I have wondered all along if maybe a distraught lover was involved, and set the fire to get back at Perry. Mr. Perry, needs to be a man, and like any other citizen be integrated as to who the culprit might be. It really amazes me that with all the tools of modern forensics this incident has not been solved.
Mr. Perry, is not beyond the law and should be questioned as to who he might suspect was distraught enough after his reconciliation with Anita Perry, and hold that person accountable for his horrific crime. Now I hear that an anarchist group linked to a planned attack on the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, might have ties to this crime. I say that is BS. According to an Austin member of this group, they are a peaceful movement and they have never turned to violence. I think the officials working on this case are barking up at the wrong tree.
They have very good video, and with today's forensics this crime couls and should of already been solved. These officials need to be looking closer to home for a resolution. This is not a case of a needle in a hay stack, it is an elephant in a small hay patch.
If Rick Perry, can not be honest to himself about his sexuality, how can we trust him to govern our state. His sexuality is not what I question, it is his honesty or dishonesty that bothers me and should concern all Texans.
The Texas Department of Public Safety said that in reviewing surveillance video taken before the fire, investigators had identified a white Jeep Cherokee whose occupants were seen taking photos of the mansion four days before the blaze.
The DPS said it had been able to find the Jeep and that its owner -- who they did not name -- had admitted to driving the vehicle while the photos were being taken.
DPS said the Jeep's owner had subsequently identified two people who were riding with him that night and that one of them "has been placed in the downtown area the morning of the mansion fire."
All three are now considered "persons of interest" in the investigation, DPS said. All three have denied involvement in the arson, which did extensive damage to the 152-year-old structure but did not injure the state's Republican governor, Rick Perry. I disagree, I think he suffered to alot of smoke inhalation, the way he is running our state leads me to no other logical conclusion.
Texas is offering a $50,000 cash reward for information in the case that leads to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the fire. DPS released a sketch on Thursday of another man it considers to be a person of interest in the case.
This case could easily be solved if we had an Honest Governor. He must be true to himself, before he can be honest to the State he governs
.
I really am not concerned with his sexuality, and his bigotry against the same. What concerns me and should concern all other Texans is the fact that as tax payers we have been paying his 10,000.00 a month rental since June 2008.
I feel that as a Texan and taxpayer, when we see educators, and other essential positions being compromised because of the Perry Texas money deficit, Mr Perry, should move into one of his own homes thus saving a few essential positions that are now on the chopping block. 10,000.00 a month could save several teaching jobs. You do the math 10,000.00 x 36 months equals a few essential positions being rescued.
The Arson Fire was big news for a few weeks, and then nothing else was heard about it. I must ask WHY ? I am happy to see the case has been reopened and the video obtained of the Arsonist, is being studied with high tech forensics.
I have wondered all along if maybe a distraught lover was involved, and set the fire to get back at Perry. Mr. Perry, needs to be a man, and like any other citizen be integrated as to who the culprit might be. It really amazes me that with all the tools of modern forensics this incident has not been solved.
Mr. Perry, is not beyond the law and should be questioned as to who he might suspect was distraught enough after his reconciliation with Anita Perry, and hold that person accountable for his horrific crime. Now I hear that an anarchist group linked to a planned attack on the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, might have ties to this crime. I say that is BS. According to an Austin member of this group, they are a peaceful movement and they have never turned to violence. I think the officials working on this case are barking up at the wrong tree.
They have very good video, and with today's forensics this crime couls and should of already been solved. These officials need to be looking closer to home for a resolution. This is not a case of a needle in a hay stack, it is an elephant in a small hay patch.
If Rick Perry, can not be honest to himself about his sexuality, how can we trust him to govern our state. His sexuality is not what I question, it is his honesty or dishonesty that bothers me and should concern all Texans.
The Texas Department of Public Safety said that in reviewing surveillance video taken before the fire, investigators had identified a white Jeep Cherokee whose occupants were seen taking photos of the mansion four days before the blaze.
The DPS said it had been able to find the Jeep and that its owner -- who they did not name -- had admitted to driving the vehicle while the photos were being taken.
DPS said the Jeep's owner had subsequently identified two people who were riding with him that night and that one of them "has been placed in the downtown area the morning of the mansion fire."
All three are now considered "persons of interest" in the investigation, DPS said. All three have denied involvement in the arson, which did extensive damage to the 152-year-old structure but did not injure the state's Republican governor, Rick Perry. I disagree, I think he suffered to alot of smoke inhalation, the way he is running our state leads me to no other logical conclusion.
Texas is offering a $50,000 cash reward for information in the case that leads to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the fire. DPS released a sketch on Thursday of another man it considers to be a person of interest in the case.
This case could easily be solved if we had an Honest Governor. He must be true to himself, before he can be honest to the State he governs
.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
California, Enron (Tx), and the Bush Administration
The reason I opened this fiasco again is that it reminds me of what many of us Texans, experienced during the frigid weather last week.(2-2011) When our power went out, and then came back on we were locked to a 1000% surge on the price for the power. This sounds very unfair to raise prices when we were not made aware of what was happening.
the Texas Attorney General, has opened an investigation as to the vadality of such demand and the justification for the price charge. For those who were lucky not to lose power, your electric bill will be at the normal rate. Those of us who experienced the blackouts will pay the piper.....reminds me of Enron. I read the transcripts of the enginneers, in Houston in cahoots with the Enron engineers, in California, it is sickening to know how a system can be manipulated. HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED, when their oxygen or other life supporting electrical equipment quit working for the greed of Enron, and the engineers, that had their finger on the switch. Their greed had many consequences, like auto wreck fatalities, when traffic lights quit working at the push of a button by the greed of this company....Not all were prosecuted, but will be judged accordingly at the end of their journey.
Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.
Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps.
Residents in the country’s largest state suffered through six days of rolling blackouts in early 2001 following a tenfold increase in energy prices. The price hikes caused the bankruptcy and near-collapse of the two large utilities, leading to the layoff of thousands of workers and the wiping out of many small investors. In addition, state officials imposed severe budget cuts due to a rise in energy costs from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000, and after laying out $6 billion to buy daily power and another $40 billion to secure long-term contracts and stabilize the state’s energy supply.
Included in the documents was a memo written by an Enron staff attorney and an outside lawyer on December 6, 2000, the day after the state’s first near-blackout. Written apparently in anticipation of investigations and possible lawsuits against the company, the memo described trading strategies used to create the appearance of shortages or congestion, circumvent state pricing caps and in general exploit the anarchy of the market—which it helped create as one of the chief proponents of state deregulation during the 1990s. The strategies had such nicknames as “Fat Boy,” “Ricochet,” “Get Shorty,” “Death Star” and “Load Shift.”
One such strategy involved the company buying electricity from the California Power Exchange for $250 a megawatt-hour—the maximum allowed under state limits—and reselling it to states in the Northern Pacific for $1,200. Aware that this was contributing to a further shortage in California, the lawyers wrote, “This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California’s declaration of a State 2 Emergency yesterday.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Enron found a way to profit by playing each of the state’s two energy markets off one another. The first, a “day-ahead” auction market run by the California Power Exchange—the “PX”—was supposed to handle the bulk of electricity requirements. A second “real time” market was run by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), which was meant only to correct occasional imbalances. The latter became the source of vast profits from huge price swings.
Buyers and sellers in the real-time market were required to submit daily schedules of their production and their “load,” i.e., the amount of power their customers in the state required. While these two estimates were supposed to be roughly equivalent, according to the internal memo one of Enron’s key strategies—code-named “Load Shift”—was to deliberately overstate the amount of energy its customers required. When energy supplies were tight Cal-ISO would pay traders a premium for providing more power than was required. Enron would deliver the promised amount and would then be paid a premium price for removing their energy from the grid.
Enron also flooded the state’s transmission lines with more electricity than it could handle in order collect “congestion payments” from Cal-ISO to schedule energy transmission in the opposite direction or reduce their generation/load schedule. “Because the congestion charges have been as high as $750/MW [per megawatt], it can often be profitable to sell power at a loss simply to collect the congestion payment,” the memo said.
In a letter sent by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, the agency’s investigators said the documents described how under the so-called Death Star strategy Enron’s traders were “creating, and then ‘relieving,’ phantom congestion” on the state’s power grid. According to the New York Times, the documents also detail what investigators described as “megawatt laundering,” in which Enron bought power in California—at lower capped prices—resold the power out of the state and then bought it back in order to resell it to California at a huge markup. By selling California “out-of-state” electricity, Enron could circumvent price restrictions on power bought inside California.
During and after the crisis Enron officials insisted they did nothing to exacerbate the situation. In an interview last year on the PBS “Frontline” program, Kenneth Lay said, “Every time there’s a shortage of a little bit of a price spike, it’s always collusion or conspiracy or something. I mean, it always makes people feel better that way.”
Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.
Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.
After FERC was finally pushed to restrict price hikes in late April 2001 Cheney denounced the move, telling the Los Angeles Times, “Price caps are not a help. They take us in exactly the wrong direction.” After reiterating that only free market policies could resolve California’s problems, Cheney added, “I’ve never seen price regulations that I’ve felt very good about. If I had been at FERC, I would never have voted for short-term price caps.”
At the time California’s Democratic governor and senators requested federal intervention to hold down the cost of electricity and charged that energy providers were manipulating the market to boost their profits. According to the New York Times, Senator Diane Feinstein said she tried “three or four times” to speak with Bush about the state’s crisis but the president refused to meet with her. Instead she held two brief meetings with Cheney as part of larger groups. “Their attitude was laissez-faire, let the market do what the market does, but it was a broken market,” she told the Times. At meetings with Cheney on March 27 and June 12, she said, the vice president spoke, “but did not listen much. When someone is looking at their watch, it gives you a pretty good idea they want to get out of the room,” Feinstein said.
Commenting on the fact that Enron’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, was given unrestricted access to the White House, Feinstein added, “Here is a company that was a ribald, as brash, as swashbuckling and as unethical as any company I can possibly conceive of. And they had major access to this administration. But the senior senator from California can’t get to see them.”
The Democratic senator has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to “pursue a criminal investigation to determine whether in fact any federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated.” But neither Feinstein nor any other Democrats have suggested that there should be a criminal investigation in the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of the energy trader.
For its part, the US media, which spent the Clinton years giving credence to every right-wing campaign to destabilize the government—from Whitewater to the Monica Lewinsky affair—has also sought to downplay Bush’s ties to a company that wreaked havoc in California, defrauded its investors and threw thousands of workers out of work, while its executives made millions in compensation.
California officials are seeking to recover some of the $30 billion Governor Gray Davis says Enron “extorted from the state.” But that will be difficult because the company has filed for bankruptcy and sold off its energy-trading division. USB Warburg, the investment bank that bought the division in February, said it had no liability for any violations carried out by the former management. “We did not inherit the liabilities,” a spokesperson said.
Enron epitomizes the corruption that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and provides a glimpse of the anti-social methods used by the financial elite to accrue their vast personal fortunes during the stock market boom of the 1990s. It also shines further light on all the nostrums about deregulation and the “magic of the market.”
According to the memos, Enron was not alone in manipulating the state’s energy market. The Enron attorneys said other energy traders emulated Enron and even used the same shorthand names to describe the schemes they used. A spokesman for an energy trading group told the San Francisco Chronicle that Enron methods were not criminal and in fact the company was just doing what everyone else was doing. “They were probing different spots to see what worked,” said Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum. “A lot of companies were doing that. Any time there is a complex system like the energy market, people are going to stick their finger in and see what works.”
“The whole reason for the existence of traders is to make as much money as possible, consistent with what’s legal,” R. Martin Chavez, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs told the New York Times. “I lived through this: if you didn’t manipulate the market and manipulation was accessible to you, that’s when you were yelled at.”
Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.
Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps.
Residents in the country’s largest state suffered through six days of rolling blackouts in early 2001 following a tenfold increase in energy prices. The price hikes caused the bankruptcy and near-collapse of the two large utilities, leading to the layoff of thousands of workers and the wiping out of many small investors. In addition, state officials imposed severe budget cuts due to a rise in energy costs from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000, and after laying out $6 billion to buy daily power and another $40 billion to secure long-term contracts and stabilize the state’s energy supply.
Included in the documents was a memo written by an Enron staff attorney and an outside lawyer on December 6, 2000, the day after the state’s first near-blackout. Written apparently in anticipation of investigations and possible lawsuits against the company, the memo described trading strategies used to create the appearance of shortages or congestion, circumvent state pricing caps and in general exploit the anarchy of the market—which it helped create as one of the chief proponents of state deregulation during the 1990s. The strategies had such nicknames as “Fat Boy,” “Ricochet,” “Get Shorty,” “Death Star” and “Load Shift.”
One such strategy involved the company buying electricity from the California Power Exchange for $250 a megawatt-hour—the maximum allowed under state limits—and reselling it to states in the Northern Pacific for $1,200. Aware that this was contributing to a further shortage in California, the lawyers wrote, “This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California’s declaration of a State 2 Emergency yesterday.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Enron found a way to profit by playing each of the state’s two energy markets off one another. The first, a “day-ahead” auction market run by the California Power Exchange—the “PX”—was supposed to handle the bulk of electricity requirements. A second “real time” market was run by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), which was meant only to correct occasional imbalances. The latter became the source of vast profits from huge price swings.
Buyers and sellers in the real-time market were required to submit daily schedules of their production and their “load,” i.e., the amount of power their customers in the state required. While these two estimates were supposed to be roughly equivalent, according to the internal memo one of Enron’s key strategies—code-named “Load Shift”—was to deliberately overstate the amount of energy its customers required. When energy supplies were tight Cal-ISO would pay traders a premium for providing more power than was required. Enron would deliver the promised amount and would then be paid a premium price for removing their energy from the grid.
Enron also flooded the state’s transmission lines with more electricity than it could handle in order collect “congestion payments” from Cal-ISO to schedule energy transmission in the opposite direction or reduce their generation/load schedule. “Because the congestion charges have been as high as $750/MW [per megawatt], it can often be profitable to sell power at a loss simply to collect the congestion payment,” the memo said.
In a letter sent by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, the agency’s investigators said the documents described how under the so-called Death Star strategy Enron’s traders were “creating, and then ‘relieving,’ phantom congestion” on the state’s power grid. According to the New York Times, the documents also detail what investigators described as “megawatt laundering,” in which Enron bought power in California—at lower capped prices—resold the power out of the state and then bought it back in order to resell it to California at a huge markup. By selling California “out-of-state” electricity, Enron could circumvent price restrictions on power bought inside California.
During and after the crisis Enron officials insisted they did nothing to exacerbate the situation. In an interview last year on the PBS “Frontline” program, Kenneth Lay said, “Every time there’s a shortage of a little bit of a price spike, it’s always collusion or conspiracy or something. I mean, it always makes people feel better that way.”
Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.
After FERC was finally pushed to restrict price hikes in late April 2001 Cheney denounced the move, telling the Los Angeles Times, “Price caps are not a help. They take us in exactly the wrong direction.” After reiterating that only free market policies could resolve California’s problems, Cheney added, “I’ve never seen price regulations that I’ve felt very good about. If I had been at FERC, I would never have voted for short-term price caps.”
At the time California’s Democratic governor and senators requested federal intervention to hold down the cost of electricity and charged that energy providers were manipulating the market to boost their profits. According to the New York Times, Senator Diane Feinstein said she tried “three or four times” to speak with Bush about the state’s crisis but the president refused to meet with her. Instead she held two brief meetings with Cheney as part of larger groups. “Their attitude was laissez-faire, let the market do what the market does, but it was a broken market,” she told the Times. At meetings with Cheney on March 27 and June 12, she said, the vice president spoke, “but did not listen much. When someone is looking at their watch, it gives you a pretty good idea they want to get out of the room,” Feinstein said.
Commenting on the fact that Enron’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, was given unrestricted access to the White House, Feinstein added, “Here is a company that was a ribald, as brash, as swashbuckling and as unethical as any company I can possibly conceive of. And they had major access to this administration. But the senior senator from California can’t get to see them.”
The Democratic senator has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to “pursue a criminal investigation to determine whether in fact any federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated.” But neither Feinstein nor any other Democrats have suggested that there should be a criminal investigation in the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of the energy trader.
For its part, the US media, which spent the Clinton years giving credence to every right-wing campaign to destabilize the government—from Whitewater to the Monica Lewinsky affair—has also sought to downplay Bush’s ties to a company that wreaked havoc in California, defrauded its investors and threw thousands of workers out of work, while its executives made millions in compensation.
California officials are seeking to recover some of the $30 billion Governor Gray Davis says Enron “extorted from the state.” But that will be difficult because the company has filed for bankruptcy and sold off its energy-trading division. USB Warburg, the investment bank that bought the division in February, said it had no liability for any violations carried out by the former management. “We did not inherit the liabilities,” a spokesperson said.
Enron epitomizes the corruption that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and provides a glimpse of the anti-social methods used by the financial elite to accrue their vast personal fortunes during the stock market boom of the 1990s. It also shines further light on all the nostrums about deregulation and the “magic of the market.”
According to the memos, Enron was not alone in manipulating the state’s energy market. The Enron attorneys said other energy traders emulated Enron and even used the same shorthand names to describe the schemes they used. A spokesman for an energy trading group told the San Francisco Chronicle that Enron methods were not criminal and in fact the company was just doing what everyone else was doing. “They were probing different spots to see what worked,” said Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum. “A lot of companies were doing that. Any time there is a complex system like the energy market, people are going to stick their finger in and see what works.”
“The whole reason for the existence of traders is to make as much money as possible, consistent with what’s legal,” R. Martin Chavez, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs told the New York Times. “I lived through this: if you didn’t manipulate the market and manipulation was accessible to you, that’s when you were yelled at.”
the Texas Attorney General, has opened an investigation as to the vadality of such demand and the justification for the price charge. For those who were lucky not to lose power, your electric bill will be at the normal rate. Those of us who experienced the blackouts will pay the piper.....reminds me of Enron. I read the transcripts of the enginneers, in Houston in cahoots with the Enron engineers, in California, it is sickening to know how a system can be manipulated. HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED, when their oxygen or other life supporting electrical equipment quit working for the greed of Enron, and the engineers, that had their finger on the switch. Their greed had many consequences, like auto wreck fatalities, when traffic lights quit working at the push of a button by the greed of this company....Not all were prosecuted, but will be judged accordingly at the end of their journey.
Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.
Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps.
Residents in the country’s largest state suffered through six days of rolling blackouts in early 2001 following a tenfold increase in energy prices. The price hikes caused the bankruptcy and near-collapse of the two large utilities, leading to the layoff of thousands of workers and the wiping out of many small investors. In addition, state officials imposed severe budget cuts due to a rise in energy costs from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000, and after laying out $6 billion to buy daily power and another $40 billion to secure long-term contracts and stabilize the state’s energy supply.
Included in the documents was a memo written by an Enron staff attorney and an outside lawyer on December 6, 2000, the day after the state’s first near-blackout. Written apparently in anticipation of investigations and possible lawsuits against the company, the memo described trading strategies used to create the appearance of shortages or congestion, circumvent state pricing caps and in general exploit the anarchy of the market—which it helped create as one of the chief proponents of state deregulation during the 1990s. The strategies had such nicknames as “Fat Boy,” “Ricochet,” “Get Shorty,” “Death Star” and “Load Shift.”
One such strategy involved the company buying electricity from the California Power Exchange for $250 a megawatt-hour—the maximum allowed under state limits—and reselling it to states in the Northern Pacific for $1,200. Aware that this was contributing to a further shortage in California, the lawyers wrote, “This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California’s declaration of a State 2 Emergency yesterday.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Enron found a way to profit by playing each of the state’s two energy markets off one another. The first, a “day-ahead” auction market run by the California Power Exchange—the “PX”—was supposed to handle the bulk of electricity requirements. A second “real time” market was run by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), which was meant only to correct occasional imbalances. The latter became the source of vast profits from huge price swings.
Buyers and sellers in the real-time market were required to submit daily schedules of their production and their “load,” i.e., the amount of power their customers in the state required. While these two estimates were supposed to be roughly equivalent, according to the internal memo one of Enron’s key strategies—code-named “Load Shift”—was to deliberately overstate the amount of energy its customers required. When energy supplies were tight Cal-ISO would pay traders a premium for providing more power than was required. Enron would deliver the promised amount and would then be paid a premium price for removing their energy from the grid.
Enron also flooded the state’s transmission lines with more electricity than it could handle in order collect “congestion payments” from Cal-ISO to schedule energy transmission in the opposite direction or reduce their generation/load schedule. “Because the congestion charges have been as high as $750/MW [per megawatt], it can often be profitable to sell power at a loss simply to collect the congestion payment,” the memo said.
In a letter sent by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, the agency’s investigators said the documents described how under the so-called Death Star strategy Enron’s traders were “creating, and then ‘relieving,’ phantom congestion” on the state’s power grid. According to the New York Times, the documents also detail what investigators described as “megawatt laundering,” in which Enron bought power in California—at lower capped prices—resold the power out of the state and then bought it back in order to resell it to California at a huge markup. By selling California “out-of-state” electricity, Enron could circumvent price restrictions on power bought inside California.
During and after the crisis Enron officials insisted they did nothing to exacerbate the situation. In an interview last year on the PBS “Frontline” program, Kenneth Lay said, “Every time there’s a shortage of a little bit of a price spike, it’s always collusion or conspiracy or something. I mean, it always makes people feel better that way.”
Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.
Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.
After FERC was finally pushed to restrict price hikes in late April 2001 Cheney denounced the move, telling the Los Angeles Times, “Price caps are not a help. They take us in exactly the wrong direction.” After reiterating that only free market policies could resolve California’s problems, Cheney added, “I’ve never seen price regulations that I’ve felt very good about. If I had been at FERC, I would never have voted for short-term price caps.”
At the time California’s Democratic governor and senators requested federal intervention to hold down the cost of electricity and charged that energy providers were manipulating the market to boost their profits. According to the New York Times, Senator Diane Feinstein said she tried “three or four times” to speak with Bush about the state’s crisis but the president refused to meet with her. Instead she held two brief meetings with Cheney as part of larger groups. “Their attitude was laissez-faire, let the market do what the market does, but it was a broken market,” she told the Times. At meetings with Cheney on March 27 and June 12, she said, the vice president spoke, “but did not listen much. When someone is looking at their watch, it gives you a pretty good idea they want to get out of the room,” Feinstein said.
Commenting on the fact that Enron’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, was given unrestricted access to the White House, Feinstein added, “Here is a company that was a ribald, as brash, as swashbuckling and as unethical as any company I can possibly conceive of. And they had major access to this administration. But the senior senator from California can’t get to see them.”
The Democratic senator has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to “pursue a criminal investigation to determine whether in fact any federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated.” But neither Feinstein nor any other Democrats have suggested that there should be a criminal investigation in the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of the energy trader.
For its part, the US media, which spent the Clinton years giving credence to every right-wing campaign to destabilize the government—from Whitewater to the Monica Lewinsky affair—has also sought to downplay Bush’s ties to a company that wreaked havoc in California, defrauded its investors and threw thousands of workers out of work, while its executives made millions in compensation.
California officials are seeking to recover some of the $30 billion Governor Gray Davis says Enron “extorted from the state.” But that will be difficult because the company has filed for bankruptcy and sold off its energy-trading division. USB Warburg, the investment bank that bought the division in February, said it had no liability for any violations carried out by the former management. “We did not inherit the liabilities,” a spokesperson said.
Enron epitomizes the corruption that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and provides a glimpse of the anti-social methods used by the financial elite to accrue their vast personal fortunes during the stock market boom of the 1990s. It also shines further light on all the nostrums about deregulation and the “magic of the market.”
According to the memos, Enron was not alone in manipulating the state’s energy market. The Enron attorneys said other energy traders emulated Enron and even used the same shorthand names to describe the schemes they used. A spokesman for an energy trading group told the San Francisco Chronicle that Enron methods were not criminal and in fact the company was just doing what everyone else was doing. “They were probing different spots to see what worked,” said Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum. “A lot of companies were doing that. Any time there is a complex system like the energy market, people are going to stick their finger in and see what works.”
“The whole reason for the existence of traders is to make as much money as possible, consistent with what’s legal,” R. Martin Chavez, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs told the New York Times. “I lived through this: if you didn’t manipulate the market and manipulation was accessible to you, that’s when you were yelled at.”
Enron Corporation deliberately created real and imaginary shortages during the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, in order drive up prices and reap vast profits in the state’s newly deregulated energy market.
Internal memos from the now bankrupt company outline the various schemes Enron executives used to defraud officials running the state’s power grid, manipulate energy supplies and literally loot the state treasury of billions of dollars. Throughout this period Enron enjoyed the closest political ties with the Bush White House, which rejected appeals from California officials for federal intervention and the imposition of price caps.
Residents in the country’s largest state suffered through six days of rolling blackouts in early 2001 following a tenfold increase in energy prices. The price hikes caused the bankruptcy and near-collapse of the two large utilities, leading to the layoff of thousands of workers and the wiping out of many small investors. In addition, state officials imposed severe budget cuts due to a rise in energy costs from $7 billion in 1999 to $27 billion in 2000, and after laying out $6 billion to buy daily power and another $40 billion to secure long-term contracts and stabilize the state’s energy supply.
Included in the documents was a memo written by an Enron staff attorney and an outside lawyer on December 6, 2000, the day after the state’s first near-blackout. Written apparently in anticipation of investigations and possible lawsuits against the company, the memo described trading strategies used to create the appearance of shortages or congestion, circumvent state pricing caps and in general exploit the anarchy of the market—which it helped create as one of the chief proponents of state deregulation during the 1990s. The strategies had such nicknames as “Fat Boy,” “Ricochet,” “Get Shorty,” “Death Star” and “Load Shift.”
One such strategy involved the company buying electricity from the California Power Exchange for $250 a megawatt-hour—the maximum allowed under state limits—and reselling it to states in the Northern Pacific for $1,200. Aware that this was contributing to a further shortage in California, the lawyers wrote, “This strategy appears not to present any problems, other than a public relations risk arising from the fact that such exports may have contributed to California’s declaration of a State 2 Emergency yesterday.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, Enron found a way to profit by playing each of the state’s two energy markets off one another. The first, a “day-ahead” auction market run by the California Power Exchange—the “PX”—was supposed to handle the bulk of electricity requirements. A second “real time” market was run by the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO), which was meant only to correct occasional imbalances. The latter became the source of vast profits from huge price swings.
Buyers and sellers in the real-time market were required to submit daily schedules of their production and their “load,” i.e., the amount of power their customers in the state required. While these two estimates were supposed to be roughly equivalent, according to the internal memo one of Enron’s key strategies—code-named “Load Shift”—was to deliberately overstate the amount of energy its customers required. When energy supplies were tight Cal-ISO would pay traders a premium for providing more power than was required. Enron would deliver the promised amount and would then be paid a premium price for removing their energy from the grid.
Enron also flooded the state’s transmission lines with more electricity than it could handle in order collect “congestion payments” from Cal-ISO to schedule energy transmission in the opposite direction or reduce their generation/load schedule. “Because the congestion charges have been as high as $750/MW [per megawatt], it can often be profitable to sell power at a loss simply to collect the congestion payment,” the memo said.
In a letter sent by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, the agency’s investigators said the documents described how under the so-called Death Star strategy Enron’s traders were “creating, and then ‘relieving,’ phantom congestion” on the state’s power grid. According to the New York Times, the documents also detail what investigators described as “megawatt laundering,” in which Enron bought power in California—at lower capped prices—resold the power out of the state and then bought it back in order to resell it to California at a huge markup. By selling California “out-of-state” electricity, Enron could circumvent price restrictions on power bought inside California.
During and after the crisis Enron officials insisted they did nothing to exacerbate the situation. In an interview last year on the PBS “Frontline” program, Kenneth Lay said, “Every time there’s a shortage of a little bit of a price spike, it’s always collusion or conspiracy or something. I mean, it always makes people feel better that way.”
Bush administration officials repeated Enron’s claims that California’s problems were caused by the state’s “flawed” deregulation plan—which was not “free market” enough—and strict environmental standards, which limited the construction of new power plants. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly opposed price controls, insisting that any such moves would be a disincentive for power companies to operate in the state.Several weeks after the memos were written outlining the company’s strategy to manipulate California’s market, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay—the largest single contributor to Bush’s political career—successfully prompted the Bush administration to appoint free-market advocate Pat Wood as the head of the Federal Energy Regulation Commission. Once in place, Wood resisted the implementation of price controls for months while the crisis spun out of control.
After FERC was finally pushed to restrict price hikes in late April 2001 Cheney denounced the move, telling the Los Angeles Times, “Price caps are not a help. They take us in exactly the wrong direction.” After reiterating that only free market policies could resolve California’s problems, Cheney added, “I’ve never seen price regulations that I’ve felt very good about. If I had been at FERC, I would never have voted for short-term price caps.”
At the time California’s Democratic governor and senators requested federal intervention to hold down the cost of electricity and charged that energy providers were manipulating the market to boost their profits. According to the New York Times, Senator Diane Feinstein said she tried “three or four times” to speak with Bush about the state’s crisis but the president refused to meet with her. Instead she held two brief meetings with Cheney as part of larger groups. “Their attitude was laissez-faire, let the market do what the market does, but it was a broken market,” she told the Times. At meetings with Cheney on March 27 and June 12, she said, the vice president spoke, “but did not listen much. When someone is looking at their watch, it gives you a pretty good idea they want to get out of the room,” Feinstein said.
Commenting on the fact that Enron’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, was given unrestricted access to the White House, Feinstein added, “Here is a company that was a ribald, as brash, as swashbuckling and as unethical as any company I can possibly conceive of. And they had major access to this administration. But the senior senator from California can’t get to see them.”
The Democratic senator has asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to “pursue a criminal investigation to determine whether in fact any federal fraud statutes or any other laws were violated.” But neither Feinstein nor any other Democrats have suggested that there should be a criminal investigation in the Bush administration’s efforts on behalf of the energy trader.
For its part, the US media, which spent the Clinton years giving credence to every right-wing campaign to destabilize the government—from Whitewater to the Monica Lewinsky affair—has also sought to downplay Bush’s ties to a company that wreaked havoc in California, defrauded its investors and threw thousands of workers out of work, while its executives made millions in compensation.
California officials are seeking to recover some of the $30 billion Governor Gray Davis says Enron “extorted from the state.” But that will be difficult because the company has filed for bankruptcy and sold off its energy-trading division. USB Warburg, the investment bank that bought the division in February, said it had no liability for any violations carried out by the former management. “We did not inherit the liabilities,” a spokesperson said.
Enron epitomizes the corruption that is so pervasive throughout corporate America and provides a glimpse of the anti-social methods used by the financial elite to accrue their vast personal fortunes during the stock market boom of the 1990s. It also shines further light on all the nostrums about deregulation and the “magic of the market.”
According to the memos, Enron was not alone in manipulating the state’s energy market. The Enron attorneys said other energy traders emulated Enron and even used the same shorthand names to describe the schemes they used. A spokesman for an energy trading group told the San Francisco Chronicle that Enron methods were not criminal and in fact the company was just doing what everyone else was doing. “They were probing different spots to see what worked,” said Gary Ackerman of the Western Power Trading Forum. “A lot of companies were doing that. Any time there is a complex system like the energy market, people are going to stick their finger in and see what works.”
“The whole reason for the existence of traders is to make as much money as possible, consistent with what’s legal,” R. Martin Chavez, a former head of risk management at Goldman Sachs told the New York Times. “I lived through this: if you didn’t manipulate the market and manipulation was accessible to you, that’s when you were yelled at.”
The truth about the man on the Pedestal......Ronald Reagan
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“
Fred Herrera
2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.
4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.
6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by Regean’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.
7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major embarrassment for conservatives.
8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior administration officials to resign.
9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,” saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that country.”
10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendency.
Conservatives seem to be in such denial about the less flattering aspects of Reagan; it sometimes appears as if they genuinely don’t know the truth of his legacy. Yesterday, when liberal activist Mike Stark challenged hate radio host Rush Limbaugh on why Reagan remains a conservative hero despite raising taxes so many times, Limbaugh flew into a tirade and demanded, “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes?“
Fred Herrera
Saturday, February 5, 2011
The ideas of free will and American Democracy come with a number of challenges and responsibilities
I believe that America is at a crossroads, a crossroads that requires us to make many decisions about the future.
Decisions that we must first make as individuals, digging down deep inside ourselves and coming to terms with the differences between a world we imagine is possible and say we desire and live in, and the world that seems to happen to us as we work and live day by day.
What we must realize is that the difference is not determined by the circumstances thrust upon us, but the choices we make based upon our commitment to the standards and princples that we say define us as people and a nation.
When our founders designed the Constitution, they did so based on many of their own experiences, such as their desire to escape from religious tyranny. They understood that part of free will was about a choice to believe, to practice or not, and they respected the divine right of the individual to choose their own beliefs and practices.
I believe that the American Democracy crafted by the founders of this nation is the most perfect human expression of free will as inspired and granted by God.
Democracy can only succeed if the spirit of that same intent and hope is honored.
In my beliefs, separation of church and state is an essential part of government and American Democracy. It allows people to make choices themselves, and relieves them of the burden of having to evaluate political issues interjected as a part of their ritual or discipline in their relationship with God, whatever it is, however they choose to observe it..
Like many Americans, I know we have room for improvement. There's always room for improvement. But the intent of American Democracy allows for all persuasions and beliefs. It allows for co-existence of the Amish and Native Americans, it validates the concerns of members of the Christian Coalition as well as those who describe themselves as atheists.
The question is whether we, the people, will allow it.
American Democracy is like an ongoing conversation. It must consider every opinion and every belief and every concern and honor its validity. Justice is not to be a judgement of right or wrong, but is an agreement of accountability for a code of conduct molded by laws and customs, based on a philosophy of freedom to the exclusion only of that which would do harm to others.
Justice is about agreement to laws easily argued to be derived from the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For me, if it was observed, no other law would be necessary.
To me, in many ways, American Democracy is like the experiment your teacher did with you many years ago. The one where the teacher lined up 20 children side by side, and then went to one end of the line, and told the first child a story. That child would then tell the story to the next child and so on and so on, until finally, the last child told everyone what they had been told.
The story that last child told had a thread of truth to it. It used the words justice and freedom and choice and rights, but the meaning of the words had somehow been changed, and did not mean the same things anymore.
To me, it means things like how we're told we live in a nation of laws. I say, we live in a nation of loopholes. I don't say that lightly.
Day after day, we hear about court rulings and civil filings that have nothing to do with honoring the intent of the laws that were to provide guidance and remedies for impasses. Instead, we hear of "gray areas", ways to get around things, methods of using technical semantics to evade the intent of the law.
In my mind, the use of those semantics as a defense is an acknowledgement of the offenses being committed, if you took the intent of the law seriously.
To me, it is simpler to say that people have begun using the legal system to prove their righteousness for activities they know are wrong... in a society claiming to be based on moral Christian beliefs.
The ideas of free will and American Democracy come with a number of challenges and responsibilities.
A challenge and responsibility in its constant vigil and commitment to the real intent of justice, as opposed to justice imposed based on bias or persuasion, causing division and hostility.
A challenge and responsibility to provide for the representation of the will and well-being of its entire population above all else
A challenge and responsibility to set a global example as those who exercise their spiritual disciplines and mandates through wisdom and compassion in their actions and policies toward the people of other nations in order to be at cause in generating global cooperation and democratic attitudes.
A challenge and responsibility to prove that tranparency in governing bodies and keeping the citizens informed and participating in the democratic process is desireable and of superior quality.
A challenge and responsibility to generate legislation and a culture that is inclusive.
This is, by no means, a complete list of concerns or considerations. But I believe that in them, you'll find the values of American Democracy that have made it so great for so long. All of them are values we should seek to reclaim on a daily basis, to be better as individuals, better as a nation, and better as a world.
That's what America means to me, that's what it represents. A nation of people always willing to look above the heat of emotions and passions on indivdual issues, and finding ways to allow us all to have the things we need and the freedom we deserve, that we say is granted by God.
Some people think that what I'm calling for is change. I say that what I am calling for is more like a reclamation. I beleive it's time that we take a step back, look at things objectively, and reclaim those things that work, but most importantly, to discard systems and divisory political practices that don't work, so that we can create the future based on what we say we want, and what we know is needed.
I'm calling for a return to an American Democracy that serves all people and interests with responsible legislation and liability. Legislation and judgement realized without bias or coercion,.without granting advantage or favor.
And, applying the values of free will we claim as a people for the people, when considering all limitations and regulations to be enforced.
What America means to me, more than anything else, is a government designed to be in service to the people.
That is not exclusive or biased against business interests, it is inclusive and symbiotic. It also acknowledges that the needs of the people, the citizens, must be met before any other interests, profits or ventures could possibly make any significant contribution to humanity.
To me, America means a nation of people who, when they are informed and welcomed to participate in Democracy, make the right decisions for America, humanity and all beings.
History has proven it time and time again. And I believe we will all prove it again very soon.
Decisions that we must first make as individuals, digging down deep inside ourselves and coming to terms with the differences between a world we imagine is possible and say we desire and live in, and the world that seems to happen to us as we work and live day by day.
What we must realize is that the difference is not determined by the circumstances thrust upon us, but the choices we make based upon our commitment to the standards and princples that we say define us as people and a nation.
When our founders designed the Constitution, they did so based on many of their own experiences, such as their desire to escape from religious tyranny. They understood that part of free will was about a choice to believe, to practice or not, and they respected the divine right of the individual to choose their own beliefs and practices.
I believe that the American Democracy crafted by the founders of this nation is the most perfect human expression of free will as inspired and granted by God.
Democracy can only succeed if the spirit of that same intent and hope is honored.
In my beliefs, separation of church and state is an essential part of government and American Democracy. It allows people to make choices themselves, and relieves them of the burden of having to evaluate political issues interjected as a part of their ritual or discipline in their relationship with God, whatever it is, however they choose to observe it..
Like many Americans, I know we have room for improvement. There's always room for improvement. But the intent of American Democracy allows for all persuasions and beliefs. It allows for co-existence of the Amish and Native Americans, it validates the concerns of members of the Christian Coalition as well as those who describe themselves as atheists.
The question is whether we, the people, will allow it.
American Democracy is like an ongoing conversation. It must consider every opinion and every belief and every concern and honor its validity. Justice is not to be a judgement of right or wrong, but is an agreement of accountability for a code of conduct molded by laws and customs, based on a philosophy of freedom to the exclusion only of that which would do harm to others.
Justice is about agreement to laws easily argued to be derived from the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For me, if it was observed, no other law would be necessary.
To me, in many ways, American Democracy is like the experiment your teacher did with you many years ago. The one where the teacher lined up 20 children side by side, and then went to one end of the line, and told the first child a story. That child would then tell the story to the next child and so on and so on, until finally, the last child told everyone what they had been told.
The story that last child told had a thread of truth to it. It used the words justice and freedom and choice and rights, but the meaning of the words had somehow been changed, and did not mean the same things anymore.
To me, it means things like how we're told we live in a nation of laws. I say, we live in a nation of loopholes. I don't say that lightly.
Day after day, we hear about court rulings and civil filings that have nothing to do with honoring the intent of the laws that were to provide guidance and remedies for impasses. Instead, we hear of "gray areas", ways to get around things, methods of using technical semantics to evade the intent of the law.
In my mind, the use of those semantics as a defense is an acknowledgement of the offenses being committed, if you took the intent of the law seriously.
To me, it is simpler to say that people have begun using the legal system to prove their righteousness for activities they know are wrong... in a society claiming to be based on moral Christian beliefs.
The ideas of free will and American Democracy come with a number of challenges and responsibilities.
A challenge and responsibility in its constant vigil and commitment to the real intent of justice, as opposed to justice imposed based on bias or persuasion, causing division and hostility.
A challenge and responsibility to provide for the representation of the will and well-being of its entire population above all else
A challenge and responsibility to set a global example as those who exercise their spiritual disciplines and mandates through wisdom and compassion in their actions and policies toward the people of other nations in order to be at cause in generating global cooperation and democratic attitudes.
A challenge and responsibility to prove that tranparency in governing bodies and keeping the citizens informed and participating in the democratic process is desireable and of superior quality.
A challenge and responsibility to generate legislation and a culture that is inclusive.
This is, by no means, a complete list of concerns or considerations. But I believe that in them, you'll find the values of American Democracy that have made it so great for so long. All of them are values we should seek to reclaim on a daily basis, to be better as individuals, better as a nation, and better as a world.
That's what America means to me, that's what it represents. A nation of people always willing to look above the heat of emotions and passions on indivdual issues, and finding ways to allow us all to have the things we need and the freedom we deserve, that we say is granted by God.
Some people think that what I'm calling for is change. I say that what I am calling for is more like a reclamation. I beleive it's time that we take a step back, look at things objectively, and reclaim those things that work, but most importantly, to discard systems and divisory political practices that don't work, so that we can create the future based on what we say we want, and what we know is needed.
I'm calling for a return to an American Democracy that serves all people and interests with responsible legislation and liability. Legislation and judgement realized without bias or coercion,.without granting advantage or favor.
And, applying the values of free will we claim as a people for the people, when considering all limitations and regulations to be enforced.
What America means to me, more than anything else, is a government designed to be in service to the people.
That is not exclusive or biased against business interests, it is inclusive and symbiotic. It also acknowledges that the needs of the people, the citizens, must be met before any other interests, profits or ventures could possibly make any significant contribution to humanity.
To me, America means a nation of people who, when they are informed and welcomed to participate in Democracy, make the right decisions for America, humanity and all beings.
History has proven it time and time again. And I believe we will all prove it again very soon.
There are times when the power of wealth overcomes the checks and balances of Democracy
There are times when the power of wealth overcomes the checks and balances of Democracy, and the needs of the citizens are ignored.
The United States is facing one of those times, and it's the responsibility of us - the people - to assert our collective power - united to demand that our leaders serve us - the citizens - for whom the country was founded.
Answers to many of the problems and issues we face today are available - but it takes leaders who are actually willing to resolve the issues, free of special interests and personal gain in order to resolve them.
We must make the right choices for people first, and re-instruct our "lesser of two evils" political systems that their mandate and loyalty must remain to the individual citizens of the world. We must demonstrate that the honor and responsibility of their authority is revocable and subject to scrutiny. And, that scrutiny should not be limited to a single political party or ideology.
People complain and talk about how money and politics has betrayed the people of this country, and then wait in hopes that someone will save them. It is that very hope that betrays us, because we believe those people - who speak empty words to convince us that they will deliver us from our concerns - and who, as a matter of history, consistently fail us.
We joke and say "Oh, it's just politics." That's what people do when they surrender to corruption. What else is there to do?
I say that we, the citizens, must take it upon ourselves to reject settling for what we are offered, and demand that our government serve us and seek ways to secure our nation while passionately defending our rights and liberties. That is not accomplished by diminishing them.
We must regain control of the agenda and legislative powers of this nation and in the world, which are often misused to the detriment of citizens and to the benefit of special interests.
We must agree to unite as a nation once again based on the principles of Democracy, justice and ethical values that we claim as the foundations of our culture, the liberty and free will as described in the Bible in the book of St. John.
"We must embrace a NEW American Revolution, a Global transformation, a social and cultural revolution of ideas, accountability, transparency and responsibility to ensure that our governments serve us... It begins in America... as citizens and as peers, to ensure that we are truly empowered to be the people and the nation we envision when we say "I'm proud to be an American".
The United States is facing one of those times, and it's the responsibility of us - the people - to assert our collective power - united to demand that our leaders serve us - the citizens - for whom the country was founded.
Answers to many of the problems and issues we face today are available - but it takes leaders who are actually willing to resolve the issues, free of special interests and personal gain in order to resolve them.
We must make the right choices for people first, and re-instruct our "lesser of two evils" political systems that their mandate and loyalty must remain to the individual citizens of the world. We must demonstrate that the honor and responsibility of their authority is revocable and subject to scrutiny. And, that scrutiny should not be limited to a single political party or ideology.
People complain and talk about how money and politics has betrayed the people of this country, and then wait in hopes that someone will save them. It is that very hope that betrays us, because we believe those people - who speak empty words to convince us that they will deliver us from our concerns - and who, as a matter of history, consistently fail us.
We joke and say "Oh, it's just politics." That's what people do when they surrender to corruption. What else is there to do?
I say that we, the citizens, must take it upon ourselves to reject settling for what we are offered, and demand that our government serve us and seek ways to secure our nation while passionately defending our rights and liberties. That is not accomplished by diminishing them.
We must regain control of the agenda and legislative powers of this nation and in the world, which are often misused to the detriment of citizens and to the benefit of special interests.
We must agree to unite as a nation once again based on the principles of Democracy, justice and ethical values that we claim as the foundations of our culture, the liberty and free will as described in the Bible in the book of St. John.
"We must embrace a NEW American Revolution, a Global transformation, a social and cultural revolution of ideas, accountability, transparency and responsibility to ensure that our governments serve us... It begins in America... as citizens and as peers, to ensure that we are truly empowered to be the people and the nation we envision when we say "I'm proud to be an American".
relations between Muslims and Christians
With an open mind explore the relations between the Muslims and Christians.I really believe, that we fear the fear of the unknown, so with that assumption I see our Islamophobic views.
Today 70% of all refugees in the world are Muslims. To Muslims, many of these refugees and other conflicts are a result of their powerlessness.
Muslims feel culturally enslaved, in many ways to the predominantly Christian West. The United States, with the new geopolitical reality of uni-polar world, continues to dictate policies to smaller nations of the world.
This new form of colonialism is done with the help of local lackeys in Muslim countries who take their orders about how their countries should be run from Washington, D.C. as opposed to locally.
On a larger level, British, French, American and Russian colonial powers (all Western, and all predominantly Christian) also control Muslim and other Third World countries through international institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Security Council of the United Nations.
This excessive power over the lives of millions is perceived by a number of Muslims as the continuing perpetuation of the colonial era. For most Muslims, colonialism is not about the spread of "refined European civilization". It is about massacre, slaver, and weakness. It is nothing to proudly look back upon.
The fight against tobacco
One example of modern American colonialism can be found in the fight against tobacco in the United States.
In the last fifteen years,( this is a guess) the US tobacco industry has lost business because of public health awareness campaigns against smoking. But in the same period the industry has achieved the record profits. How?
They now have an open market to sell their deadly products to Third World consumers, thanks to the help of the American government. So cancer is bad for Americans, but it's okay for others. Where is the justice?
Despots and dictators: not in my backyard, but fine for yours
A second example of Western neo-colonialism is found in these countries' support for corrupt dictators, totalitarian despots and anti-democratic forces in the Muslim world. Muslims question how sincere the Western belief in justice and democracy really is when this happens. For instance, the government of France supported the Algerian army when it canceled elections following the victory at the ballot of the Islamic Salvation Front party in 1992. France is the country famed for "liberty, equality and fraternity". It seems this is not what they had in mind for the Muslims in their former colonial baby, Algeria. The United States, which touts "freedom and democracy" has similarly supported undemocratic regimes in Muslim and other countries. Justice, it seems, is not for all, especially not Muslims.
Muslim minorities in the West versus Christian minorities in Muslim countries
Both of these groups of minorities have been the brunt of stereotypical images in the local media, along with various forms of harassment. For example, several Masjids in America have been burned down and attacked as have chuches in Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia. Tribal clashes in Nigeria have taken on a religious color and a number of Christians have been murdered outside churches in Pakistan.
Muslims in Muslim countries must protect the rights of their Christian neighbors to freely practice their religion as well as their freedom of speech, as Prophet Mohamed (peace and blessings be upon him) and the rightly guided Khalifas after him did.The constitution the Prophet drafted in Madinah following his migration from Makkah enshrined the rights of Christians and Jews in the city, including those of worship. These were fully enforced under his leadership. Another example was when Umar ibn al-Khattab was Khalifah. He returned tax money collected from Christians in a town in modern day Iraq after he and the Muslims had to leave it. The taxes had been collected to ensure Muslim protection of the Christians living there. Since the Muslims could no longer do that, they returned the money.
Similarly, Christians in countries like America must stand up for Muslims' rights, especially those of free speech and freedom of religion. This way, both groups can build bridges of understanding and tolerance in a world currently fraught with violence, terror and destruction. But amid these examples of New World Order colonialism and tense Muslim-Christian relations, there are some bright spots.
In the 1990s, the West did eventually come to the aid of Muslims following massacres, rapes and the oppression of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosova.
On the level of faith, the 1994 United Nations Conference on Population in Cairo, Egypt, became a platform for Muslim and Catholic cooperation against perceived anti-religious bias. In addition, it is somewhat ironic that while Muslims resent the Western support for dictatorships in their countries, they turn to the West when seeking to escape the oppression in their countries. For example, Iran's anti-Shah revolutionaries were essentially based in the West. It is not uncommon to find Muslim refugees escaping to Germany, France, Britain, America and Canada. While many of them are economic migrants, seeking a better life for themselves and their families on a financial level, there are also those escaping political turmoil and corruption in their home countries.
In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI set off worldwide controversy while quoting Manuel II during a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The reaction was swift and strong from Muslims the world over. While Pakistan's parliament voted to condemn him, Lebanon's leading Shia leader asked for a personal apology. The deputy head of Turkey's governing party put him in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately, two churches in Palestine were bombed and a nun in Somalia killed over the incident. This was followed by an apology in which the Pope said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry repercussions of his comments, adding that the quotation was not an expression of his personal views.
The Pope's statement is being taken by Muslims as part of a continuity of Islamophobic statements made by high profile Christians like Franklin Graham, who has described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion". I must laugh outload, realizing my ignorance.
Although some mainstream churches opposed Graham's statement, most adopted a silent or neutral stance towards such false, anti-Islamic propaganda.
US President George Bush's use of the term "Islamic Fascism" in the current "war against terrorism," in addition to the ongoing war against Iraq continue to confirm the Muslim perception that the war is turning against them, despite President Bush's assurances to the contrary. First came the reference to the war as a "crusade," then the bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq, which killed more than 100,000 civilians. All of this added to America's existing image as a one-sided in reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. and as sorry as I am to admit it, I believed it.
In the US, Muslims are living in a virtual internment camp under a regime of fear. About a half a million Muslim Americans have been directly affected by the government policies although not a single Muslim American have been successfully convicted of terrorism so far. Four major charities in the US have been banned without due process of law. Muslims who gave millions of dollars to these charities to fulfill the third pillar of Islam, Zakat, in the month of Ramadan, lost all that money. The abuse of individual freedom, the media's ridicule of Islam and mockery of Muslim beliefs have led to such lawlessness in dealing with Muslims that one Jewish attorney of a Muslim client commented that, "Muslims have become the new Ni...rs of America." I hate using the word, since the true meaning of the word has been so wrongly used on African Americans. Like Gary say, use your Webster Dictionary, and lookup the word Ni...r. I think you would come to the same conclusion, that there are alot of white Americans, that the word describes to the "T".Terrorism is a real threat. It must be dealt with in a proper and fair manner. If we could wait to try American terrorist, Timothy McVeigh with the due course of law, why not let these individuals and their organizations know what the charges are against them and allow them to defend themselves. It seems that a Christian terrorist has civil rights but a Muslim terrorist has none, although terrorists do not represent their faith. Otherwise they would not do things like this.There have been several positive actions taken by our neighbors since September 11. A number of churches and their leaders have come forward in interfaith gatherings to show support and sympathy for the Muslims of America. The late Pope issued a call to Catholics worldwide to fast on the last Friday of Ramadan of 2002 in solidarity with Muslims. Some non-Muslim women have donned headscarves as a way of expressing sympathy for Muslim women too afraid to cover themselves in the backlash that followed the September 11 attacks. this is how, we show our ignorance. More recently, a number of mainstream Christian groups have been at the forefront of the peace movement that opposed the war on Iraq, as well as the country's occupation by America. (Bush/Cheney,Worst and most expensive act, but anyway, that is besides the point I am trying to make here.)This is a very positive step forward, considering that churches did not oppose the Vietnam War until 10 years after it began, nor did Christian groups oppose the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, except for the Quakers. My dad, fought in World War 11, a war with MERIT, I lost a brother to the Vietnam Conflict, a war,we now see as having no MERIT. Many Of our Brave, lost their lives to this war, and returned home, where many Americans, did not show gratitude. It was not our Military Service men & women, who started that war, but were defending our freedom here at home. In addition, amongst Christian groups, there has been a split in terms of war on Iraq. While most groups oppose the war, the more right-wing groups, like the evangelicals support it.
And so the cycle of positive and negative relations between Muslims and Christians continues. Muslims and Christians must continue to work together for peace and justice for all people. Muslims and Christians in America, especially, are in a unique position to do this and can serve as an example of peaceful coexistence of minorities the world over. I feel as though, I might be opening a can of worms, but what the hey.
Fred G. Herrera
.
Today 70% of all refugees in the world are Muslims. To Muslims, many of these refugees and other conflicts are a result of their powerlessness.
Muslims feel culturally enslaved, in many ways to the predominantly Christian West. The United States, with the new geopolitical reality of uni-polar world, continues to dictate policies to smaller nations of the world.
This new form of colonialism is done with the help of local lackeys in Muslim countries who take their orders about how their countries should be run from Washington, D.C. as opposed to locally.
On a larger level, British, French, American and Russian colonial powers (all Western, and all predominantly Christian) also control Muslim and other Third World countries through international institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Security Council of the United Nations.
This excessive power over the lives of millions is perceived by a number of Muslims as the continuing perpetuation of the colonial era. For most Muslims, colonialism is not about the spread of "refined European civilization". It is about massacre, slaver, and weakness. It is nothing to proudly look back upon.
The fight against tobacco
One example of modern American colonialism can be found in the fight against tobacco in the United States.
In the last fifteen years,( this is a guess) the US tobacco industry has lost business because of public health awareness campaigns against smoking. But in the same period the industry has achieved the record profits. How?
They now have an open market to sell their deadly products to Third World consumers, thanks to the help of the American government. So cancer is bad for Americans, but it's okay for others. Where is the justice?
Despots and dictators: not in my backyard, but fine for yours
A second example of Western neo-colonialism is found in these countries' support for corrupt dictators, totalitarian despots and anti-democratic forces in the Muslim world. Muslims question how sincere the Western belief in justice and democracy really is when this happens. For instance, the government of France supported the Algerian army when it canceled elections following the victory at the ballot of the Islamic Salvation Front party in 1992. France is the country famed for "liberty, equality and fraternity". It seems this is not what they had in mind for the Muslims in their former colonial baby, Algeria. The United States, which touts "freedom and democracy" has similarly supported undemocratic regimes in Muslim and other countries. Justice, it seems, is not for all, especially not Muslims.
Muslim minorities in the West versus Christian minorities in Muslim countries
Both of these groups of minorities have been the brunt of stereotypical images in the local media, along with various forms of harassment. For example, several Masjids in America have been burned down and attacked as have chuches in Nigeria, Pakistan and Indonesia. Tribal clashes in Nigeria have taken on a religious color and a number of Christians have been murdered outside churches in Pakistan.
Muslims in Muslim countries must protect the rights of their Christian neighbors to freely practice their religion as well as their freedom of speech, as Prophet Mohamed (peace and blessings be upon him) and the rightly guided Khalifas after him did.The constitution the Prophet drafted in Madinah following his migration from Makkah enshrined the rights of Christians and Jews in the city, including those of worship. These were fully enforced under his leadership. Another example was when Umar ibn al-Khattab was Khalifah. He returned tax money collected from Christians in a town in modern day Iraq after he and the Muslims had to leave it. The taxes had been collected to ensure Muslim protection of the Christians living there. Since the Muslims could no longer do that, they returned the money.
Similarly, Christians in countries like America must stand up for Muslims' rights, especially those of free speech and freedom of religion. This way, both groups can build bridges of understanding and tolerance in a world currently fraught with violence, terror and destruction. But amid these examples of New World Order colonialism and tense Muslim-Christian relations, there are some bright spots.
In the 1990s, the West did eventually come to the aid of Muslims following massacres, rapes and the oppression of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosova.
On the level of faith, the 1994 United Nations Conference on Population in Cairo, Egypt, became a platform for Muslim and Catholic cooperation against perceived anti-religious bias. In addition, it is somewhat ironic that while Muslims resent the Western support for dictatorships in their countries, they turn to the West when seeking to escape the oppression in their countries. For example, Iran's anti-Shah revolutionaries were essentially based in the West. It is not uncommon to find Muslim refugees escaping to Germany, France, Britain, America and Canada. While many of them are economic migrants, seeking a better life for themselves and their families on a financial level, there are also those escaping political turmoil and corruption in their home countries.
In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI set off worldwide controversy while quoting Manuel II during a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The reaction was swift and strong from Muslims the world over. While Pakistan's parliament voted to condemn him, Lebanon's leading Shia leader asked for a personal apology. The deputy head of Turkey's governing party put him in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini. Unfortunately, two churches in Palestine were bombed and a nun in Somalia killed over the incident. This was followed by an apology in which the Pope said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry repercussions of his comments, adding that the quotation was not an expression of his personal views.
The Pope's statement is being taken by Muslims as part of a continuity of Islamophobic statements made by high profile Christians like Franklin Graham, who has described Islam as a "very evil and wicked religion". I must laugh outload, realizing my ignorance.
Although some mainstream churches opposed Graham's statement, most adopted a silent or neutral stance towards such false, anti-Islamic propaganda.
US President George Bush's use of the term "Islamic Fascism" in the current "war against terrorism," in addition to the ongoing war against Iraq continue to confirm the Muslim perception that the war is turning against them, despite President Bush's assurances to the contrary. First came the reference to the war as a "crusade," then the bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq, which killed more than 100,000 civilians. All of this added to America's existing image as a one-sided in reference to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. and as sorry as I am to admit it, I believed it.
In the US, Muslims are living in a virtual internment camp under a regime of fear. About a half a million Muslim Americans have been directly affected by the government policies although not a single Muslim American have been successfully convicted of terrorism so far. Four major charities in the US have been banned without due process of law. Muslims who gave millions of dollars to these charities to fulfill the third pillar of Islam, Zakat, in the month of Ramadan, lost all that money. The abuse of individual freedom, the media's ridicule of Islam and mockery of Muslim beliefs have led to such lawlessness in dealing with Muslims that one Jewish attorney of a Muslim client commented that, "Muslims have become the new Ni...rs of America." I hate using the word, since the true meaning of the word has been so wrongly used on African Americans. Like Gary say, use your Webster Dictionary, and lookup the word Ni...r. I think you would come to the same conclusion, that there are alot of white Americans, that the word describes to the "T".Terrorism is a real threat. It must be dealt with in a proper and fair manner. If we could wait to try American terrorist, Timothy McVeigh with the due course of law, why not let these individuals and their organizations know what the charges are against them and allow them to defend themselves. It seems that a Christian terrorist has civil rights but a Muslim terrorist has none, although terrorists do not represent their faith. Otherwise they would not do things like this.There have been several positive actions taken by our neighbors since September 11. A number of churches and their leaders have come forward in interfaith gatherings to show support and sympathy for the Muslims of America. The late Pope issued a call to Catholics worldwide to fast on the last Friday of Ramadan of 2002 in solidarity with Muslims. Some non-Muslim women have donned headscarves as a way of expressing sympathy for Muslim women too afraid to cover themselves in the backlash that followed the September 11 attacks. this is how, we show our ignorance. More recently, a number of mainstream Christian groups have been at the forefront of the peace movement that opposed the war on Iraq, as well as the country's occupation by America. (Bush/Cheney,Worst and most expensive act, but anyway, that is besides the point I am trying to make here.)This is a very positive step forward, considering that churches did not oppose the Vietnam War until 10 years after it began, nor did Christian groups oppose the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, except for the Quakers. My dad, fought in World War 11, a war with MERIT, I lost a brother to the Vietnam Conflict, a war,we now see as having no MERIT. Many Of our Brave, lost their lives to this war, and returned home, where many Americans, did not show gratitude. It was not our Military Service men & women, who started that war, but were defending our freedom here at home. In addition, amongst Christian groups, there has been a split in terms of war on Iraq. While most groups oppose the war, the more right-wing groups, like the evangelicals support it.
And so the cycle of positive and negative relations between Muslims and Christians continues. Muslims and Christians must continue to work together for peace and justice for all people. Muslims and Christians in America, especially, are in a unique position to do this and can serve as an example of peaceful coexistence of minorities the world over. I feel as though, I might be opening a can of worms, but what the hey.
Fred G. Herrera
.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Continental Congress & limited power of appointed President
The President of the Continental Congress was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, the convention of delegates that emerged as the first national government of the United States during the American Revolution. The president was a member of Congress elected by the other delegates to serve as an impartial moderator during meetings of Congress. Designed to be a largely ceremonial position without much influence, the office was unrelated to the later office of President of the United States.
The first President of Congress was Peyton Randolph, who was elected on September 5, 1774. The last president, Cyrus Griffin, resigned in November 1788. Because of the limited role of the office, the Presidents of Congress are among the lesser known leaders of the American Revolution. The best-known President of Congress is John Hancock, remembered for his large, bold signature on the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted and signed during his presidency.
The presiding officer of the Continental Congress was usually styled "President of the Congress" or "President of Congress". After the Articles of Confederation were adopted on March 1, 1781, the Continental Congress, previously officially known as simply "The Congress", became officially known as "The United States in Congress Assembled." Thereafter, the president was occasionally referred to as the "President of the United States in Congress Assembled", although "President of (the) Congress" continued to be used in most official documents.
The role of President of Congress was, by design, a position with little authority. The Continental Congress, fearful of concentrating political power in an individual, gave their presiding officer even less responsibility than the speakers in the lower houses of the colonial assemblies. Unlike some colonial speakers, the President of Congress could not, for example, set the legislative agenda or make committee appointments. The president could not meet privately with foreign leaders; such meetings were held with committees or the entire Congress.
The presidency was a largely ceremonial position. The primary role of the office was to preside over meetings of Congress, which entailed serving as an impartial moderator during debates. When Congress would resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss important matters, the president would relinquish his chair to the chairman of the Committee of the Whole. The president was also responsible for dealing with a large amount of official correspondence, but he could not answer any letter without being instructed to do so by Congress. Presidents also signed, but did not write, Congress's official documents. These limitations could be frustrating, because a delegate essentially declined in influence when he was elected president. Henry Laurens, for example, resigned his presidency so that he could play a more active role in Congress.
[edit] Term of officeBefore the Articles of Confederation were ratified on March 1, 1781, Presidents of Congress served terms of no specific duration; their tenure ended when they resigned or, lacking an official resignation, when Congress selected a successor. When John Hancock was elected to preside over the Second Continental Congress in May 1775, his position was somewhat ambiguous, because it was not clear if President Peyton Randolph had permanently resigned or was on a leave of absence. The situation became uncomfortable when Randolph returned to Congress in September 1775. Some delegates thought Hancock should have stepped down, but he did not; the matter was resolved only by Randolph's sudden death in October. Ambiguity also clouded the end of Hancock's term: he left in October 1777 for what he believed was an extended leave of absence, only to find upon his return that Congress had elected Henry Laurens to replace him.
The only reference to the President of Congress in the Articles of Confederation is a brief mention of the term of office:
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority ... to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years....
Previously a president could serve indefinitely—Hancock presided for more than two years—but now presidents would serve a one-year term. When the Articles went into effect, however, Congress did not hold an election for a new president. Instead, Samuel Huntington continued to serve as President of Congress until he asked to be relieved due to ill health in July 1781. Samuel Johnston was selected as Huntington's replacement, but he declined the office, and so Thomas McKean was elected as the next presiding officer. President McKean resigned on October 23, 1781, after hearing news of the British surrender at Yorktown, but Congress asked him to remain in office until November, when a new session of Congress was scheduled to begin. (The Articles of Confederation called for Congress to meet "on the first Monday in November, in every year....") On November 5, 1781, John Hanson of Maryland became the first President of Congress to be elected to an annual term as specified under the Articles of Confederation.
DeclineCongress, and its presidency, declined in importance with the end of the American Revolutionary War. Increasingly, delegates elected to the Congress declined to serve, the leading men in each state preferred to serve in state government, and the Congress had difficulty establishing a quorum. President Hanson wanted to resign, but his departure would have left Congress without a quorum to select a successor, and so he stayed on. President Thomas Mifflin found it difficult to convince the states to send enough delegates to Congress to ratify the 1783 Treaty of Paris. For six weeks in 1784, President Richard Henry Lee did not come to Congress, but instead instructed secretary Charles Thomson to forward any papers that needed his signature. John Hancock was elected to a second term in 1785, even though he was not then in Congress; he never took his seat, citing poor health, though he may have been uninterested in the position. When Nathaniel Gorham resigned in November 1786, it was months before enough members were present in Congress to elect a new president.[26] The ratification of the new United States Constitution in June 1788 reduced the Confederation Congress to the status of a caretaker government. Cyrus Griffin, the final President of Congress, resigned in November 1788 after only two delegates showed up for the new session of Congress.
Relationship to the US Presidency Beyond a similarity of title, the office of President of Congress "bore no relationship" to the later office of President of the United States. As historian Edmund Burnett wrote:
[T]he President of the United States is scarcely in any sense the successor of the presidents of the old Congress. The presidents of Congress were almost solely presiding officers, possessing scarcely a shred of executive or administrative functions; whereas the President of the United States is almost solely an executive officer, with no presiding duties at all. Barring a likeness in social and diplomatic precedence, the two offices are identical only in the possession of the same title.
Because John Hanson was the first president elected under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, his grandson promoted him as the "first President of the United States" and waged a successful campaign to have Hanson's statue placed in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol, even though Hanson was not really one of Maryland's foremost leaders of the Revolutionary era.
List of presidents# Name State/colony Term start Term end Months in term
1 Peyton Randolph Virginia September 5, 1774[a] October 22, 1774 2
2 Henry Middleton South Carolina October 22, 1774 October 26, 1774[b] <1
3 Peyton Randolph Virginia May 10, 1775[c] May 24, 1775 <1
4 John Hancock Massachusetts May 24, 1775 October 29, 1777 29
5 Henry Laurens South Carolina November 1, 1777[d] December 9, 1778 13
6 John Jay New York December 10, 1778 September 28, 1779 10
7 Samuel Huntington Connecticut September 28, 1779 July 10, 1781[e] 21
8 Thomas McKean Delaware July 10, 1781 November 5, 1781 4
9 John Hanson Maryland November 5, 1781[f] November 4, 1782 12
10 Elias Boudinot New Jersey November 4, 1782 November 3, 1783 12
11 Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania November 3, 1783[g] June 3, 1784 7
12 Richard Henry Lee Virginia November 30, 1784 November 4, 1785 11
13 John Hancock[h] Massachusetts November 23, 1785 June 5, 1786 6
14 Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts June 6, 1786 November 3, 1786 5
15 Arthur St. Clair Pennsylvania February 2, 1787 November 4, 1787 10
16 Cyrus Griffin Virginia January 22, 1788 November 15, 1788[i] 10
Sources for this table are Jillson and Wilson, Congressional Dynamics, 77, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, and Presidents of the Continental Congress at Archontology.org. There are some date discrepancies, based on differing interpretations of when a president's term effectively ended.
a Start of the First Continental Congress
b Middleton only served as president for the last few days of the First Continental Congress (Jillson and Wilson, Congressional Dynamics, 51, 77), though his entry in the Dictionary of American Biography says that his term lasted until May 10, 1775, counting the months that Congress was not in sesssion as part of his term.
c Start of the Second Continental Congress
d Secretary Charles Thomson fulfilled presidential duties from October 29, 1777, to November 1, 1777.
e Articles of Confederation were ratified during term
f First president elected under the Articles of Confederation
g Daniel Carroll acted as chairman from November 3, 1783, to December 13, 1783.
h Hancock did not report to Congress for his second term, so David Ramsay (November 23, 1785 – May 12, 1786) and Nathaniel Gorham (May 15, 1786 – June 5, 1786) acted as chairmen.
i After Griffin's resignation, the presidency was vacant.
[edit] References
The first President of Congress was Peyton Randolph, who was elected on September 5, 1774. The last president, Cyrus Griffin, resigned in November 1788. Because of the limited role of the office, the Presidents of Congress are among the lesser known leaders of the American Revolution. The best-known President of Congress is John Hancock, remembered for his large, bold signature on the Declaration of Independence, which was adopted and signed during his presidency.
The presiding officer of the Continental Congress was usually styled "President of the Congress" or "President of Congress". After the Articles of Confederation were adopted on March 1, 1781, the Continental Congress, previously officially known as simply "The Congress", became officially known as "The United States in Congress Assembled." Thereafter, the president was occasionally referred to as the "President of the United States in Congress Assembled", although "President of (the) Congress" continued to be used in most official documents.
The role of President of Congress was, by design, a position with little authority. The Continental Congress, fearful of concentrating political power in an individual, gave their presiding officer even less responsibility than the speakers in the lower houses of the colonial assemblies. Unlike some colonial speakers, the President of Congress could not, for example, set the legislative agenda or make committee appointments. The president could not meet privately with foreign leaders; such meetings were held with committees or the entire Congress.
The presidency was a largely ceremonial position. The primary role of the office was to preside over meetings of Congress, which entailed serving as an impartial moderator during debates. When Congress would resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss important matters, the president would relinquish his chair to the chairman of the Committee of the Whole. The president was also responsible for dealing with a large amount of official correspondence, but he could not answer any letter without being instructed to do so by Congress. Presidents also signed, but did not write, Congress's official documents. These limitations could be frustrating, because a delegate essentially declined in influence when he was elected president. Henry Laurens, for example, resigned his presidency so that he could play a more active role in Congress.
[edit] Term of officeBefore the Articles of Confederation were ratified on March 1, 1781, Presidents of Congress served terms of no specific duration; their tenure ended when they resigned or, lacking an official resignation, when Congress selected a successor. When John Hancock was elected to preside over the Second Continental Congress in May 1775, his position was somewhat ambiguous, because it was not clear if President Peyton Randolph had permanently resigned or was on a leave of absence. The situation became uncomfortable when Randolph returned to Congress in September 1775. Some delegates thought Hancock should have stepped down, but he did not; the matter was resolved only by Randolph's sudden death in October. Ambiguity also clouded the end of Hancock's term: he left in October 1777 for what he believed was an extended leave of absence, only to find upon his return that Congress had elected Henry Laurens to replace him.
The only reference to the President of Congress in the Articles of Confederation is a brief mention of the term of office:
The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority ... to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years....
Previously a president could serve indefinitely—Hancock presided for more than two years—but now presidents would serve a one-year term. When the Articles went into effect, however, Congress did not hold an election for a new president. Instead, Samuel Huntington continued to serve as President of Congress until he asked to be relieved due to ill health in July 1781. Samuel Johnston was selected as Huntington's replacement, but he declined the office, and so Thomas McKean was elected as the next presiding officer. President McKean resigned on October 23, 1781, after hearing news of the British surrender at Yorktown, but Congress asked him to remain in office until November, when a new session of Congress was scheduled to begin. (The Articles of Confederation called for Congress to meet "on the first Monday in November, in every year....") On November 5, 1781, John Hanson of Maryland became the first President of Congress to be elected to an annual term as specified under the Articles of Confederation.
DeclineCongress, and its presidency, declined in importance with the end of the American Revolutionary War. Increasingly, delegates elected to the Congress declined to serve, the leading men in each state preferred to serve in state government, and the Congress had difficulty establishing a quorum. President Hanson wanted to resign, but his departure would have left Congress without a quorum to select a successor, and so he stayed on. President Thomas Mifflin found it difficult to convince the states to send enough delegates to Congress to ratify the 1783 Treaty of Paris. For six weeks in 1784, President Richard Henry Lee did not come to Congress, but instead instructed secretary Charles Thomson to forward any papers that needed his signature. John Hancock was elected to a second term in 1785, even though he was not then in Congress; he never took his seat, citing poor health, though he may have been uninterested in the position. When Nathaniel Gorham resigned in November 1786, it was months before enough members were present in Congress to elect a new president.[26] The ratification of the new United States Constitution in June 1788 reduced the Confederation Congress to the status of a caretaker government. Cyrus Griffin, the final President of Congress, resigned in November 1788 after only two delegates showed up for the new session of Congress.
Relationship to the US Presidency Beyond a similarity of title, the office of President of Congress "bore no relationship" to the later office of President of the United States. As historian Edmund Burnett wrote:
[T]he President of the United States is scarcely in any sense the successor of the presidents of the old Congress. The presidents of Congress were almost solely presiding officers, possessing scarcely a shred of executive or administrative functions; whereas the President of the United States is almost solely an executive officer, with no presiding duties at all. Barring a likeness in social and diplomatic precedence, the two offices are identical only in the possession of the same title.
Because John Hanson was the first president elected under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, his grandson promoted him as the "first President of the United States" and waged a successful campaign to have Hanson's statue placed in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol, even though Hanson was not really one of Maryland's foremost leaders of the Revolutionary era.
List of presidents# Name State/colony Term start Term end Months in term
1 Peyton Randolph Virginia September 5, 1774[a] October 22, 1774 2
2 Henry Middleton South Carolina October 22, 1774 October 26, 1774[b] <1
3 Peyton Randolph Virginia May 10, 1775[c] May 24, 1775 <1
4 John Hancock Massachusetts May 24, 1775 October 29, 1777 29
5 Henry Laurens South Carolina November 1, 1777[d] December 9, 1778 13
6 John Jay New York December 10, 1778 September 28, 1779 10
7 Samuel Huntington Connecticut September 28, 1779 July 10, 1781[e] 21
8 Thomas McKean Delaware July 10, 1781 November 5, 1781 4
9 John Hanson Maryland November 5, 1781[f] November 4, 1782 12
10 Elias Boudinot New Jersey November 4, 1782 November 3, 1783 12
11 Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania November 3, 1783[g] June 3, 1784 7
12 Richard Henry Lee Virginia November 30, 1784 November 4, 1785 11
13 John Hancock[h] Massachusetts November 23, 1785 June 5, 1786 6
14 Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts June 6, 1786 November 3, 1786 5
15 Arthur St. Clair Pennsylvania February 2, 1787 November 4, 1787 10
16 Cyrus Griffin Virginia January 22, 1788 November 15, 1788[i] 10
Sources for this table are Jillson and Wilson, Congressional Dynamics, 77, the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, and Presidents of the Continental Congress at Archontology.org. There are some date discrepancies, based on differing interpretations of when a president's term effectively ended.
a Start of the First Continental Congress
b Middleton only served as president for the last few days of the First Continental Congress (Jillson and Wilson, Congressional Dynamics, 51, 77), though his entry in the Dictionary of American Biography says that his term lasted until May 10, 1775, counting the months that Congress was not in sesssion as part of his term.
c Start of the Second Continental Congress
d Secretary Charles Thomson fulfilled presidential duties from October 29, 1777, to November 1, 1777.
e Articles of Confederation were ratified during term
f First president elected under the Articles of Confederation
g Daniel Carroll acted as chairman from November 3, 1783, to December 13, 1783.
h Hancock did not report to Congress for his second term, so David Ramsay (November 23, 1785 – May 12, 1786) and Nathaniel Gorham (May 15, 1786 – June 5, 1786) acted as chairmen.
i After Griffin's resignation, the presidency was vacant.
[edit] References
We are closer to a Revolution than most of us think. Is the uprise in Egypt, a sign as what is come to the USA
Be ready for 5.00 a gallon of gas. I am sure it will be blamed on the Obama Administration. The unstability of the Middle East, will impact the world. I think the USA, is still considered part of the world.
When we hear the word revolution many will instantly start recalling images from the books or movies about bloody battles, people being oppressed, and human rights being abused, etc. In one sense this is not all wrong if we go back into history and see that in order to change the regimes that our countries had those days the fastest way of changing the regimes was by using violence as a means not as an end. Unfortunately, violence brought more violence and up to this date many governments are in power, not because people like them but because they have more damage power.
Getting close, here at home, USA, we can see that our governments are really servants of only a few powerful individuals that only care about their own interest. Our government has failed to fulfill the promises of our constitution, moreover, they have sabotaged the attempts of many fine people to do it.
A revolution in USA is not only possible it is actually happening. Now a days the revolutions are not done violently but instead by educating and empowering people. Today’s revolution can clearly be identified by looking at the real leaders around the world that little by little are changing the pseudo democracies and by changing the capitalist economic model. People are waking up from the lethargy that our false leaders, corrupt media, etc. have put us into. Thank the almighty there’s still visionaries in our world that have values and that live up to those values. The real leaders are embracing freedom, democracy and human rights, they are raising their voices and more people are listening. This is the real revolution and it is happening right now here at home.
Jared Loughner, the young man allegedly responsible for the tragedy in Tucson, seems clear that he is a mentally unstable individual whose motivations for committing such a horrific crime remains unknown. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a conversation about current political discourse and how it has gone too far.
The very real dangers of mainstreaming extremism. For the past two years, we have argued that the type of violent rhetoric that is now common on Fox News and talk radio creates a climate of fear, suspicion, and paranoia that could lead to another Oklahoma City.
Last fall, I was especially concerned with three assassination attempts directly linked to Fox News contributor Glenn Beck. Soon after Beck joked about poisoning then-House Speaker Nancy Palosi, in effigy on his set, a man threatened to firebomb her San Francisco residence. The man's mother said her son got all his ideas from Fox News. In March, Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, received a death threat saying that she had a target on her back, and it would only take one bullet to accomplish his objective. The potential assassin, Charles Wilson, was eventually arrested and convicted for repeatedly threatening to kill Murray. During the sentencing phase of his trial, in a memo Wilson's cousin submitted to the court arguing for leniency, his actions were blamed, in part, on being "under the spell that Glenn Beck cast."
California gunman Byron Williams said he was inspired by Beck—whom he called a "schoolteacher on TV"—to attempt to assassinate the staff of a liberal philanthropic foundation in San Francisco.
After the third incident, Sarah Palin should of set an example by condemning her Fox colleague's violent and revolutionary rhetoric. On Beck's radio show, he and Palin jovially mocked our concern. For seven minutes on air, the pair joked about the plea to tone down the rhetoric. Beck said it was "laughable," "sad," and compared it to the "smelly kid in third grade." Palin giggled and said It was "silly," "pathetic," and "desperate" before ultimately concluding "I stand with you, Glenn."
Even now, in the weeks since the Arizona shooting, the right wing has insisted that there is not a problem with current political discourse and attacked anyone—like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik—who suggests otherwise. Palin, whose removal of the now-infamous map showing gun sights over 20 congressional districts would seem to suggest she knew it was wrong, warned those "journalists and pundits" that the mere act of discussing extreme rhetoric would "incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
That's why we must reach out to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch, and to the FCC telling them that they must take a stand. Murdoch, has the power to order Beck and Palin to stop using violent rhetoric on the airwaves. If they fail to do so, he must fire them or be held responsible for the climate they create and any consequences thereof. The FCC, has the power and responsibility on what should be considered revolutionary rhetoric, and sanction such trash.
"RELOAD!" Sarah Palin shouted at right-wing supporters via Twitter on the Tuesday after President Obama signed the House health care bill. On her Facebook page, she posted a U.S. map with crosshair targets in states where she's planning to campaign against moderate Democrats who voted in favor of the health insurance overhaul. "We'll aim for these races," she wrote, in the "first salvo" leading up to the midterm elections. A few liberal commentators don't find that kind of rhetoric amusing.
Honestly, where in any decent, civilized society is there room for Sarah's tweet, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!"? While some may dismiss that as silly rhetoric, or even humor, it is anything but. One only has to recall some of the weirder moments during the last presidential campaign, especially the Sarah Palin rallies. Some of those people were not only whacked-out, conspiracy nuts, they were more than willing to take "justice" as they defined it, and use whatever means necessary to achieve it, including violence. And they are armed.
I would not find it surprising if someone from the Department of Justice rang Palin, up to advise her that what she is doing is inciting violence - which is a federal offense. As if it weren't bad enough that people were spitting on legislators, yelling epithets and wearing sidearms into Starbucks, here comes Sarah Palin using the language of guns ... and this in a country that has seen political assassinations in our lifetime. Hate speech, anyone? I would suggest to McCain's Mistake that she, well, think before she speaks. Or better yet, just stop talking.
Most (but probably not all) Palin supporters may insist the tuckered-out former Alaska governor meant "reload" metaphorically. But in a country where angry right-wingers carry guns to see the president speak, and spit on African-American congressmen, I thought it was a chilling statement. Will any Republican denounce Palin's language?
The armed and dangerous theme isn‘t just in the streets and at the protests. It‘s now the vernacular by which supposedly mainstream conservative politicians address their followers.
Palin's rifle scope map is the kind of image one might expect to see in an ad for a violent, first-person shooter video game. Again, neither the language nor the imagery Palin uses are neutral. For Palin, the concepts of political "organizing" and "volunteering" are recast as the functions of a rifle. "Campaigning" is re-imagined as a counterassault on a war battlefield. Even more disturbing, Palin re-imagines the traditional U.S. map as a military kill list. Engaging in election politics is framed as violent assault.
When seen in the context of this violent rhetoric by the highest-profile figures in the Republican Party, recent calls for gun violence seen at Tea Party rallies on Capital Hill take on new meaning.
Of all the images to convey about her movement, it is revealing that Sarah Palin chose one associated with violence. Palin's rhetoric comes amidst a surge in right-wing extremism, a time during which she should be urging cooler heads to prevail instead of fueling the most radical elements of her base. ... I don't care how much money Sarah Palin might want to make off her political celebrity, if she were the patriot she claims to be, she'd be doing everything in her power to rein in the rising tide of right-wing extremism.
Another loser, John McCain, the GOP presidential candidate in 2008 who selected Palin as his running mate, defended her against host Ann Curry's charge that she is using "incendiary" language. "Those words have been used throughout of my political career," McCain said. "There are targeted districts, and there are areas that we call battleground states, and so please, that rhetoric and kind of language is just part of the political lexicon. There is no place for threats of violence or anything else, but to say that someone is in a battleground state is not originated today."
Gun metaphors are part of politics, from "targeted districts" to "under fire" to "took a shot at the presidency." For all her demagoguery and ditziness, Palin isn't inciting anyone to violence. The vandalism and vile epithets that have been aimed at some supporters of health care reform ought to be condemned, but it's a reach to attribute them to Palin and other loose-tongued Republicans.
Another example of political rhetoric:
"Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society." In one of President Bush's State of the Union Address, he described what medicare is to the public. I honestly could not make any sense of his statement. It sounded like he was trying to make Medicare into something it is not. It appears that Mr. Bush was just trying to sound intelligent in my opinion. "Axis of evil" This is the term by which President Bush referred to North Korea, Iraq, and Iran; he used this term so people would associate these countries with "evil". He was giving enemies a name that made them look worse to the public. "Weapons of mass destruction" President Bush used this term to make the atomic/nuclear weapons seem imminent ...
People heard and believed this phrase, any action that Bush chose to carry out on Iraq would seem justifiable. "Evil doers" Rather than naming the specific people or group he was speaking of (such as Osama bin-Laden or members of the Al-Qaeda network), Bush referred to them as "evil doers", which is a very emotionally charged phrase, used to ensure that the public shared his sentiments toward the "evil doers". In the war with Iraq Americans want to really know why did the United States go to war with Iraq? There are several conclusions that people have come to. Some of the main reasons that the United States went to war with Iraq was because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists in Iraq and that he had in his possession weapons of mass destruction whether they were nuclear or gas bombs the United States had no idea. When also looking at reasons why the United States decided to enter into war with Iraq was because of the oil and the debate of how much is too much for a barrel of oil. Also that the United States wanted to get Saddam Hussein out of power and charge him with harboring WMD's ... ” The reliability of our intelligence and whether or not going to war with the Iraq was a good thing to do or not. Only time will tell all true reasons of why the United States went to war with Iraq, for now we can only go on what the Bush Administration told us and that of our own suspicions. My own suspicion is that "W", had a score to settle with Saddam, after Hussein, threatened Bush Sr., while president. He settled his score alright with the sacrifices and the many death of our brave men and women of our armed forces.
On October 19, 1781, the decisive military campaign of the American Revolution culminated with the British surrender to combined American and French forces under the command of George Washington. The Siege of Yorktown effectively ended the six-year struggle of the Revolutionary War and set the stage for a new government and nation.
As with any of my posts', they are known to be controversial, but always open to debate. Wheather on my Blog, my Facebook page, or my Tweeter account. I am real and can back my writings with ample research.
Researched and Composed by Fred Herrera
When we hear the word revolution many will instantly start recalling images from the books or movies about bloody battles, people being oppressed, and human rights being abused, etc. In one sense this is not all wrong if we go back into history and see that in order to change the regimes that our countries had those days the fastest way of changing the regimes was by using violence as a means not as an end. Unfortunately, violence brought more violence and up to this date many governments are in power, not because people like them but because they have more damage power.
Getting close, here at home, USA, we can see that our governments are really servants of only a few powerful individuals that only care about their own interest. Our government has failed to fulfill the promises of our constitution, moreover, they have sabotaged the attempts of many fine people to do it.
A revolution in USA is not only possible it is actually happening. Now a days the revolutions are not done violently but instead by educating and empowering people. Today’s revolution can clearly be identified by looking at the real leaders around the world that little by little are changing the pseudo democracies and by changing the capitalist economic model. People are waking up from the lethargy that our false leaders, corrupt media, etc. have put us into. Thank the almighty there’s still visionaries in our world that have values and that live up to those values. The real leaders are embracing freedom, democracy and human rights, they are raising their voices and more people are listening. This is the real revolution and it is happening right now here at home.
Jared Loughner, the young man allegedly responsible for the tragedy in Tucson, seems clear that he is a mentally unstable individual whose motivations for committing such a horrific crime remains unknown. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a conversation about current political discourse and how it has gone too far.
The very real dangers of mainstreaming extremism. For the past two years, we have argued that the type of violent rhetoric that is now common on Fox News and talk radio creates a climate of fear, suspicion, and paranoia that could lead to another Oklahoma City.
Last fall, I was especially concerned with three assassination attempts directly linked to Fox News contributor Glenn Beck. Soon after Beck joked about poisoning then-House Speaker Nancy Palosi, in effigy on his set, a man threatened to firebomb her San Francisco residence. The man's mother said her son got all his ideas from Fox News. In March, Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, received a death threat saying that she had a target on her back, and it would only take one bullet to accomplish his objective. The potential assassin, Charles Wilson, was eventually arrested and convicted for repeatedly threatening to kill Murray. During the sentencing phase of his trial, in a memo Wilson's cousin submitted to the court arguing for leniency, his actions were blamed, in part, on being "under the spell that Glenn Beck cast."
California gunman Byron Williams said he was inspired by Beck—whom he called a "schoolteacher on TV"—to attempt to assassinate the staff of a liberal philanthropic foundation in San Francisco.
After the third incident, Sarah Palin should of set an example by condemning her Fox colleague's violent and revolutionary rhetoric. On Beck's radio show, he and Palin jovially mocked our concern. For seven minutes on air, the pair joked about the plea to tone down the rhetoric. Beck said it was "laughable," "sad," and compared it to the "smelly kid in third grade." Palin giggled and said It was "silly," "pathetic," and "desperate" before ultimately concluding "I stand with you, Glenn."
Even now, in the weeks since the Arizona shooting, the right wing has insisted that there is not a problem with current political discourse and attacked anyone—like Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik—who suggests otherwise. Palin, whose removal of the now-infamous map showing gun sights over 20 congressional districts would seem to suggest she knew it was wrong, warned those "journalists and pundits" that the mere act of discussing extreme rhetoric would "incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
That's why we must reach out to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch, and to the FCC telling them that they must take a stand. Murdoch, has the power to order Beck and Palin to stop using violent rhetoric on the airwaves. If they fail to do so, he must fire them or be held responsible for the climate they create and any consequences thereof. The FCC, has the power and responsibility on what should be considered revolutionary rhetoric, and sanction such trash.
"RELOAD!" Sarah Palin shouted at right-wing supporters via Twitter on the Tuesday after President Obama signed the House health care bill. On her Facebook page, she posted a U.S. map with crosshair targets in states where she's planning to campaign against moderate Democrats who voted in favor of the health insurance overhaul. "We'll aim for these races," she wrote, in the "first salvo" leading up to the midterm elections. A few liberal commentators don't find that kind of rhetoric amusing.
Honestly, where in any decent, civilized society is there room for Sarah's tweet, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!"? While some may dismiss that as silly rhetoric, or even humor, it is anything but. One only has to recall some of the weirder moments during the last presidential campaign, especially the Sarah Palin rallies. Some of those people were not only whacked-out, conspiracy nuts, they were more than willing to take "justice" as they defined it, and use whatever means necessary to achieve it, including violence. And they are armed.
I would not find it surprising if someone from the Department of Justice rang Palin, up to advise her that what she is doing is inciting violence - which is a federal offense. As if it weren't bad enough that people were spitting on legislators, yelling epithets and wearing sidearms into Starbucks, here comes Sarah Palin using the language of guns ... and this in a country that has seen political assassinations in our lifetime. Hate speech, anyone? I would suggest to McCain's Mistake that she, well, think before she speaks. Or better yet, just stop talking.
Most (but probably not all) Palin supporters may insist the tuckered-out former Alaska governor meant "reload" metaphorically. But in a country where angry right-wingers carry guns to see the president speak, and spit on African-American congressmen, I thought it was a chilling statement. Will any Republican denounce Palin's language?
The armed and dangerous theme isn‘t just in the streets and at the protests. It‘s now the vernacular by which supposedly mainstream conservative politicians address their followers.
Palin's rifle scope map is the kind of image one might expect to see in an ad for a violent, first-person shooter video game. Again, neither the language nor the imagery Palin uses are neutral. For Palin, the concepts of political "organizing" and "volunteering" are recast as the functions of a rifle. "Campaigning" is re-imagined as a counterassault on a war battlefield. Even more disturbing, Palin re-imagines the traditional U.S. map as a military kill list. Engaging in election politics is framed as violent assault.
When seen in the context of this violent rhetoric by the highest-profile figures in the Republican Party, recent calls for gun violence seen at Tea Party rallies on Capital Hill take on new meaning.
Of all the images to convey about her movement, it is revealing that Sarah Palin chose one associated with violence. Palin's rhetoric comes amidst a surge in right-wing extremism, a time during which she should be urging cooler heads to prevail instead of fueling the most radical elements of her base. ... I don't care how much money Sarah Palin might want to make off her political celebrity, if she were the patriot she claims to be, she'd be doing everything in her power to rein in the rising tide of right-wing extremism.
Another loser, John McCain, the GOP presidential candidate in 2008 who selected Palin as his running mate, defended her against host Ann Curry's charge that she is using "incendiary" language. "Those words have been used throughout of my political career," McCain said. "There are targeted districts, and there are areas that we call battleground states, and so please, that rhetoric and kind of language is just part of the political lexicon. There is no place for threats of violence or anything else, but to say that someone is in a battleground state is not originated today."
Gun metaphors are part of politics, from "targeted districts" to "under fire" to "took a shot at the presidency." For all her demagoguery and ditziness, Palin isn't inciting anyone to violence. The vandalism and vile epithets that have been aimed at some supporters of health care reform ought to be condemned, but it's a reach to attribute them to Palin and other loose-tongued Republicans.
Another example of political rhetoric:
"Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society." In one of President Bush's State of the Union Address, he described what medicare is to the public. I honestly could not make any sense of his statement. It sounded like he was trying to make Medicare into something it is not. It appears that Mr. Bush was just trying to sound intelligent in my opinion. "Axis of evil" This is the term by which President Bush referred to North Korea, Iraq, and Iran; he used this term so people would associate these countries with "evil". He was giving enemies a name that made them look worse to the public. "Weapons of mass destruction" President Bush used this term to make the atomic/nuclear weapons seem imminent ...
People heard and believed this phrase, any action that Bush chose to carry out on Iraq would seem justifiable. "Evil doers" Rather than naming the specific people or group he was speaking of (such as Osama bin-Laden or members of the Al-Qaeda network), Bush referred to them as "evil doers", which is a very emotionally charged phrase, used to ensure that the public shared his sentiments toward the "evil doers". In the war with Iraq Americans want to really know why did the United States go to war with Iraq? There are several conclusions that people have come to. Some of the main reasons that the United States went to war with Iraq was because of the belief that Saddam Hussein was harboring terrorists in Iraq and that he had in his possession weapons of mass destruction whether they were nuclear or gas bombs the United States had no idea. When also looking at reasons why the United States decided to enter into war with Iraq was because of the oil and the debate of how much is too much for a barrel of oil. Also that the United States wanted to get Saddam Hussein out of power and charge him with harboring WMD's ... ” The reliability of our intelligence and whether or not going to war with the Iraq was a good thing to do or not. Only time will tell all true reasons of why the United States went to war with Iraq, for now we can only go on what the Bush Administration told us and that of our own suspicions. My own suspicion is that "W", had a score to settle with Saddam, after Hussein, threatened Bush Sr., while president. He settled his score alright with the sacrifices and the many death of our brave men and women of our armed forces.
On October 19, 1781, the decisive military campaign of the American Revolution culminated with the British surrender to combined American and French forces under the command of George Washington. The Siege of Yorktown effectively ended the six-year struggle of the Revolutionary War and set the stage for a new government and nation.
As with any of my posts', they are known to be controversial, but always open to debate. Wheather on my Blog, my Facebook page, or my Tweeter account. I am real and can back my writings with ample research.
Researched and Composed by Fred Herrera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)