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".
Saturday, February 5, 2011
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
Friday, January 21, 2011
Mama Grizzlies Waterloo
Amid a growing backlash spurred by Arizona’s mass shooting, SarahPAC official Rebecca Mansour appeared on The Tammy Bruce Show to push back against suggestions that Palin’s much-derided “crosshair” map is somehow connected to the tragedy. In the process, though, she claimed that the symbols on the graphic were never intended to evoke gunsights, but rather, “surveyors symbols.”
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
More on the Wing-Nuts
Amid a growing backlash spurred by Arizona’s mass shooting, SarahPAC official Rebecca Mansour appeared on The Tammy Bruce Show to push back against suggestions that Palin’s much-derided “crosshair” map is somehow connected to the tragedy. In the process, though, she claimed that the symbols on the graphic were never intended to evoke gunsights, but rather, “surveyors symbols.”
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
This Billboard is an example of how far we can take our freedom of speech. We can walk away from a speech and not listen to it, but that freedom is on a billboard for Arizona to see is beyond my comprehension. This is using that freedom to say that Rush Limbaugh, is a straight shooter. My interpetation of this wording is the deranged was not a straight shooter, but that Rush is. As I said we can ignore a speech, my question is how can you avoid reading the disgusting wording on this sign. It is like putting salt on a wound. It does not matter what political party we agree with. It is garbage like this that we should all be against.
Rush Limbaugh's totally inappropriate billboard stirs outrage
Bullet images in the aftermath of a tragic shooting rampage
This image of a billboard made its way around the internet this morning. Originally uploaded on Tuesday, the photo was purportedly taken near the scene of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the image is old. Or not in Tucson area. Or Photoshopped. ( Who are we kidding?) The radio station featured in the lower righthand corner -- KNST, indeed a Tucson based AM news station -- is likely responsible for the now (very) inappropriate artwork.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh's totally inappropriate billboard stirs outrage
Bullet images in the aftermath of a tragic shooting rampage
This image of a billboard made its way around the internet this morning. Originally uploaded on Tuesday, the photo was purportedly taken near the scene of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the image is old. Or not in Tucson area. Or Photoshopped. ( Who are we kidding?) The radio station featured in the lower righthand corner -- KNST, indeed a Tucson based AM news station -- is likely responsible for the now (very) inappropriate artwork.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)