Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

Well, how about that, will you?

What is saving "TWO-GUN TEXAS TONY" Blair, the Savile Row "cowboy" of London, England, who is the GREAT APPEASOR to TEXAN George W. Bush, is the fact that his opposition is even worse than he is, which is how politics seems to go, these days, and probably all days if truth be told - "I'm voting for this one, because he's not as corrupt and stupid as that other one, and that is all there is to choose from!"

Sound familiar?

"Blair makes history, but loses aura of invincibility"

LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair looked to have made history by becoming the first Labour Party leader to win three straight terms in office.

Yet this latest victory could herald his imminent exit.

Despite entering the pantheon of British political giants with a predicted third term, estimates in an exit poll that the Labour majority in parliament has been sharply reduced could spell trouble for a premier already badly hit by the Iraq war.

And from George W. Bush, we go to his "GREAT APPEASER", the inestimable "TEFLON TEXAS TWO-GUN TONY" Blair, the Savile Row "cowboy"!

And what is up with Mr. Tony, today, you ask?

Well, let's take a look, and see what we can see, coming from that direction, which is to the east of me, up here where I am in OUR America:

"Blair resists chorus of calls to step down before end of third term"

Sun May 8, 8:06 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair resisted a chorus of calls over the weekend to resign before he finishes the historic third term he just won, amid discontent over his leadership from fellow party members.

A number of Labour Party members say they want Blair to step down as early as a year from now and make way for his powerful and popular finance minister, Gordon Brown.

"The prime minister is the prime minister, he has made as clear as he could possibly make it that he intends to serve for a full third term," Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said on Sky Television late Saturday.

"Our job now from the prime minister onwards is to make sure that we get our shoulders to the wheel," she said.

Blair stirred up rebels within his party by taking Britain to war in Iraq in 2003.

The rebels say the chickens are coming home to roost now that voters in Thursday's election have slashed the huge majorities he won in 1997 and 2001.

At the same time the divisions have raised concerns about whether the Labour Party can remain an effective force and prompted comparisons with the bickering that tore Prime Minister John Major's Conservatives apart a decade ago.

"We will very quickly squander a third term if we speculate endlessly about the leadership of the government," Jowell said.

A spokesman for the prime minister reminded journalists of Blair's statement last September in which he said that if re-elected he would serve a full third term.

"There has been no change," the spokesman said.

The prime minister only committed himself then not to run for a fourth term, which prompted immediate complaints he had made himself a lame-duck leader.

Blair delivered an historic third successive general election victory for the party on Thursday, albeit with a much smaller majority over the previous elections amid anger over the way he led the country to war in Iraq.

Labour obtained 356 seats in the 646-seat House of Commons, against 197 for the main opposition Conservatives and 62 for the Liberal Democrats.

The outcome meant Blair's majority has been slashed by more than half to a projected 66 but is still healthy compared with previous governments.

"We have... a bigger majority than (former Conservative premier) Margaret Thatcher had in 1979," environment minister Margaret Beckett told BBC radio.

Beckett, however, dodged answering any questions on whether she thought it would be another four years of Blair.

The Observer newspaper reported meanwhile that within Blair's own private circle, the timetable being discussed would involve him triggering a party leadership contest in July 2008 and remaining as prime minister while the succession is resolved, allowing the new leader to take over that autumn.

The Observer quoted an unnamed source within the prime minister's office as saying:

"The best thing would be to get in at party conference 2008 -- that gives you a year to establish yourself but not become over-familiar."

If Blair can hold on until November, he will have beaten Thatcher's 11 years in power.

The newspaper also reported tensions between the Blair and Brown camps over Blair's wish to bring one of his policy advisers, Andrew Adonis, into the government as deputy to Education Secretary Ruth Kelly.

The maneuverings are set against the backdrop of growing calls by Labour members of parliament for Blair to step down.

MP John Austin told The Sunday Times Blair "was a liability and not an asset in this election."

"You can't beat about the bush."

"Blair was a negative factor on the doorstep, time and time and time again."

"I think it was somewhat arrogant to say he was going to continue with a full term."

MP Ian Davidson said: "It needs to happen sooner rather than later.

"A natural break point might be the result of the referendum on the European Constitution," which is to be held in spring next year, he said.

MP John McDonnell said Blair elicits widespread "animosity" and he predicted Brown, who has long made no secret of his ambition to become prime minister, "looks as if he's a shoo-in."

MP Christine McCafferty said:

"My take on it is that within a year the prime minister will stand down."

"I would like to see the process take place, but we have just had the election so we need a pause for breath."

David Taylor predicted "I expect to see Blair go within a year to 18 months."

MP Clive Efford told The Sunday Telegraph:

"It will be impossible for Tony Blair to stay on for long."

"I favor an orderly transition to Gordon Brown."

"The outcome is inevitable."

end quotes

But is it, ever?

I mean, really?

Is it ever really over?

I doubt it, especially when it comes to politicians, and the "dance" and the GREAT GAME OF HOUSES, but who ever really knows, eh, jeffmoskin?

SO!

Stay tuned!

Life, in OUR America, and live, from "Jolly Olde", coming to you via the miracle of modern communications, the "TEXAS TWO-GUN TEFLON TONY" Blair show!

Updates regularly!

Live!

Late-breaking!

And from real people, too, and not just media simulations, so, how about that?

[Livyjr]

And from George W. Bush, we go to his "GREAT APPEASER", the inestimable "TEFLON TEXAS TWO-GUN TONY" Blair, the Savile Row "cowboy"!

And what is up with Mr. Tony, today, you ask?

Well, let's take a look, and see what we can see, coming from that direction, which is to the east of me, up here where I am in OUR America:

"Blair resists chorus of calls to step down before end of third term"

Sun May 8, 8:06 AM ET

LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair resisted a chorus of calls over the weekend to resign before he finishes the historic third term he just won, amid discontent over his leadership from fellow party members.

MP John Austin told The Sunday Times Blair "was a liability and not an asset in this election."

"You can't beat about the bush."

"Blair was a negative factor on the doorstep, time and time and time again."

Ah, these "world leaders" of ours!

A bunch of egotistical children, if you ask me, but I guess somebody needs to be in there doing that job, and so, if the job really does require egotistical children, as it seems, then I guess the real pragmatic approach would be to have egotistical children in there running things, as the case is, but, wait a minute, here, what about Russia?

That Stalin fellow, for example!

Wasn't he just plain mean?

"Stalin Re-Emerges in Public Eye"

By MARIA DANILOVA, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 8 minutes ago

MOSCOW - One poster stands out among the billboards splashed across Moscow for celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany:

Josef Stalin against the backdrop of a Red Army soldier raising the Soviet hammer-and-sickle over the Reichstag in Berlin.

Stalin always has been a contradictory figure in Russia, seen as either the powerful boss who led the country to victory over the Nazis and made it a 20th century industrial giant or the tyrant responsible for killing millions of his own people.

Under President Vladimir Putin, he appears to be making a comeback, with monuments in the works and criticism muted.

After waves of denouncements following Stalin's death in 1953 and as Soviets learned in the 1980s the full extent of his crimes, the Kremlin has been quiet about Stalin in recent years.

Putin rarely has harsh words for him.

In a rare critical statement, Putin told Germany's Bild newspaper on Thursday that Stalin was a tyrant, but added that he should not be compared to the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

"I can't understand you equating Stalin and Hitler."

"It goes without saying that Stalin was a tyrant, whom many call a criminal."

"But he wasn't a Nazi," Putin said.

Stalin came to power after the death of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin in 1924 and began a reign of terror that lasted nearly three decades, ending only with his death in 1953.

An estimated 20 million people were executed, imprisoned or deported to other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Altogether, 10 million are believed to have died.

Critics warn that Russian leaders' failure to condemn Stalin's crimes means dismissing the values for which the Allies fought.

But the Kremlin may have pragmatic reasons for its silence:

Recent opinion polls have shown that nearly half of Russians hold a largely positive view of Stalin and give him credit for the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War — as World War II is known here — despite evidence of his grave strategic errors.

For many, the nostalgia goes further.

A few thousand people in the Siberian town of Mirny, 2,500 miles east of Moscow, attended the presentation Sunday of a monument to Stalin featuring a bust of the dictator, Russian media reported.

Local leader Anatoly Popov praised Stalin as "a great son of Russia who gave the people everything he had ... and took nothing in return," Ekho Moskvy radio reported.

Lawmakers in the western city of Oryol recently called on the central government to name streets after Stalin and restore memorials in recognition of his wartime achievements.

Several other Russian cities also are considering erecting monuments to Stalin.

"We should once again render honor to Stalin for his role in building socialism and saving human civilization from the Nazi plague," Communist Party chief Gennady Zyuganov said.

Zurab Tsereteli, a controversial Russian sculptor, has made a massive bronze statue featuring Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill to honor the historic Yalta conference held by the three leaders in 1945.

Tsereteli is donating the statue to the southern city of Volgograd, where there is a movement afoot to bring back the city's previous name — Stalingrad.

"I am just describing the facts," Tsereteli said, brushing aside criticism that he is erecting a monument to a dictator.

"Did they meet?"

"Yes, they did."

"... Did they save us from the Nazis so that we don't have to wear swastikas?"

"Yes, they did ... I don't go any deeper," he said.

Yevgeniya Furman, 75, who saw many of her Jewish friends sent to camps or killed under Stalin, says the despot should not be honored.

"Stalin was a tyrant, that's all there is to it," she said.

"Look at how many people he killed."

Critics blame Putin for overseeing the revival of positive attitudes toward Stalin and failing to denounce him as an authoritarian dictator.

Alexander Yakovlev, a war veteran who was a key architect of former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev's liberal reforms, said Stalin's leadership during the war brought more harm than good.

He pointed to Stalin's purges of tens of thousands of senior army officers before the war and his decision to imprison hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war whom he declared traitors for surrendering to the enemy.

"The victory was achieved despite Stalin's leadership, not thanks to it," Yakovlev told The Associated Press.

end quotes

HHHhhhmmm!

Is it really better to get killed, or enslaved, by your own dictator, as opposed to a foreign one, especially if the foreign one who is going to kill you or enslave you is a real Nazi, and your own dictator is not?

Wow, now that is a real conundrum, here, isn't it?

Boy, it sure is tough living in a democracy, all of this thinking that we have to do all the time!

And all these tough questions, to boot!

"Would I rather be killed or enslaved by George W. Bush, or a Nazi?"

Is that an essay question, or is it multiple choice?

[Livyjr]

Ah, these "world leaders" of ours!

A bunch of egotistical children, if you ask me, but I guess somebody needs to be in there doing that job, and so, if the job really does require egotistical children, as it seems, then I guess the real pragmatic approach would be to have egotistical children in there running things, as the case is, but, wait a minute, here, what about Russia?

And the hell with Russia!

What about here, in OUR own America?

What's this with Miss Hillary, now?

I bet all these people out there kicking Miss Hillary will be sorry when they won't have Miss Hillary to kick no more, or was that Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon that they were kicking?

Oh, who can keep up with all these politicians, anyway?

Or for that matter, all of these felons and such that OUR government always seems to be consorting with, in one way or the other, when politics is involved, as seems to be the case, here, anyway!

"Sen. Clinton's Financing in the Spotlight"

By PAUL CHAVEZ, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 42 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - Campaign donations made more than four years ago at a celebrity-studded Hollywood gala have led to a federal criminal trial against a former finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could hamper her future campaigns.

The trial set to open Tuesday focuses on a lavish August 2000 political party at a tony Brentwood estate that drew dozens of A-list guests and performers, including Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Cher, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Clinton hasn't been linked to charges that the cost of the event was vastly underreported, but Republicans will be watching for any ammunition they can use against the Democrat, considered an early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination.

David Rosen, who was Clinton's finance director during her 2000 U.S. Senate run, faces three counts of filing a false statement.

An FBI agent speculated in an affidavit that Rosen was trying to duck federal financing rules so the campaign would have more money to spend on other expenses.

Rosen pleaded not guilty in January.

He could face up to 15 years in prison and $750,000 in fines if convicted.

The party, called a "Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton," included both a dinner and a concert.

About 350 people accepted invitations to both, which cost $25,000 a couple.

About 1,200 people purchased $1,000 tickets just for the concert.

Many people got complimentary tickets and campaign reports never gave a full accounting of the total money taken in.

However, organizers reported raising nearly $1.1 million for a joint committee benefiting Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign and the national and state-level Democratic parties.

Rosen, 40, reported the event was underwritten by about $400,000 worth of "in kind" contributions — goods and services provided for free or below cost — but Peter F. Paul, a three-time convicted felon who pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud charges, has told prosecutors he gave the campaign at least $1.1 million for the affair.

Paul has filed a lawsuit claiming he bankrolled the gala on a promise that former President Clinton would become a "goodwill ambassador" for his Internet media company.

He is ready to testify against Rosen, according to his attorney, Joseph Conway.

Another of the event's organizers, the man who corralled the celebrities, said Rosen was a "decent person" who faced a devil's choice: risk getting fired by exposing the gala's skyrocketing tab or cover up its true cost.

"David I don't think deserves to go to jail," co-organizer Aaron Tonken said in a recent interview from prison, where he is serving 63 months for unrelated charges of defrauding charities of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Tonken believes the Federal Election Commission should fine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

To build its case, the government enlisted Raymond Reggie, a prominent political consultant whose sister is married to U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Prosecutors have not named Reggie, but two sources familiar with the case said he is the "cooperating witness" identified in court documents.

During a secretly recorded conversation with Reggie in September 2002, prosecutors said Rosen made incriminating statements they will introduce at trial.

Reggie pleaded guilty last month in Louisiana to unrelated bank fraud charges.

A request for an interview with Hillary Clinton was referred to her lawyer, David Kendall, who would not comment.

Last year, Kendall told The Associated Press that Clinton's campaign properly reported all donations in 2000.

Rosen's attorney, Paul Mark Sandler, also declined to comment.

It is not the first time a Clinton campaign has been under scrutiny.

President Clinton's 1996 campaign was dogged by allegations of illegal fundraising from overseas donors.

"Things like this have occurred along the way in the Clinton national role and they have handled it," said Lee Miringoff, an independent pollster and director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

The key, he said, is whether "fingerprints lead back to her."

Government lawyers won't say publicly why they believe Rosen might have underreported the cost.

But one theory suggests it would have allowed Clinton's campaign to spend more money on essentials such as advertising.

Under arcane campaign finance rules of the time, reporting the event's actual cost would have forced the campaign to forfeit coveted "hard money," according to Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who now leads the campaign-finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics.

[Livyjr]

Consider for a moment, if you will, in forming your own thoughts about the contents of this thread, these words of the then-DEMOCRATIC Governor of the State of New York in 1986 concerning New York State's "HISTORY" of corruption as it stood right exactly then:

"TEN YEARS AGO, a study by the Joint House-Senate Subcommittee on Investigations estimated the costs of white-collar crime at MORE THAN forty-four BILLION dollars".

"The incidence of white-collar crime has not abated in the last decade; instead, it has spiraled ever-upward as economic crime has become increasingly profitable and sophisticated!"

"The effects of major economic crime can be devastating: THE WHOLE SOCIETY suffers as crimes against business become crimes against consumers."

"GREEDY, WHITE-COLLAR PROFITEERS WILL NOT BE STOPPED until we adopt strong measures to stop them!"

- Governor's Approval memorandum, New York State Legislative Annual -1986, p.236

SO!

Is a "BLIND EYE" being bought and paid for, here, perhaps?

And if so, HOW can that be countered?

And when the sum of money is so big as was the case in New York State by 1976, $44 BILLION, ABSENT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL TOP-TO-BOTTOM house-cleaning of the whole of government itself, CAN ANYTHING AT ALL BE DONE, because the truth of the matter is that corruption, or crime of this magnitude cannot happen without inside help .....

To be continued ..........

And the hell with Russia!

What about here, in OUR own America?

What's this with Miss Hillary, now?

I bet all these people out there kicking Miss Hillary will be sorry when they won't have Miss Hillary to kick no more, or was that Millhouse "Tricky Dick" Nixxon that they were kicking?

Oh, who can keep up with all these politicians, anyway?

Or for that matter, all of these felons and such that OUR government always seems to be consorting with, in one way or the other, when politics is involved, as seems to be the case, here, anyway!

"Sen. Clinton's Financing in the Spotlight"

By PAUL CHAVEZ, Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES - Campaign donations made more than four years ago at a celebrity-studded Hollywood gala have led to a federal criminal trial against a former finance director for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that could hamper her future campaigns.

The trial set to open Tuesday focuses on a lavish August 2000 political party at a tony Brentwood estate that drew dozens of A-list guests and performers, including Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Cher, Diana Ross and Muhammad Ali.

Clinton hasn't been linked to charges that the cost of the event was vastly underreported, but Republicans will be watching for any ammunition they can use against the Democrat, considered an early front-runner for the 2008 presidential nomination.

Government lawyers won't say publicly why they believe Rosen might have underreported the cost.

But one theory suggests it would have allowed Clinton's campaign to spend more money on essentials such as advertising.

Under arcane campaign finance rules of the time, reporting the event's actual cost would have forced the campaign to forfeit coveted "hard money," according to Larry Noble, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer who now leads the campaign-finance watchdog Center for Responsive Politics.

And speaking of arcane election laws that allow politicians to seemingly stuff oodles and oodles of campaign contributions right down their own pockets, what do we have here, from Miss Hillary's own HOME STATE of New York?

And as you read this, keep in mind that by 1976, the State of New York had white collar crime to the extent of $44 BILLION, which is in the time frame that the New York State Legislature did away with tough campaign contribution laws in New York State!

Hhhhmmm!

$44 BILLION!

Now wouldn't that make a greedy politican drool!

"Election cash pays for perks - State law gives candidates the flexibility to use campaign donations for cars, personal trips, gifts"

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, May 8, 2005

ALBANY -- State-level candidates rake in millions of dollars in campaign contributions to fund their political aspirations, but the money often buys things with no clear political purpose.

Financial filings with the state Board of Elections show that in recent months, candidates have spent donors' money on such things as gifts for employees and colleagues, flowers for district offices and membership dues to tony private clubs.

Under the state's lax Election Law, critics say, campaign committees have become little more than largely unregulated slush funds for politicians.

Money given by donors ostensibly to help candidates get elected or re-elected has paid for such things as a flight to Rome for Gov. George Pataki's wife so she could attend Pope John Paul II's funeral with her husband, and the legal defense of former state Sen. Guy Velella, R-Bronx, who had to give up his seat and do prison time for accepting bribes.

And then there are the numerous small purchases -- supposedly worth $5 or less -- that are listed as "unitemized" expenses and require no explanation by law.

And the spending often goes on long after an election is over.

"It's a hole so large that you could probably drive the entire Army Reserve of New York through it," Democratic political consultant and lobbyist Norman Adler said of the single paragraph in the Election Law that addresses the use of campaign cash.

The law states only:

"Contributions received by a candidate or a political committee may be expended for any lawful purpose."

"Such funds shall not be converted by any person to a personal use which is unrelated to a political campaign or the holding of a public office or party position."

"It's extremely flexible, and it's hard to find things that you can't justify," said Adler, a veteran of many state-level campaigns.

As state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian put it, "Unless you out-and-out stick it in your pocket and walk away, everything's legal."

The situation is even cushier for political parties, which maintain so-called "housekeeping" committees that, unlike individual campaign committees, have no contribution limits.

Such contributions, known as "soft money," were banned at the federal level in 2002.

By law, parties are supposed to use their housekeeping accounts to cover overhead costs and "ordinary activities which are not for the express purpose of promoting the candidacy of specific candidates."

But such "party-building" efforts as voter registration drives and literature drops are legal, even if they end up benefiting candidates.

In several cases, parties have circumvented the restrictions to get money into candidates' hands.

Earlier this year, the state Republican Party weathered criticism -- even from within its ranks -- for paying for first lady Libby Pataki's personal assistant.

The Democrat-controlled Assembly passed a campaign finance reform bill this year that would end unlimited contributions to housekeeping committees, but the Republican-led Senate has not followed suit.

Pataki, also a Republican, has called for ending soft money donations to housekeeping accounts since 1999.

The law governing individual and party campaign committees wasn't always so vague.

Until the mid-1970s, it included a list of things a campaign committee could and could not pay for, according to Daghlian.

"Like any laundry list, it wasn't complete," he said.

"So, (the state Legislature) did away with it."

The state Board of Elections has only two auditors on staff, but it tries to audit the financial filings of every statewide candidate and the state political parties, Daghlian said.

Auditors generally focus on whether donors exceeded contribution limits, he said, but also flag expenditures that seem "out of whack."

Otherwise, the board doesn't investigate expenditures unless it gets a complaint.

If asked, the state board offers advisory opinions on the legality of campaign committee expenditures.

Past opinions are posted on the board's Web site.

They have dealt with questions of whether campaign funds of a deceased office holder can be transferred to his or her spouse, children or staff (answer: not if it's for personal use), used to pay personal income taxes (answer: no), or used to buy items later sold to the candidate (answer: yes, if he or she pays market value).

The most recent opinion was issued in September 1997.

Assemblyman Robert Reilly, D-Colonie, said he's trying to draft legislation that would restrict campaign committee spending.

But he's having trouble.

The problem is, one candidate's campaign necessity is another's personal luxury, so it's tough to establish hard rules, Reilly said.

It's also difficult to prove a candidate is using items funded by campaign committees -- like cars, or cellular phones -- for both personal and political use.

Reilly cited a post-election "debriefing" trip to Vermont taken by Albany County Comptroller Mike Conners with his wife, his daughter and her boyfriend over Thanksgiving 2004 paid for in part with donor funds as inappropriate committee spending.

Conners unsuccessfully challenged Sen. Neil Breslin, D-Delmar, on the GOP line last fall.

"Not to knock Mike Conners, but that's an example of abuse," Reilly said.

"That's not legally what those campaign funds should be used for."

Compared with the state requirements, the rules governing how federal candidates spend their campaign dollars are slightly more restrictive, according to Ed Davis, director of research at Common Cause, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.

Gifts generally aren't allowed by the Federal Election Committee, and spousal travel isn't always approved.

And they're downright stringent in New York City -- at least for those using the public campaign financing system.

Qualified expenditures for public matching funds include campaign offices, staff salaries, advertisements, consultants and literature.

The funds cannot be used for gifts, food served anywhere other than at a campaign event, or legal and petitioning expenses.

All candidates' expenses are audited.

If they are found to have spent public money on an unqualified item, they are required to return that sum.

"Not only do we audit by examining documents, but we also make on-site visits to candidates' campaign offices to enforce legal expenditures," said Tanya Domi, spokeswoman for the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Unless the Legislature approves public financing of state-level campaigns, the current spending rules are not likely to change, observers said.

But public financing has been a non-starter in Albany.

The Assembly's campaign finance package includes it, but neither Pataki nor the Senate, which has yet to address campaign finance reform this year, supports it.

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat who's running for governor in 2006, does.

Another key reason why nothing has been done to rein in campaign spending is that the donors themselves aren't calling for it loudly enough, Adler said.

"People give money because they either like a candidate or they want something out of him," he said.

"They do not contribute with a specific expenditure in mind."

"They give money because they like what a candidate has done or will do, not because they want to buy TV time, mailings or pay for the phones at headquarters."

Elizabeth Benjamin can be reached at 454-5081 or by e-mail at ebenjamin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

And speaking of arcane election laws that allow politicians to seemingly stuff oodles and oodles of campaign contributions right down their own pockets, what do we have here, from Miss Hillary's own HOME STATE of New York?

And as you read this, keep in mind that by 1976, the State of New York had white collar crime to the extent of $44 BILLION, which is in the time frame that the New York State Legislature did away with tough campaign contribution laws in New York State!

Hhhhmmm!

$44 BILLION!

Now wouldn't that make a greedy politican drool!

"Election cash pays for perks - State law gives candidates the flexibility to use campaign donations for cars, personal trips, gifts" 
 
By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, May 8, 2005

ALBANY -- State-level candidates rake in millions of dollars in campaign contributions to fund their political aspirations, but the money often buys things with no clear political purpose.

Financial filings with the state Board of Elections show that in recent months, candidates have spent donors' money on such things as gifts for employees and colleagues, flowers for district offices and membership dues to tony private clubs.

Under the state's lax Election Law, critics say, campaign committees have become little more than largely unregulated slush funds for politicians.

Money given by donors ostensibly to help candidates get elected or re-elected has paid for such things as a flight to Rome for Gov. George Pataki's wife so she could attend Pope John Paul II's funeral with her husband, and the legal defense of former state Sen. Guy Velella, R-Bronx, who had to give up his seat and do prison time for accepting bribes.

"For politicians, family ties can include payroll - Sweeney's wife is among the ranks of relatives on legislators' staffs"

By ELIZABETH BENJAMIN, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union
First published: Sunday, May 8, 2005

ALBANY -- Congress has been smarting lately over revelations that dozens of members, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have hired spouses, children or other relatives with campaign funds.

In this apparently common practice, the Capital Region's representatives are no exception.

It has long been known in political circles that U.S. Rep. Michael McNulty, D-Green Island, pays his brother, Jack McNulty III, to serve as his campaign treasurer.

From 2003-'04, Jack McNulty received $32,938 from his brother's campaign, Federal Election Commission filings said.

A relative newcomer to the practice of hiring relatives is U.S. Rep. John Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, whose campaign paid $42,570 to Creative Consulting, a firm owned by his wife, Gayle Ford, between April 2003 and January 2004.

Sweeney's filings list payments to Creative Consulting for fund-raising consulting and commissions.

Creative Consulting is Sweeney's 10th-largest campaign expense.

His largest was $273,993 to The Victory Group in Maryland, also for fund-raising consulting and for "media."

Ford's company received its first payment from Sweeney's campaign on April 11, 2003 -- one day after she filed papers to do business as Creative Consulting in the Albany County clerk's office under the name "Gaia Mashanta Ford" and using a Cohoes address.

FEC records show the checks from Sweeney's committee to Creative Consulting go to a post office box in Clifton Park, where the couple, who married last year, live.

Individuals are supposed to file paperwork in every county in which they intend to do business.

Ford has not filed in Saratoga County, a check at the Saratoga County clerk's office revealed.

Sweeney spokeswoman Melissa Carlson said the congressman considers his wife "his best representative in the district when he's fund-raising."

She said Ford, who has no previous fund-raising experience and no other clients, receives a 10 percent commission on whatever she raises.

Ford will file the appropriate paperwork in Saratoga County, Carlson said.

"He trusts her, and she knows the people he deals with in terms of fund-raising, so it works out," Carlson said.

The Victory Group handles Sweeney's fund-raising in Washington, D.C., and Ford focuses on New York, she added.

Ford also works for Powers & Co., the lobbying firm of former state GOP Chairman William Powers, Sweeney's longtime political ally and onetime boss.

The recent focus on payments to family members was sparked by reports that the wife and daughter of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, were paid more than $500,000 by his campaign and political action committees.

Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that at least 39 congressmen have paid their spouses, children or other relatives from campaign funds, or have hired companies in which a family member had a financial interest.

Hiring family members is not an uncommon practice among state-level politicians as well.

Assemblyman John "Jack" McEneny, D-Albany, hired his daughter, Rachel, to manage his unsuccessful challenge to Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings in 1997 and his successful Assembly campaign in 1998.

He paid her about $500 a week.

Having a family member on staff is a mixed blessing, McEneny said.

It's easier to trust them, he said, but: "Your best friends in politics are the people who will give you negative feedback."

"And it's hard for people to give negative feedback to a relative."

Elizabeth Benjamin can be reached at 454-5081 or by e-mail at ebenjamin@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

SO?

A question!

"Are we the only nation on the face of the earth that is plagued with a revival of these CONSERVATIVES?"

"German Far-Right Rally Protests 'Guilt'"

By DAVID McHUGH, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 15 minutes ago

BERLIN - About 3,000 supporters of an extreme-right party rallied Sunday to lament what they called Germany's "cult of guilt" about World War II, but they were kept from marching in downtown Berlin by thousands of counterdemonstrators.

National Democratic Party supporters were ringed by riot police on the Alexanderplatz square and after a several-hour rally agreed to scrap the march through Berlin, police spokesman Bodo Pfalzgraf said.

At least 5,000 opponents had headed toward them to block the planned route.

Sunday was the anniversary of Nazi Germany's surrender on May 8, 1945.

Some carried flags in red, white and black — the colors used by the Nazis and imperial Germany.

"This is a disgrace," said Interior Minister Otto Schily, who has accused the party of reviving Nazi ideology and symbols.

"German neo-Nazi march stopped on WW2 anniversary"

By Erik Kirschbaum

1 hour, 10 minutes ago

BERLIN (Reuters) - A neo-Nazi march in Berlin was stopped by thousands of anti-fascist demonstrators Sunday after a tense standoff that overshadowed Germany's ceremonies marking the end of World War II in Europe 60 years ago.

Berlin police said 6,000 demonstrators opposed to the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) crowded into streets around Alexanderplatz square where 3,300 right-wing extremists gathered to protest what they called a German "cult of guilt."

Eager to prevent the violence that flares when leftists try to stop far-right marches, authorities ordered the NPD to stay at Alexanderplatz behind a buffer zone of barricades and police.

Two hours later the NPD decided to abandon the march.

Anti-Nazi demonstrators cheered when police announced on loudspeakers that the march was canceled.

"With peaceful means, the public showed these Nazis who were trying to glorify the greatest genocide in history will never again have any role in Germany," said Juergen Trittin, a minister in Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government.

Holding one of their biggest rallies ever -- thanks to constitutional free speech guarantees -- the far-right then stayed at the Alexanderplatz square, where there were some scuffles with leftists who got close to barricades.

Police arrested 42 people -- 32 leftists and 10 rightists -- for throwing bottles or using the outlawed "Hitler salute."

There was also one firebomb thrown at the neo-Nazis.

Most Germans see May 8, 1945 as a day of liberation.

The motto of the anti-Nazi rally borrowed the word for "Thanks" in Russian: "Spasibo -- We say thank you."

Some carried banners reading "Fascism never again" and "War never again."

The NPD had wanted to march through the Brandenburg Gate, a symbol of unification, and past a new Holocaust memorial.

"This was not a day of 'liberation' but a day of defeat for Germany and it's nothing to celebrate," said NPD leader Udo Voigt.

"Almost every German has relatives expelled from the east or a grandfather who was killed."

"We're here to mourn the millions of Germans killed in the war," he told Reuters.

The extremists with shaven heads and black clothing were required to pass through tight police screening to the rally.

In a speech in parliament, President Horst Koehler said most Germans were relieved "and numbed" when the war ended.

"There are unfortunately incorrigibles still among us who want a return to the racism and right-wing extremism," Koehler said.

"But they don't have a chance."

"We feel disgust and contempt for those guilty of these crimes against humanity who dishonored our country," he said.

CELEBRATIONS ACROSS EUROPE

Across Europe, there were ceremonies marking the end of the war in Europe Sunday and Monday.

President Bush said in a speech in the Netherlands the lesson of the war was that democracy brought peace.

Commemorations to mark the end of the war that cost at least 50 million lives worldwide were also taking place in London, Paris and Washington.

The war in the Pacific ended three months later and the Allies mark Victory over Japan on Aug. 15.

In Paris Sunday, President Jacques Chirac laid a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier under the Arc de Triomphe, before leaving for Moscow to celebrate the war victory.

Prince Charles led low-key commemorations in Britain, laying a wreath at the national war memorial in London.

Britain plans bigger events later in the year to mark the end of the war.

Chirac, Bush and dozens of other world leaders including German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will join President Vladimir Putin for the celebrations in Moscow Monday.

The Allies agreed to celebrate victory on May 9, 1945, but reporters broke the news of Germany's surrender prematurely, prompting mass rejoicing on May 8.

The Soviet Union kept to the agreed date and Russia still marks victory in Europe on May 9.

In Poland Sunday, there was sober reflection on how the war divided the continent as well as the millions killed.

Prime Minister Marek Belka told a ceremony in Warsaw:

"We want to believe that truth will be spoken about the heroism of the war years but also of the betrayal of the postwar years."

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told his cabinet:

"Sixty years after the end of the worst war in human history, one cannot underestimate the importance of the victory to the entire world and particularly to the Jewish people."

end quotes

"There are unfortunately incorrigibles still among us who want a return to the racism and right-wing extremism," Koehler said.

Hhhhmmmm.

Don't we have a bunch of those over here as well?

[jeffmoskin]

There are unfortunately incorrigibles still among us who want a return to the racism and right-wing extremism[/u]," Koehler said.[/b][/color]

Hhhhmmmm.

Don't we have a bunch of those over here as well?

Indeed we do.

I am just starting Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here.

Written in the 30s as fascism was sweeping through Italy and Germany, it is remarkably "fresh" here in OUR America.

I'll keep you posted.

[Livyjr]

"Party on edge gets warning from within" 

First published: Thursday, April 7, 2005

Usually, the White House loves bullies.

It embraces John Bolton, nominated as U.N. ambassador, even though, as The New York Times reports today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is reviewing allegations that Bolton misused intelligence and bullied subordinates to help buttress WMD hokum when he was at the State Department.

"Party-line Bolton approval expected"

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press
Last updated: 2:56 p.m., Sunday, May 8, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday he expected John R. Bolton, the contentious nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to win a party-line vote in the committee this week.

"Republicans, I suspect, will vote in favor of John Bolton; Democrats, I suspect, will vote unanimously against him," Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

That would send Bolton's nomination to the full Senate on a 10-8 margin when the GOP-led committee meets Thursday.

Lugar said he thought the vote, delayed since mid-April, would come off as scheduled.

But he acknowledged that Democrats who want to get more information about Bolton have many procedural ways to stall the vote.

Four committee Republicans supported a postponement of that April vote in order to review fresh allegations against Bolton.

While none has indicated plans to oppose Bolton, it would take only one Republican to side with the committee's eight Democrats to create a tie vote -- jeopardizing the nomination.

One of those four Republicans, Sen. Chuck Hagel, said on ABC's "This Week" that he has yet to learn anything about Bolton that would keep him from supporting the nominee.

But Hagel, R-Neb., said he was reserving his vote until he heard all the facts.

Bolton has been accused of trying to get subordinates whose intelligence information he opposed fired and of having a combustible personality inappropriate for a U.N. ambassador.

The top Democrat on the committee is still awaiting information about Bolton that he requested from the State Department.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., raised the possibility of trying to delay the committee vote if he does not get the material.

The documents include an accounting of instances in which Bolton sought names and details of U.S. officials whose communications were intercepted by the National Security Agency.

Biden also sought records regarding Bolton's assertions that Cuba and Sudan were bent on developing weapons of mass destruction and on China's proliferation of weapons technology.

Bolton has been the State Department's arms control chief.

"The real issue here is how far did John Bolton stretch the truth or try to stretch the facts relating to intelligence," Biden said.

Lugar said he continues to believe that Bolton is the right man for the job.

"I have no doubts in all the testimony we've already uncovered ... that John Bolton has been blunt, some would say even more than that."

"Some would say intimidating, abusive, tried to get people fired," Lugar said.

"But at the end of the day, nobody was fired."

"People's feelings may have been bent out of shape."

Lugar added, "Somebody that bends things out of shape may be needed to wrench around the U.N."

Also Sunday, former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin confirmed he told the Senate committee that Bolton tried to have a government intelligence analyst ousted in a dispute over Cuba.

"A subordinate came to me and said that Mr. Bolton was seeking transfer of one of our employees, and I objected to that, and said that we wouldn't do it," McLaughlin said on CNN's "Late Edition."

McLaughlin said "not in my personal experience" had he heard of such an effort by a policy-maker.

McLaughlin added that the committee did not ask him whether he thought it appropriate for Bolton to be U.N. ambassador.

[Livyjr]

Indeed we do.

I am just starting Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here.

Written in the 30s as fascism was sweeping through Italy and Germany, it is remarkably "fresh" here in OUR America.

I'll keep you posted.

Please do, jeffmoskin!

And by the way, I would be very cautious advertising in here that you actually do read books!

That would make you out to be an intellectual, you know, and those incorrigibles still among us who want a return to the racism and right-wing extremism don't like intellectuals who can actually read!

It makes them look dumb as a stump, I think is what they said, and to them, that is class-based invidious discrimination when you do something that they can't, like read a book, for instance!

And when we have an American president who can't or doesn't read, well ......

(sentiment left unstated)

[jeffmoskin]

\
And when we have an American president who can't or doesn't read, well ......

(sentiment left unstated)

edited to read:


"And when we have an American president who can't or doesn't read well"

[Livyjr]

edited to read:

"And when we have an American president who can't or doesn't read well"

Further edited to read "And when we have an American president who can't or doesn't read well, does anyone in OUR America who can and does know how to read really expect that the right-wing extremists and ideologues and demagogues who support George W. Bush sitting on the THRONE of OUR America are going to crack the cover of a book to see if there might be anything of interest in there?"

FAITH, BABY!

You got to have faith!

And there just ain't no faith in any of them, thar books!

And speaking of that, wasn't there a book some time ago entitled "Fahrenheit 451" about these people in OUR America whose job it was to hunt down people who actually had books in their possession, so that the books could be properly destroyed by burning them to ashes and cinders?

And is it still "history" when someone in the past writes about the practices that will take place in a future generation or time, such as OURS, where possession of an intellect is becoming a national crime here in OUR America, at least to the CONSERVATIVES like George H.(e) W.(hines) Bush, who detest intellectuals, precisely because they are intellectuals with the capacity for knowledge?

Or is that really just the ability to make rational analysis and predict future outcomes and probabilities based on a combined knowledge of history and human psychology?

Or is it witchcraft?

Maybe we ought to dial up http://whitehouse.gov and see if Scottie "BOY' McClellan has posted anything on that "faith-based" subject that can edify us old coots in here!

And then we would know!

AND SO .....

[Livyjr]

And here, I would like to leave a positive message, because life is good here in OUR America, as a result of HER PEOPLES, and that is that the Albany, New York Police Department Honor Guard will be in Washington, D.C., this weekend, for ceremonies involving fallen officers in the line of duty, and so, if anyone reading this will be there, in Washington, D.C., this weekend, and you happen to see one of these officers, well, say hello.

I think this Police Honor Guard from Albany, New York puts on a very fine impression of devotion to duty that is very fitting of the capital city of OUR state, up here, and I would like the candid world to know that fact.

SO!

Albany Police Honor Guard, have a safe trip down and back this weekend, and God Speed you home, safe and sound!

[Livyjr]

Whatever the times that we are in, in fact, these are the times that we are in, and in all truth, I find these to be quite exciting times to be alive, especially because of this internet, and the rapid communications ability that it gives us, to use as we will, for good or evil, however it may be.

As for me, I would rather be on the positive, constructive, pro-survival side of things, and so, the challenge is one of position, these days, because we are in a great state of flux, I think, poised on the end of one age, and poised on the brink of one that is emerging!

For us older folks, of course, depending upon how we have positioned ourselves, over time, these could be pretty traumatic times to be living in right now, as things seem to be moving very rapidly, on a lot of fronts, all at once, and so, the information overload in one's life just keeps increasing and increasing, at the same time as environmental stress is rising!

Do I have any answers?

Hell no, and I am not pretending to!

It's like having answers in the middle of a raging firefight!

What on earth are they good for, if they cause you to get dead in the search for them?

As for me, I'm pragmatizing, I guess you could call it, accepting that I have absolutely no control any more over my environment, so that the only sure thing that I have left to me is control over myself, despite the situation that I might find myself in at any given time!

My belief system, I guess you would call it, and from this following article, I am not alone in my own personal quest here, for the path in which my own personal life continues to go, down here on this earth of OURS:

"Christian Conference Weighs Challenges"

By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion Writer

Mon May 9, 2:50 PM ET

ATHENS, Greece - Christian leaders, theologians and religious activists from around the world gathered Monday for a meeting to assess some of the most serious challenges for the faith, such as growing rifts between churches and African congregations ravaged by AIDS.

The last time the World Council of Churches staged such a conference was in Brazil nine years ago, when the agenda was heavy with issues about preserving cultural identity and Christian missionary expansion in the former East Bloc.

Now — in one of the ancient sites of Christianity — the planned discussions highlight some new concerns, including growing rifts among Christians over issues such as same-sex unions, the role of gay pastors and women's contributions to worship.

Also high on the list: ways to control AIDS and HIV in Africa and promoting interfaith dialogue with mainstream Muslims to offset the influence of Islamic extremists.

"This conference has the feeling of a journey, not an arrival," said the Rev. Ruth Bottoms, a Baptist minister from Britain who is overseeing the weeklong series of workshops and speeches that officially opens Tuesday.

"We don't want to hide our differences."

The conference is expected to draw more than 500 participants representing nearly every corner of Christianity from evangelical movements to mainline Protestant groups to Orthodox and Roman Catholic envoys.

Some leaders, such as the late Pope John Paul II, made historic overtures to Orthodox churches to end a nearly 1,000-year estrangement over disputes centering on papal authority and, in recent years, the Vatican's reach in traditional Orthodox lands.

Some Protestant churches, meanwhile, have moved toward consolidation to counter shrinking congregations and resources.

But the conference may spend much of its energy on political and health problems outside doctrine.

Last month, the World Evangelical Alliance presented the U.N. Commission on Human Rights with an appeal claiming more than 200 million Christians worldwide are being denied religious liberty.

The document listed more than a dozen countries, including China and several nations in Africa and central Asia.

Members of the alliance, which represents conservative Protestant denominations, are expected at the conference, which is being held at a seaside venue about 18 miles northeast of Athens.

Also participating are top-level delegates from the Vatican, whose anti-condom stance may put it at odds with other religious leaders.

AIDS and HIV issues have become priorities for the WCC, a Geneva-based group with more than 350 member Christian churches.

The Vatican is not a full member, but collaborates on many WCC panels and initiatives.

"AIDS and HIV is a major human tragedy," said Alexander Belopopsky, a WCC spokesman.

The WCC also serves as one of the top forums for inter-religious dialogue and other ecumenical efforts.

But the conference is not expected to bring any landmark shifts.

Its chief goal, according to organizers, is to advance discussions on ways to reach greater common ground.

"This conference brings together the widest possible constituency," Bottoms said.

Other topics that could be raised at the conference include whether new Pope Benedict XVI will seek even more substantial contacts with other Christian churches, and ways to energize mainstream churches in the West facing shrinking congregations and competition from non-denominational movements.

In central Athens, about 500 supporters of a hard-line Orthodox movement staged a protest to denounce the conference and other initiatives, such as Greek government plans to build Athens' first mosque in more than 170 years.

The Greek Orthodox Movement for Salvation saw the WCC gathering as an affront to Orthodoxy's role as one of the most visible links to early Christian worship.

Banners read: "No to the pan-religious heretical congress" and "The Church is Orthodox: Every other church and religion are machinations of the devil."

end quotes

I don't worship no devils, myself, so, I guess they're not talking to me, above here!

SO?

I wonder who?

[Livyjr]

And here, America, I think that I am going to be doing what I do periodically, anyway, which is to just shift direction, because it is time to do so!

As one of America's disabled combat veterans, I have to stand up right now, in all seriousness, and salute George W. Bush for the efforts that he is making right now, on behalf of democracy, in a place like Georgia, where people, LIKE US, can now emerge from under some foreign yoke of tyranny, and live their lives, as God intended, or fate, or nothing at all, if God and fate offend you.

And it is good to hear George W. Bush finally speaking for himself, instead of through some spokesperson.

And so, for the moment, to me, at least, George W. Bush can now ride off into the sunset, largely with peace from me, because of this "GOOD-WILL AMBASSADOR" role that he is now playing, out there on the world stage right now, as a kind of POPE of peace, and I do not mean that in any other but a complementary fashion!

Do it every day, George, is what I say, because God only knows, it is a message this world is crying to hear, especially after these last four years of stress, and strife, and turmoil, out there in the world, and here at home, as well.

SO!

George, Vias Con Dios!

And keep the lights of freedom shining in the world, and that's not a bad legacy to leave behind at all!

No, sir, no way!

[Livyjr]

And here, America, I think that I am going to be doing what I do periodically, anyway, which is to just shift direction, because it is time to do so!

I just made this post over in my thread on the "Right to Dissent" in the JUDICIAL portion of this forum, and since it applies to where my thoughts are right now, I would like to re-post it in here, because I believe it is now the time to do so:

Last night, I was reading in a book that I am studying, entitled "The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution, 1763-1789", by Robert Middlekauff, about Thomas Jefferson, and what exactly was alleged to be on his mind, back in the days of the American Revolution, when he said in the American Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, when there were slaves in America who most certainly were not equal to the slave holders and overseers; and the Indians, of course, who were there to be eradicated, and so, could not have been given any Constitutional protection that would have gotten in the way of that eradication process!

Because of this reality, and it was, PEOPLE in OUR America dismiss the Declaration of Independence, therefore, as rank hypocrisy, AND IT IS NOT!

Not as I understand the mind of Jefferson, anyway, and the rich legacy that his intellect has left us here, in OUR America of this day, right now, where I am sitting at this computer talking about Thomas Jefferson, and his impact as a single human being, on the richness of OUR lives as not only Americans, but literally, the lives of people in every other nation on the face of this earth that craves democracy.

Compared to the times that we live in today, those times were brutal, indeed, and it went far beyond slavery, which was brutality and beastiality, personified.

The man who wrote "Amazing Grace" had been a captain on a slave ship, and it made him sick to his very soul!

Anyway, to me, an older American who has been aware of and in awe of Thomas Jefferson since I was 10, anyway, it is my belief that while Thomas Jefferson knew at the time the Declaration of Independence was being written that his words would be seen as being hypocritical, that he was really trusting in OUR love of liberty, to get beyond that, and to look insted to what he gave us, WHICH WAS A VEHICLE TOWARDS A MORE PERFECT UNION, 24/7!

AN UNDYING BEACON OF HOPE AND FREEDOM is what OUR Constitution is to me, and shall remain so, until the day that I die!

Or that is how I take it anyway, and as a disabled combat veteran, I can claim my right to my own interpretation of the United States Constitution, so long as I am always ready to be subjected to a challenge, and I am!

That is what this thread is all about, actually, to talk about the United States Constitution, and how it either still protects us today, or has started to fail to protect us today, in which case some type of citizen corrective action is needed, and that comes directly to me, from the United States Supreme Court, itself, in these words above, about "The United States Supreme Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States!"

WE, all of us in here, ARE THE PEOPLE!

ALL OF US!

EQUALLY!

Elsewise, there can be no real LIBERTY, for anyone, when there is class distinction, and one class MUST be in perpetutity always subject to the whim of another, without recourse to justice!

I, America, a disabled combat veteran from the Viet Nam war, am with Thomas Jefferson in that statement, and when I volunteered for America's military, and took the oath to protect and defend the Constituion, I meant what I said, when I took that oath!

All of my actions afterwards, to this date, have been in accordance with that oath!

THIS APPEAL is in accordance with that oath, OR IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF MY TIME!

After all, WHY do something to simply lose?

It makes no sense!

Not when the stakes are this high, especially!

SO!

Please, stay tuned, the CONSTITUTION and laws that we are talking about in here, ARE YOURS!

DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE TONIGHT, AMERICA?

Should you?

To be continued ......

[Livyjr]

And good morning, once again, America, and the candid world, as well.

Another day has dawned, where I am, and so, once again, life proceeds forward, on whatever path it shall take for not only me, but for all of us, as well, today, and by tonight, well, perhaps we'll have an inkling of where that might have been.

But for now .......

As for me, I am practicing "going forth softly, amid the noise, haste and confusion", and that for me, as a disabled veteran, is my full-time job!

Practicing strategic non-interference and outright avoidance, whenever I can, especially when the days are so heavenly as they are up here when spring finally breaks, and the air smells so sweet!

Of course, I am out in the country, and so, it still does, the air, that is, smell "sweet", some days, anyway, and yesterday was one of those days!

SO!

What does any of that have to do with anything?

Who knows!

But I like the sweet-smelling spring air, and I thought I would share that thought with whomever felt like listening.

These days, I am involved in an intensive study of the United States Constitution, because in truth, after all these years, I am still curious as to the relation, IF ANY, between the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, which are two completely different documents, OR ARE THEY?

And I don't ask that as an idle question!

Of course, the Declaration of Independence was a singular document in the modern world, anyway, and so, it means what it means today, to whomever!

The Constitution, on the other hand, is either a piece of paper with some words on it, basically a "dead document" that froze time somewhere between 1776 and 1787, or it is a "LIVING, BREATHING ORGANIC LAW" that transcends time, and place, and continues, all these years after 1787, to provide US, the PEOPLE, with OUR liberties!

ONE!

Or the other, but not both, at the same time, and this really is a question for OUR times today, and tomarrow, and to me, a disabled veteran, this question about WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION is going to be for us tomarrow is an all-important question right now, AND WE, by and large, do not even know that the question is being raised, so busy are we with OUR own daily lives, here in OUR America!

As for me, of course, I am now older, and out of the hurley-burley, and hustle and bustle of daily "consumer-oriented" life, here in OUR America, and so, I guess, I am afforded a time in my own life in which to be a "slow thinker", which means someone who has time to ponder the question before snapping out an answer, because I really had to be someplace else five minutes ago, and don't really have the time to think, about anything!

And so, for the moment, anyway, I am going to continue along this historical line of thought in here, because my purpose in having this thread is in part to have an on-going dialogue WITH AMERICA, and the candid world, that is educational, and enlightening, at the same time!

I am not by nature a "bitcher", or "complainer", and my own preferred mode of existence would be to live where "never is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day", as an old cowboy song from the days of my own youth used to say, but that was then ......

And this is now!

Sometimes, perhaps all the time, life calls on us, as individuals, to stand up, and be counted for something, and since I am in here, inside, tapping away on these computer keys right now, talking about OUR Constitution, as opposed to being outside, breathing in the sweet spring air one more day, I guess I have given away where I am with that equation, and so, it is true!

Yes, America, I do believe that I have some purpose in speaking these words as this vaporous or etherial or virtual presence in here, or else, these words wouldn't be posted in here in the first place, as they come more through me, than from me, and they are for posterity:

"To the people of the future, this is who we were back then, and while we were not perfect, perhaps, we did believe in goodness, and so, we persevered in that direction, and so, this is what you have inherited, in your lifetime, from the fruits of OUR labors, in OURS!"

LIFE, in OUR America!

Live, late-breaking!

SO!

Please!

Don't touch that dial, we'll be right back, and soon!

[Livyjr]

Last night, I was reading in a book that I am studying, entitled "The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution, 1763-1789", by Robert Middlekauff, about Thomas Jefferson, and what exactly was alleged to be on his mind, back in the days of the American Revolution, when he said in the American Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, when there were slaves in America who most certainly were not equal to the slave holders and overseers; and the Indians, of course, who were there to be eradicated, and so, could not have been given any Constitutional protection that would have gotten in the way of that eradication process!

Because of this reality, and it was, PEOPLE in OUR America dismiss the Declaration of Independence, therefore, as rank hypocrisy, AND IT IS NOT!

Not as I understand the mind of Jefferson, anyway, and the rich legacy that his intellect has left us here, in OUR America of this day, right now, where I am sitting at this computer talking about Thomas Jefferson, and his impact as a single human being, on the richness of OUR lives as not only Americans, but literally, the lives of people in every other nation on the face of this earth that craves democracy.

Compared to the times that we live in today, those times were brutal, indeed, and it went far beyond slavery, which was brutality and beastiality, personified.

The man who wrote "Amazing Grace" had been a captain on a slave ship, and it made him sick to his very soul!

Anyway, to me, an older American who has been aware of and in awe of Thomas Jefferson since I was 10, anyway, it is my belief that while Thomas Jefferson knew at the time the Declaration of Independence was being written that his words would be seen as being hypocritical, that he was really trusting in OUR love of liberty, to get beyond that, and to look insted to what he gave us, WHICH WAS A VEHICLE TOWARDS A MORE PERFECT UNION, 24/7!

AN UNDYING BEACON OF HOPE AND FREEDOM is what OUR Constitution is to me, and shall remain so, until the day that I die!

Or that is how I take it anyway, and as a disabled combat veteran, I can claim my right to my own interpretation of the United States Constitution, so long as I am always ready to be subjected to a challenge, and I am!

In 1969, March, to be exact, my own personal life was to be altered forever, for me, by a literal instant of time, when the warhead of an RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade went off right behind my head in Viet Nam, and left me quite seriously wounded with rocket warhead fragments embedded in my neck, near my spine!

In that time, and since that time, of course, I have had a lot of time in which to consider what life in the real slow lane is all about, well, because I am in the real slow lane!

Being a disabled person in here, of course, is easy!

There is no limited access for disabled persons in here, because in here, we are ethereal, and hence, our disabilities cannot follow us in here, unless we let them!

And I choose not to do so, and so ....

SO?

Why do I mention that I am a disabled veteran?

Well, that's easy!

Because I am!

And that shapes who I am in here, the perspectives that I personally have, especially as to the Constitution, which is supposed to protect the weak from the powerful!

If, of course, you are one of the powerful, then likely you don't see things about the Constitution from my perspective, because you are at the other end of a spectrum from me.

And this is really what this discussion in here right now about the Constitution is all about - WHERE DID IT COME FROM, and how does it operate to protect us, the weak in OUR America, from the strong?

Or does it?

And if it doesn't, then does it need fixing?

Or should it be left exactly as it was the moment of its final drafting, back in 1787?

A question for OUR times!

SO!

Please!

Stay tuned.

[Livyjr]

Why do I mention that I am a disabled veteran?

Well, that's easy!

Because I am!

And that shapes who I am in here, the perspectives that I personally have, especially as to the Constitution, which is supposed to protect the weak from the powerful!

If, of course, you are one of the powerful, then likely you don't see things about the Constitution from my perspective, because you are at the other end of a spectrum from me.

And this is really what this discussion in here right now about the Constitution is all about - WHERE DID IT COME FROM, and how does it operate to protect us, the weak in OUR America, from the strong?

Or does it?

And if it doesn't, then does it need fixing?

Or should it be left exactly as it was the moment of its final drafting, back in 1787?

A question for OUR times!

SO!

Please!

Stay tuned.

It came to me last night, as I continue my study of the United States Constitution, that there is a much different relationship between the original 13 colonies and OUR federal government, than there is for all the rest of the states in the United States, and I got to wondering about that, to be truthful, how that might unite us, versus how that actually serves to divide us, as to our various interests as citizens of the separate states, each presumably with its own Constitution that might alter in some essential ways the protections afforded to the various states by the United States Constitution, was was ratified TEN YEARS AFTER New York State's own Constitution was adopted by the people of this state.

For ten years, New York State was in essence its own "sovereign nation", confederated with the other twelve colonies through the Articles of Confederation, but independent in all ways, from them, except in the common cause of winning this fledgling nation's independence from England.

Thus, in 1787, the United States Constitution was deemed as taking away from New York State sovereign power that it held as an independent "nation" on the face of this earth, after the Declaration of Independence, and during the American Revolution, and so, two of New York State's delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia walked out, which effectively left New York State's citizens without representation in that body!

SO!

All these years later, what does that mean?

IS the United States Constitution really inoperative in New York State, as some say, because New York State was really a sovereign and independent nation ten years before the present federal frame of government came into being?

Or was that independent nation of New York really absorbed into the federal system in 1787, when the United States Constitution was ratified?

We up here are presently facing these questions, of course, BECAUSE of a federal lawsuit that I am discussing over in the JUDICIAL part of this forum, where the operation, or inoperation, of the United States Constitution in the State of New York is directly at issue, right now, today.

And what an education this has been for us!

And so, from time to time, I am going to continue to discuss aspects of this matter in here, as they do, to me, affect whether we here in OUR America can ever really have any common grounds, when we are dealing with each other across state boundaries where we might not all be equal, in the eyes of the law!

[Livyjr]

And here, America, I think that I am going to be doing what I do periodically, anyway, which is to just shift direction, because it is time to do so!

As one of America's disabled combat veterans, I have to stand up right now, in all seriousness, and salute George W. Bush for the efforts that he is making right now, on behalf of democracy, in a place like Georgia, where people, LIKE US, can now emerge from under some foreign yoke of tyranny, and live their lives, as God intended, or fate, or nothing at all, if God and fate offend you.

And it is good to hear George W. Bush finally speaking for himself, instead of through some spokesperson.

And so, for the moment, to me, at least, George W. Bush can now ride off into the sunset, largely with peace from me, because of this "GOOD-WILL AMBASSADOR" role that he is now playing, out there on the world stage right now, as a kind of POPE of peace, and I do not mean that in any other but a complementary fashion!

Do it every day, George, is what I say, because God only knows, it is a message this world is crying to hear, especially after these last four years of stress, and strife, and turmoil, out there in the world, and here at home, as well.

SO!

George, Vias Con Dios!

And keep the lights of freedom shining in the world, and that's not a bad legacy to leave behind at all!

No, sir, no way!

Europe

"Bush: ‘Georgia has come a long way’ - President says ex-Soviet republic an inspiring new democracy"

Jim Watson / AFP - Getty Images
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, right, holds up President Bush's hand in front of a crowd at Freedom Square in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, on Tuesday.

• 'Beacon of liberty'

May 10: President Bush hails the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia as an inspiration to fledgling democracies.

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:04 a.m. ET May 10, 2005

TBILISI, Georgia - President Bush, before a cheering crowd of tens of thousands of people, said Tuesday that the former Soviet republic of Georgia is proving to the world that determined people can rise up and claim their freedom from oppressive rulers.

“Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echoes across the world: Freedom will be the future of every nation and every people on Earth,” Bush said in speech from the Freedom Square that symbolizes the city’s democratic pursuits.

“You gathered here armed with nothing but roses and the power of your convictions and you claimed your liberty. and because you acted, Georgia is today both sovereign and free and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world.”

Crowd gives warm reception

Bush spoke to a massive crowd that filled Freedom Square — known as Lenin Square during Soviet rule — and spilled out into the roads that feed into the plaza.

The buildings around the square were freshly painted for Bush’s visit, the first from a U.S. president, and hundreds of people dressed in red, white and blue stood in a human formation of the U.S. flag, with another group forming the red and white Georgian flag.

“When Georgians gathered here 16 years ago, this square had a different name,” Bush said.

“Under Lenin’s steely gaze, thousands of Georgians prayed and sang and demanded their independence."

"The Soviet Army crushed that day of protest, but they could not crust the spirit of the Georgian people.”

He hoped the speech would balance his presence a day earlier at a World War II victory celebration in Moscow’s Red Square and close his four-nation trip on a high note.

Bush offers backing on key issues

Bush declined to support the bid of two separatist regions — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — to gain independence from Georgia, instead lending his backing to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s plan to give the areas some autonomy but keep them within the country.

“He wants the country to remain intact,” Bush said.

In a gesture to Moscow, Bush urged Saakashvili to use peaceful means to settle the dispute and said he’d be willing to make a phone call or two to help resolve the conflict if his assistance is requested.

“I’m confident that the government of Georgia has got a good strategy to move forward to resolve the disputes,” Bush said.

But he added: “The United States cannot impose a solution nor would you want us to.”

The president said he talked in Moscow earlier this week with Putin about Georgia’s demand for the closure of two Russian bases in this country.

The long-simmering dispute over the bases has strained relations between Georgia and its giant neighbor.

He noted that Russia has agreed to leave and expressed confidence that a timetable can be agreed upon.

“I think that’s a commitment that’s important for the people of Georgia to hear,” Bush said.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said it could take up to four years to build the barracks, garages and other infrastructure in Russia to handle the servicemen and materiel that would be withdrawn from Georgia.

Saakashvili, who did not attend Monday’s Victory in Europe Day celebration in Red Square over the base issue, wants the troops sent back to Russia more quickly.

Looking West

Bush gave a public boost to Saakashvili’s desire to see his country turn further West by joining organizations such as NATO.

“The Rose Revolution was a powerful moment in modern history,” Bush said.

“It not only inspired the people of Georgia, it inspired others around the world that want to live in a free society."

“I think we’ll look back at this moment in history and marvel at the courage of a people who have said ‘I want generations to grow up in a hopeful world.’"

"And so, Mr. President, thank you for setting such a good example — you and your people.”

Bush said the Georgian leader realizes that much work remains to ensure an independent judiciary, rule of law and a free media “so that no one will ever be able to overturn democracy.”

“He (Saakashvili) was complaining about the media, which is a good sign,” the president said.

“It means you’re free."

"I sometimes complain about ours, but not too publicly of course.”

Bush and his wife, Laura, received an extraordinary welcome Monday night in the Georgian capital.

The motorcade route was filled with cheering Georgians.

Hundreds of performers in colorful costumes whirled, leapt, stomped and danced through traditional routines staged in a narrow, cobblestone street in the city’s Old Town section.

Buildings had been freshly painted and roads newly paved.

Fireworks erupted above ancient churches.

The president smiled, clapped and even shook his hips.

Despite the effusive welcome, however, Bush is delivering his speech behind bulletproof glass — a security measure prompted by ongoing fights in the separatist regions, military campaigns against terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge and the recent abductions of foreigners.

[Livyjr]

Europe

"Bush: ‘Georgia has come a long way’ - President says ex-Soviet republic an inspiring new democracy"

• 'Beacon of liberty'

May 10: President Bush hails the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia as an inspiration to fledgling democracies.

The Associated Press
Updated: 10:04 a.m. ET May 10, 2005

TBILISI, Georgia - President Bush, before a cheering crowd of tens of thousands of people, said Tuesday that the former Soviet republic of Georgia is proving to the world that determined people can rise up and claim their freedom from oppressive rulers.

“Your courage is inspiring democratic reformers and sending a message that echoes across the world: Freedom will be the future of every nation and every people on Earth,” Bush said in speech from the Freedom Square that symbolizes the city’s democratic pursuits.

“You gathered here armed with nothing but roses and the power of your convictions and you claimed your liberty, and because you acted, Georgia is today both sovereign and free and a beacon of liberty for this region and the world.”

Bush offers backing on key issues

Bush declined to support the bid of two separatist regions — Abkhazia and South Ossetia — to gain independence from Georgia, instead lending his backing to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s plan to give the areas some autonomy but keep them within the country.

“He wants the country to remain intact,” Bush said.

In a gesture to Moscow, Bush urged Saakashvili to use peaceful means to settle the dispute and said he’d be willing to make a phone call or two to help resolve the conflict if his assistance is requested.

“I’m confident that the government of Georgia has got a good strategy to move forward to resolve the disputes,” Bush said.

But he added: “The United States cannot impose a solution nor would you want us to.”

“The Rose Revolution was a powerful moment in modern history,” Bush said.

“It not only inspired the people of Georgia, it inspired others around the world that want to live in a free society."

“I think we’ll look back at this moment in history and marvel at the courage of a people who have said ‘I want generations to grow up in a hopeful world.’"

The president smiled, clapped and even shook his hips.

Despite the effusive welcome, however, Bush is delivering his speech behind bulletproof glass — a security measure prompted by ongoing fights in the separatist regions, military campaigns against terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge and the recent abductions of foreigners.

And as I said above, I am glad to hear George W. Bush making all of these various statements about DEMOCRACY, and the answer as to why that is, is easy to discern - BECAUSE IT MAKES OUR OWN CAUSE FOR TRUE DEMOCRACY HERE IN OUR AMERICA that much stronger, when you think about it, since we do not have true democracy here in OUR America right now, which is one of the issues that is under discussion in here, these days.

And whether or not George W. Bush is really sincere is immaterial, since it is the import of the words actually spoken by Mr. Bush as American president that are important, and not his sincerity in saying the words, at least in my opinion, since if George W. Bush is speaking out for democracy in the world, the more he says will make it that much harder for his own party here in OUR America to deny us democracy, and to me, that is a victory for us!

SO!

Please keep speaking out, Mr. Bush!

Your encouragement to us, here in OUR America, to keep actively seeking OUR own liberties and democracy is very much necessary, to keep people motivated in that direction, and appreciated, since it lets us old folks in here know that we are on the right path, for sure!