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

[jeffmoskin]

Methinks Livyjr is "off line."

[Livyjr]

Methinks Livyjr is "off line."

And yes, I was, but now, I am back!

[jeffmoskin]

And yes, I was, but now, I am back!

Good.

Your absense was definitely noted.

[Livyjr]

Good.

Your absense was definitely noted.

Sometimes, jeffmoskin, life just intrudes!

And that sort of brings me back to where I was always heading, I guess, which is a running dialogue on life, here in OUR America, at least as I see it through my own eyes, here in that part of America where I presently am located.

I have been out there in the forum lately, wandering around, following Mr. A.B., mainly, and so, I have been posting thoughts and commentary on other threads, on specific matters that Mr. A.B. has brought up, chiefly, a comparison in one thread between George W. Bush and FDR, and in the other, commentary on whether George W. Bush might or might not be influenced by some god or other to wage aggressive war in the world, as he is doing these days, to OUR detriment, or mine, anyway, as I benefit in no way whatsoever from these various wars of his, and on the other hand, I suffer grieviously, because of them, because of the killing and the destruction caused by them, which brings me right back to the killing fields of Viet Nam, where I just do not want to be, but am, in technicolor spades!

Now, I suppose that is not P.C., nor is it probably "manly" for me to admit this, but so what?

At least to me, anyway!

NOW ....

If I "feel" this way, sick to my soul because of all the killing George W. Bush has unleashed in the world, for profit, I might add; SHOULD I DENY IT, for the sake of the appearance of "NATIONAL UNITY" in the face of this "FOREIGN TAY-RIST THREAT" that George W. Bush and that ilk who hangs with him tell us is coming over here to kill us all and steal OUR way of life from us, as if that could even be done?

If George W. Bush says to me, "Livyjr, if you don't cleave to my standard, you are the enemy", what exactly should I do?

Should I quake and cower, and say, "oh, Mr. Bush, I am so sorry; I didn't mean to doubt you; and yes, do not punish me, for I am your liege man"?

AM I ENTITLED TO MY BELIEFS IN AN ALLEGED TIME OF WAR, or must my thoughts be subsumed into some "whole" that George W. Bush is the exclusive arbiter, possessor and controller of, as if America were Jonestown, only on a larger scale, and George W. Bush were the "MAIN MAN" in charge with the Kool-Aid?

These are some of the thoughts that I am having right now, today, in here, because right now, today, these are the thoughts that I am having, OUT HERE, in reality land, as opposed to this virtual world, the blog-o-sphere, that we all inhabit, in here.

What exactly are "OUR LIVES", anyway, and who exactly determines that, here in OUR America?

Are we really individuals created equally, endowed by OUR Creator with certain unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence hints at, anyway, or are we just cattle, or chattle; property to be disposed of by OUR "Masters", as they see fit?

And is it just an idle question, or is it one that is pertinent to OUR times, right now, today, as those "times" exist for all of us, here in OUR America?

For an answer, of course, you will have to not only stay tuned, but likely, you will have to think on it a little bit, and so .....

Stay tuned!

Updates as they happen!

Live!

Late-breaking!

Life!

Here, in OUR America!

[Livyjr]

And for anyone just stopping by here, and wondering, as many people do, what this thread is really all about, it is actually a "MONTAGE", I guess you would call it, of life in OUR America, where a "montage" is defined as "a composite picture made by combining several separate pictures"; or a "literary composite of juxtaposed more or less heterogeneous elements"; or even "the production of a rapid succession of images in a motion picture to illustrate an association of ideas", which is an interesting comparison, as in many ways, this forum does remind me much more of a "motion picture" unfolding, than it does of a book being read!

When you think on it, the use of this "medium" as a tool of communication entails learning a whole new set of thought processess, at least for me, an older American!

I actually "see" in thought pictures in here, and I am able to do that because this medium, and its search engine feature allow me to "go back in time" as it were, and bring forward "pictures" from days, weeks and months, or even years ago, to "juxtapose" them and thereby make this "montage", which is what real life does look like here in OUR America, despite what we ourselves as individuals might have it be, or despite what we would like it to be, or even want it to be, if we all had our own "druthers" about it, which we may or may not have, at any given time in our continuing evolution in here, as users of this forum, or as posters.

One thing that I personally am glad to see in here is a "maturing" in the types of dialogue that are going on in threads other than this one!

People are coming together more, it seems, to explore issues in a different spirit than was apparent right after the November 2004 presidential elections, and I don't know about anyone else, but for me, that is something I am glad to see.

Endless arguing back and forth is just tedious, in the end, unless you like to argue, and who really does?

Not me, anyway!

I don't really have that much time to waste on such an unproductive activity, to be truthful, and that is the beauty of this thread, to me, at least!

Everybody to whom this thread does not appeal are in no way, shape, or manner bound to stay here, and listen to me rambling on, nor are they bound to come back!

And how very democratic that is!

In fact, it is the purest form of democracy, or "natural liberty in motion", that I can think of, and to me, an older American, this is all just an amazing thing!

A "TOOL" of democracy unsurpassed by anything I have experienced in my lifetime before this!

If only we can learn to use it intelligently!

The task for tomarrow, and all the days of our lives, after that!

Democracy, true democracy, 24/7!

SO!

How about that?

[Livyjr]

February 17, 2005

OP-ED COLUMNIST

"Bush's Barberini Faun" By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

I am very impressed with James Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?

It's hard to believe the White House could hit rock bottom on credibility again, but it has, in a bizarre maelstrom that plays like a dark comedy.

How does it credential a man with a double life and a secret past?

"Jeff Gannon" was waved into the press room nearly every day for two years as the conservative correspondent for two political Web sites operated by a wealthy Texas Republican.

Scott McClellan often called on the pseudoreporter for softball questions.

Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post yesterday that although Mr. Guckert had denied launching the provocative Web sites - one described him as " 'military, muscular, masculine and discrete' (sic)" - a Web designer in California said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request."

And The Wilmington News-Journal in Delaware reported that Mr. Guckert was delinquent in $20,700 in personal income tax from 1991 to 1994.

I'm still mystified by this story.

I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

At first when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back.

Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.

In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend?

He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.

Mr. McClellan shrugged this off to Editor & Publisher magazine, oddly noting, "People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors."

I know the F.B.I. computers don't work, but this is ridiculous.

After getting gobsmacked by the louche sagas of Mr. Guckert and Bernard Kerik, the White House vetters should consider adding someone with some blogging experience.

Does the Bush team love everything military so much that even a military-stud Web site is a recommendation?

Or maybe Gannon/Guckert's willingness to shill free for the White House, even on gay issues, was endearing.

One of his stories mocked John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" with the headline "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."

With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes.

If you're their critic, nothing goes.

They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers.

At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.

They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News.

They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs.

Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them.

As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense."

The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy.

It's worse than hating the press.

It's an attempt to reinvent it.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com

Everybody to whom this thread does not appeal are in no way, shape, or manner bound to stay here, and listen to me rambling on, nor are they bound to come back!

And how very democratic that is!

In fact, it is the purest form of democracy, or "natural liberty in motion", that I can think of, and to me, an older American, this is all just an amazing thing!

A "TOOL" of democracy unsurpassed by anything I have experienced in my lifetime before this!

If only we can learn to use it intelligently!

The task for tomarrow, and all the days of our lives, after that!

Democracy, true democracy, 24/7!

SO!

How about that?

And speaking of "democracy", and just what it might be, or what it might actually look like, we have this following to consider:

Politics - washingtonpost.com

"In Russian Media, Free Speech for a Select Few"

Fri Feb 25, 8:27 AM ET

By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer

If President Bush thought he would receive support from Russian reporters when he raised the cause of free speech, he did not know much about the Kremlin press pool.

"What is this lack of freedom all about?" one Russian reporter challenged Bush during his joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday.

"Our regional and national media often criticize government institutions."

Bush seemed surprised.

"Obviously, if you're a member of the Russian press, you feel like the press is free," he replied.

"You feel that way?"

"That's good."

Bush added, "That is a pretty interesting observation for those of us who don't live in Russia to listen to."

The exchange illustrated more about the state of freedom in Russia than met the eye.

While Putin travels around with a contingent of reporters just as Bush does, the Kremlin press pool is a handpicked group of reporters, most of whom work for the state and the rest selected for their fidelity to the Kremlin's rules of the game.

Helpful questions are often planted.

Unwelcome questions are not allowed.

And anyone who gets out of line can get out of the pool.

The Kremlin press pool is like so many institutions in Russia that have the trappings of a Western-style pluralistic society but operate under a different set of understandings, part of what analyst Lilia Shevtsova of the Carnegie Moscow Center calls "the illusion of democracy."

Television channels air newscasts with fancy graphics but follow scripts approved by the Kremlin.

Elections are held, but candidates out of favor with the Kremlin are often knocked off the ballot.

Courts conduct trials, but the state almost never loses.

Parliament meets but only to rubber-stamp Kremlin legislation.

Putin offered an example of that at the news conference when defending his decision last fall to abolish elections of regional governors.

"The leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president," he said.

They will be approved by "regional parliaments, which are directly chosen by secret ballot."

Putin compared this to the Electoral College, which selects U.S. presidents.

"It is not considered undemocratic, is it?"

In fact, under the new system, Putin will appoint governors.

His selections have to be ratified by regional legislatures, but if such a legislature rejects his choice twice, it will be dissolved.

As for secret ballots, Russian regional leaders have proved adept at generating the outcomes they wish.

Although some print media in Russia remain lively and critical of the government, coming to Putin's defense at yesterday's news conference in Slovakia were two reporters who belong to the Kremlin press pool.

The first was Andrei Kolesnikov, a correspondent for Kommersant, a business newspaper owned by Putin critic Boris Berezovsky.

But Kolesnikov just released two books about his time covering Putin that the Kremlin likes.

Kolesnikov challenged Bush, asserting that "it's impossible to call Russia or the U.S. fully democratic" and questioned Bush about the "enormous powers of the security services" in the United States that had resulted in "the private lives of citizens falling under the control of the government."

The second reporter, who questioned Bush's assertion that Russian media are not free, works for Interfax, a news service that often closely hews the state line.

He asked Bush "about violations of the rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired."

While he did not specify what he meant, Russian media several years ago highlighted the cases of a couple U.S. journalists at obscure news organs who lost jobs after criticizing Bush's post-Sept. 11 legislation.

Bush noted that whenever reporters are fired in the United States, it is not by the government.

In Russia, on the other hand, Putin's Kremlin used a state-controlled company to take over the only independent television network, NTV.

When the ousted NTV journalists took over a different channel, TV-6, the state shut it down.

When they tried again with a network called TVS, Putin's press minister yanked it off the air and replaced it with a sports channel.

The general manager installed at NTV after the Kremlin takeover was later fired when his coverage of the Moscow theater siege in 2002 angered Putin.

Then NTV's most independent remaining hosts, Leonid Parfyonov and Savik Shuster, were taken off the air after the government bristled at their talk shows.

Shuster's show was called "Freedom of Speech."

Kolesnikov's predecessor at Kommersant, Yelena Tregubova, was kicked out of the Kremlin press pool because, she said, she would not follow official instructions.

She later wrote a tell-all book that peeved the Kremlin.

When Parfyonov interviewed her for NTV, the segment was yanked after it had already aired in eastern time zones.

When a small bomb exploded outside her apartment door last year, Tregubova fled the country.

If Bush does not trust the Russian press to get the story of yesterday's news conference right, he can at least go to the Kremlin's own Web site.

On it was posted a transcript of the joint news conference.

Only all of Bush's statements and answers were deleted.

end quotes

And at the risk of not being P.C., when you look at the "juxtaposition" here, I don't see that many differences between there and here, to be truthful.

In fact, it is the similarities which trouble me so, and that is in large part what this thread and its "montage" are all about!

Life, here in OUR America, today, as opposed to yesterday, or the day before that, and just where it might be going, despite OUR intentions to have it be and remain a democracy!

[Livyjr]

Well, I am enjoying myself in here these days, that is for sure, and what a delight it is to be in here.

And at this point, I want to take a moment to congratulate Mr. A.B., who just may be the oldest member in here, for the threads that he has started up, especially the one in "Religion and Politics", which has some interesting discussion going on over there, these days, that is certainly relevant to these, the times that we are in, here in OUR America.

As for me, I do not believe that there is a scalpel sharp enough to separate religion FROM politics, and so, I tend to be an observer, rather than one who tries to take a direct role in that area, as both religion and politics are so personal an endeavor to each of us, that I am not going to be critical of where someone else is on the path at any given time in their own spiritual quest, even if that quest is to deny the existence spirituality totally and completely; and that is the way it should be in a secular democratic Republic, such as is OURS!

And here, as is my "wont" to do, I would like to bring in some defintions of what "politics" is really all about, here in OUR America, AS ALL POLITICS IN THE WORLD ARE NOT EQUAL, and it is foolish, and shortsighted to believe that they are.

OUR politics, here in OUR America, has evolved from a certain tradition, or system, and so, OUR politics are unique to us, AS A NATION!

And OUR politics HAS EVOLVED, and is still evolving, because politics is part of who people are, and is a function of how their lives are going, and since life is dynamic, politics must be too, wishes of the "conservatives", notwithstanding.

POLITIC: skillful, ingenious, shrewd; crafty, sly, cunning; wise, prudent or expedient, as in conception or execution; judicious.

POLITICAL: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the science, organization, or activities of government; pertaining to or having an organized system of government.

POLITICAL SCIENCE: the science of the form and principles of civil government, and the extent and manner of its intervention in public and private affairs; politics.

POLITICIAN: one who is engaged in politics, especially professionally; one who engages in politics for personal or partisan aims rather than for reasons of principle; a political opportunist; one who is skilled in the science of government or politics; a statesman.

POLITICS: the science or art of government or of the administration and management of public or state affairs; the affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments; also the life, profession or area of activity of such persons; the principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties, or groups within a government; the acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority or advantage; political sentiments or opinions.

POLITICAL LIBERTY: Liberty of the citizen to participate in the operations of government, and particularly in the making and administration of the laws.

[Livyjr]

POLITICIAN:  one who is engaged in politics, especially professionally; one who engages in politics for personal or partisan aims rather than for reasons of principle; a political opportunist; one who is skilled in the science of government or politics; a statesman.

POLITICS:  the science or art of government or of the administration and management of public or state affairs; the affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments; also the life, profession or area of activity of such persons; the principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties, or groups within a government; the acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority or advantage; political sentiments or opinions.

POLITICAL LIBERTY:  Liberty of the citizen to participate in the operations of government, and particularly in the making and administration of the laws.

SO!

A POLITICIAN, BY OUR American tradition, can be one who engages in politics for personal or partisan aims rather than for reasons of principle, or a "political opportunist", while POLITICS, in OUR tradition, includes the affairs or activities of those who are engaged in controlling or seeking to control a government or its offices or departments, and also the lives of such persons, as well as the principles, aims or policies of a government or of the parties, or groups within a government; and the acts or practices of those who seek any position of power, authority or advantage in OUR government, and POLITICAL LIBERTY, in OUR tradition, is the LIBERTY OF THE CITIZEN to participate in the operations of government, and particularly in the making and administration of the laws!

There, in a nutshell, folks, is what this particular thread is all about, and probably, if truth be told, a good part of this forum is as well, if not all of it, in varying aspects, because as can be seen from the above definitions, "AMERICAN POLITICS" is a multi-hued and many-splendored thing, indeed!

And why do I bother to say AMERICAN POLITICS, instead of just politics?

Well, that answer is simple!

Because we are in America, and so, this is the only place where we can really act to affect change in the world!

OUR politics is ours!

It is unique to us, as a "body politic", and we should not lose sight of that, although this thread exists because I for one think we have, elsewise, we would not now be out there in the world trying to jam OUR politics down the throats of other peoples on the earth, with their own political traditions, at the point of a bayonet, or cruise missle, or weapon of mass destruction!

If we cannot all get together in this country and agree on something, such as what common sense might be, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE HOPE TO INFLUENCE ANYBODY ELSE OUT THERE IN THE WORLD TO CLEAVE TO OUR STANDARD?

How?

Other than by buying them off, I suppose, temporarily, which in the end, in and of itself, is a form of "politics", including, but not limited to American politics, as jeffmoskin has made clear in here in other posts back in Volume I of this thread.

Think about it for a while, folks, because in the end, without logic and the light of reason, long-term "good relations" with other peoples of this earth of ours just cannot be accomplished, or I don't think so, anyway!

If your thoughts are scattered, why would I want to follow you?

If my thoughts are scattered, why would you want to listen to me?

It just would not make any sense at all, for either of us, in the end, to go running off "half-cocked", as it were, and yet, in my estimation, that is exactly what America is now doing these days, TO ALL OF OUR DETRIMENT, in the end, except perhaps, for those in the world who make their money off of turmoil, and from my own study of history, in the end, those kinds of people are often the first to fall, which is a lesson from history that I tend to heed, 24/7!

BEWARE HUBRIS; the gods are watching!

Hence this thread!

[Livyjr]

One who would guide a leader of men in the uses of life

Will warn him (or her) against the use of arms for conquest!

Weapons often turn upon the wielder!

An army's harvest is a waste of thorns!

Conscription of a multitude of men

Drains the next year dry!

A good general, daring to march, also dares to halt!

Will never press his triumph beyond need!

What he must do, he does; but not for glory!

What he must do, he does; but not for show!

What he must do, he does, but not for self!

He has done it, because it had to be done,

And not from a hot head!

Let life ripen, and then fall,

Force is not the way at all!

Deny the way of life, and you are dead!

- Lao Tze

[Livyjr]

And while I am looking for information on Mr. Patrick Henry and what was known as the "Parson's Cause", in the run-up to OUR American Revolution, I just came across this item below, and thought it should be included in here, for the record that is developing in here, for the "balance" to that record this following article provides:

Top Stories - Reuters

"Al Qaeda Mocks Reports of Zarqawi Aides' Arrests"

1 hour, 31 minutes ago

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq dismissed Sunday reports that top aides of its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been arrested, saying U.S.-led forces were trying to boost low morale, according to an Internet statement.

"And who knows which aide was arrested and what lies they made up."

"This is a hopeless attempt on their part to raise morale," said the statement by Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, posted on Islamist Web sites.

"We give our brothers the good news that our leaders are absolutely fine, thank God, and leading the ranks of the faithful in battle," it said.

Iraq's government said Friday it had captured Abu Qutaybah, a key lieutenant of Zarqawi -- the Jordanian militant who is al Qaeda's leader in Iraq and has been behind some of the country's worst attacks.

Baghdad says it has captured a number of Zarqawi's aides and associates in recent weeks, with several arrested in the run-up to the Jan. 30 election.

It is impossible to verify what role the detainees played in Zarqawi's network.

Zarqawi is the U.S. military's most wanted man in Iraq, with a $25 million bounty offered for information leading to his death or capture.

[Livyjr]

And while I am looking for information on Mr. Patrick Henry and what was known as the "Parson's Cause", in the run-up to OUR American Revolution, I just came across this item below, and thought it should be included in here, for the record that is developing in here, for the "balance" to that record this following article provides:

Top Stories - Reuters

"Al Qaeda Mocks Reports of Zarqawi Aides' Arrests"

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq dismissed Sunday reports that top aides of its leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been arrested, saying U.S.-led forces were trying to boost low morale, according to an Internet statement.

"And who knows which aide was arrested and what lies they made up."

"This is a hopeless attempt on their part to raise morale," said the statement by Al Qaeda Organization for Holy War in Iraq, posted on Islamist Web sites.

"We give our brothers the good news that our leaders are absolutely fine, thank God, and leading the ranks of the faithful in battle," it said.

Iraq's government said Friday it had captured Abu Qutaybah, a key lieutenant of Zarqawi -- the Jordanian militant who is al Qaeda's leader in Iraq and has been behind some of the country's worst attacks.

Baghdad says it has captured a number of Zarqawi's aides and associates in recent weeks, with several arrested in the run-up to the Jan. 30 election.

It is impossible to verify what role the detainees played in Zarqawi's network.

Zarqawi is the U.S. military's most wanted man in Iraq, with a $25 million bounty offered for information leading to his death or capture.

Psy-ops!

That is what this is called, psy ops!

There is an excellent book floating around out there by a former American "Green Beret" named Donald Duncan entitled "The New Legions".

In that book, which dates from 1967, a year in which the Viet Nam conflict was really starting to heat up, Mr. Duncan talks about insurgencies, and the importance of winning the psy ops side of a counter-insurgency action against the insurgents themselves, lest their power grow, and yours diminish as a result.

Mr. Duncan was a highly trained American soldier who was actually in Viet Nam, and his writing on this subject is very clear and understandable, to a layperson, which is who the book is directed at!

At that time, of course, the "tools of communications" available to an insurgent group, such as the Viet Cong were alleged to be by OUR American government, were very limited, as compared to today, where an insurgency on a very limited budget can have instantaneous access to communications on a mass scale; communications assets including world-wide TV coverage equal to what an alleged superpower like the United States of America under George W. Bush has available to it, for its own propaganda campaign, such as al Quaida is seen to be waging here, over the internet!

Because he was actually in Viet Nam, and saw through the folly of what "Big Bob" McNamara was trying to do over there, and then spoke out about that folly, Donald Duncan was more or less written off by the "military establishment" for "speaking out of school" about the folly of what America was doing in Viet Nam at the time of that book, which was only serving to make the Viet Cong a stronger enemy of America among the very people we were trying to convince that we could beat the Viet Cong!

You would think these alleged "smart" types such as this Wolfowitz down there in the Pentagon could see their own folly in Iraq, as evidenced by this above news item, but you know what?

They can't!

Their arrogance blocks their view!

Their perfection hinders their perception!

Their greatness blinds their eyes!

And where will that take us as a nation to have "leaders" such as these, who are so arrogant and blind?

That is what we are waiting with bated breath in here to find out, so, stay tuned!

Developments as they happen!

Live, here, in OUR America!

[Livyjr]

Over in "Religion and Politics", Abu Beacon, or Mr. A.B., as he is known in here, has a thread going on the "religious" aspects of the George W. Bush presidency, and in a recent post of mine over there, on that subject, I called this the "secular" side of that thread, which in many ways, this thread is, where we look at history and legal precedent, as opposed to religiosity, as is the case in Mr. A.B.'s thread, which does look at the religiosity side of this very same equation!

NOW ......

I have said above that OUR America has its own "political" traditions, and when you actually study American politics, you find, at least as I propose, that OUR American politics is inextricably linked to the question of RELIGION in OUR colonial politics, and that is why, once we had the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of England, separation of church and state became a basis of OUR political tradition, BECAUSE of the role of religion in OUR colonial government and the problems that it caused, BEFORE the Revolution!

And the best example of that that I can find, right now, is the "PARSON'S CAUSE", which I would say is related directly to the issues before us Americans today in connection with the administration of George W. Bush, and its insistence on bringing religion back in to OUR American politics, to the detriment of those of us in OUR America who are not members of these churches that George W. Bush favors as his own!

Discrimination, and big time; by the President of OUR America, against us in America who are not members of his personal religion!

"THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE “PARSON’S CAUSE”

http://www.dinsdoc.com/scott-1.htm

OF the various important trials and lawsuits during the colonial period, few have attracted more attention from the general historian than the cases growing out of the Virginia Two-Penny Act of 1758.

Particularly since the appearance of the Life of Patrick Henry, by Wirt, Henry’s speech in the “Parson’s Cause” has been commonly regarded as a prophecy of the Revolution, “the first intimation of the approaching conflict.”

It is thus linked with James Otis’s argument in the Writs of Assistance case, when, as John Adams would have it, American independence was born.

A somewhat uncritical acceptance of the enthusiastic estimates of Wirt and Adams later resulted in an exaggerated idea of the importance attached to these speeches at the time.

Wirt himself shows clearly that when Henry went to Williamsburg the next year “no one knew anything of him.”

A wider study of contemporary material has resulted in a better appreciation of the real legal, constitutional and social issues involved in the whole Two-Penny-Act controversy, a controversy in which Henry’s speech in Parson Maury’s case was but a single incident, and not the most important one.

Eckenrode, for instance, has brought out the connection of this agitation with the whole movement against the established church, culminating in the Revolutionary separation of church and state.

L. G. Tyler, in an excellent article in which he comments particularly on the determination of the Virginia Assembly to exercise complete control over local taxation, has shown that the underlying question was “the Virginia Constitution under the British Sovereign.”

Some important aspects of the case, however, have been generally ignored.

Even when the technical points of law involved have been correctly stated, they have not been sufficiently emphasized.

The far-reaching constitutional questions involved have thus been obscured, or at best have been stated without further elaboration.

The outstanding facts in the controversy are too familiar to call for more than a brief restatement.

By an Act of Assembly of 1748, confirmed by the King in 1751, the salary of the Virginia clergy was fixed at 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year.

By an Act of 1753, however, two counties were ordered to pay £100 in Virginia currency instead.

In June 1755 the assembly permitted two counties to pay tobacco levies in money, at a rate to be fixed by the justices of the peace.

Later in the same year a threatened shortage in the tobacco crop led to the enactment of a law, to expire at the end of ten months, allowing the payment in money of all tobacco debts at the rate of two pence a pound.

Some of the clergy protested vigorously at the time, even appealing to the Bishop of London, but, as it turned out, two pence was not far from the market value, and the matter was not pressed.

In 1758, however, another threatened crop-failure led to a popular demand for relief.

The assembly responded on October 12th by providing that all debts, public and private, contracted on a tobacco basis, might if the debtor so desired be paid in currency at the rate of two pence a pound.

The act was limited in operation to a year.

Since the market price of tobacco rose to about six pence, debts were naturally paid for the most part in currency.

The merits or demerits of this act as a piece of legislation are not relevant to the present discussion.

It has been extensively denounced; but a very plausible argument can be made out for its justice and expediency as an emergency measure.

The important point is that the clergy, rightly or wrongly, felt particularly defrauded; for, while the act was general in terms, they were the greatest proportional losers.

As a body they sent Rev. John Camm to lay their grievances before the King in Council.

The Bishop of London supported their cause, and on the recommendation of the Lords of Trade, the King on August 10, 1759, disallowed not only the act of 1758 but those of 1753 and 1755 also.

The disallowance was not, however, officially published in Virginia until June 27, 1760, eight months after the law of 1758 had expired by limitation.

Meanwhile many of the clergy had refused the tender of currency as the equivalent of their full salaries, and several ministers now proceeded to sue the tax collectors of their parishes to recover the full market value of the tobacco due under the act of 1748.

The collectors set up the law of 1758 as their sufficient justification for having refused to pay in tobacco, and the issue was squarely joined.

The crucial question was perfectly clear: In May of 1759, when salaries for 1757-8 were due, was the enactment of October 12, 1758 a valid law of Virginia, as the legislature had obviously intended it should be?

The litigation dragged on for six or seven years, accompanied by an acrimonious war of pamphlets and public letters in which the issue was threshed-out from every angle.

The clergy were uniformly unsuccessful in the courts, and naturally they felt aggrieved.

Following the lead of Wirt, later writers have almost unanimously agreed that the clergy had the law all on their side, and that they were defeated only by an appeal to prejudice.

The refusal of judges and juries to decide in their favor has been interpreted as a bold act of defiance on the part of the colonists, foreshadowing Revolution.

This view assumes as a matter of course that the disallowance of a law might be, and in this case was, retroactive, thus invalidating all action taken in accordance with that law’s provisions.

Such an assumption is entirely unwarranted.

Ever since the Crown began the practice of reviewing colonial legislation, in the later 17th century, it had been absolutely clear that disallowance took effect only from the moment when it was announced officially in the colony.

All action taken under a law before the proclamation of disallowance was valid.

In other words, a disallowance was the exact equivalent of a repeal, and the two words were used interchangeably.

Since the machinery of disallowance was slow moving, an objectionable law might have several years of life before it could be annulled.

To prevent this, royal governors were instructed to refuse assent to certain general types of laws unless a clause was inserted suspending their operation until they could be reviewed in England.

Inasmuch as the law of 1758 had expired before Virginia was notified of its disallowance, unbroken precedent seemed to demand that the Virginia judges should regard it as having been in full force and effect in the spring of 1759.

Prima facie, the clergy had no case whatever.

Nothing daunted, they boldly attempted to differentiate this case from an ordinary disallowance, arguing that the act of 1758, although it had the form of a law, had never been binding at all.

The original validity of the Two-Penny Act was questioned on two general grounds.

It was pointed out in the first place that the king’s instructions to the governor specifically restrained him from assenting to any amendment to existing legislation unless the amending act contained a suspending clause.

Since the act of 1758 contained no such clause, it was urged that the governor’s commission and instructions did not sufficiently authorize and impower the Governor, with the Consent of the Council and General Assembly to make the said Act . . . but the said Act, as it tended to suspend the Force and Effect of the Act of Assembly . . . [of 1748] . . . which had received his Majesty’s Approbation, was contrary to his Majesty’s Instructions to his Governor, and was therefore null and void from the making thereof, and so declared by the late King by his Order in-Council.

In the second place, the act was said to be “void in itself, being contrary to the principles of justice.”

The issue thus brought before the courts was entirely new.

Numerous instances had occurred in which royal governors in Virginia and other colonies had assented to laws in direct violation of their instructions.

Occasionally such laws had been confirmed by the king, but usually they had been disallowed, particularly when they amended existing laws which had received formal ratification.

The king had signified his “high displeasure” to the governors, and had threatened recall in case instructions were not better obeyed.

But never before had the question been raised of the validity of such laws up to the time of their disallowance.

When laws, as was sometimes the case, were disallowed after they had expired by limitation, it was simply by way of expressing emphatic disapproval, with a view to preventing similar action in the future.

There seems to have been no expectation that action already taken under these laws would be invalidated by their disallowance.

On the contrary, the fact that such laws were in full force, no matter how clearly the governors had violated instructions in signing them, was regarded as a grave danger.

No remedy however seems to have suggested itself except to reiterate threats and orders to the governors, and occasionally through them to the assemblies.

The contention by the clergy that the king’s Order in Council had specifically declared the law of 1758 null and void from the first is disingenuous.

It assumes the whole point at issue, and the acceptance of the clergy’s statement at its face value has been responsible for much later confusion.

Camm, indeed, had definitely urged the Privy Council to declare the act “absolutely null and void in [its] creation,” having “no force or Authority at the time of making or otherwise.”

Nothing, he pointed out, would better please the assembly than a disallowance in the usual form, for this would permit them to pass yearly acts, which would expire before their disallowance could be proclaimed, being valid in the meantime.

The Privy Council, as well as the Board of Trade, appreciated this, and “their Lordships would have declared the Act void ab initio, if they could have found a Precedent for it.”

Lacking a precedent, disallowance had to be signified in substantially the usual formula, and the governor proclaimed it in Virginia exactly like any other disallowance.

The clergy protested vigorously against his use of the word “repeal,” which they said had been “studiously” avoided by the Council.

It is true that the Order in Council of August 10th read “the said Acts are hereby disallowed, declared void, and of none effect.”

Comparison with other orders of disallowance, however, shows that while the word repeal was generally used, it was sometimes omitted, without any indication that the omission meant anything.

The fact therefore that its omission in this instance may have been intentional would not serve to distinguish it from an ordinary disallowance.

Of somewhat more significance is Camm’s assertion, on the strength of conversations between his lawyer and individual members of the Council, that, it was the opinion of the most Honourable the Privy Council that the Act was orginally null in itself by reason of its manifest injustice, setting aside all disputes about authority, that it could not be deemed a law by any court of judicature whatever, and that if it had been then before them in a proper course of law they should have adjudged it to be no law.

It is obvious, however, that this informal and third-hand announcement of the private views of certain members of the Privy Council could not be accepted as legally binding on the Virginia courts.

Essentially, then, the clergy were demanding that the local judges should assume the responsibility for refusing to take cognizance of a seemingly valid act of the legislature.

The law was to be regarded as void from its inception primarily because it was beyond the competence of the assembly to pass it, and of the governor to sign it.

The argument that it was void because contrary to natural justice was secondary.

In defense of the law it was urged that “by the well known and long established Constitution of the Colony of Virginia, and more especially by virtue of the . . . Commission of the Governor,” the governor and assembly together were fully authorized to pass any law not repugnant to the laws of England.

The clergy’s appeal to the courts was based upon a denial of this contention.

In modern phraseology, then, the courts were asked to declare the act of 1758 unconstitutional, as violating a higher law.

In the face of such an unprecedented issue, courts and juries hesitated and disagreed.

In no instance did a clergyman recover the balance of salary for which he was suing; but the five recorded suits, with their various appeals, show striking differences.

The first case to come to actual trial was that of the Reverend Alexander White, before the King William County Court, in August, 1762.

At the request of the Parish Collectors, Governor Fauquier sent the original copy of the disallowance order of August, 1759, together with former disallowances for purposes of comparison.

It was a matter of common knowledge that the Governor regarded the order respecting the Two Penny Act as an ordinary disallowance.

“The court took the hint,” and instructed the jury that in their opinion the Act of 1758 had been valid, since word of its repeal had come only after it had expired.

The court left the final decision of this question of law to the jury.

Counsel for White urged the distinction between the repeal of a law under which no action had in fact been taken, and the disallowance of an act which had already had its full effect.

The omission of the word “repeal” in the Council’s order was emphasized; and the inherent injustice of the measure was pointed out, but all to no effect.

The jury found for the Parish Collectors, and White could only appeal to the General Court.

The Reverend Thomas Warrington had brought suit even before White, but the case came up before the York County Court somewhat later.

This time, the jury awarded substantial damages against the Collectors.

The justices, however, held that the law of 1758 had been valid, and refused to allow the judgment to be entered up.

Warrington also appealed to the General Court.

A third suit was that started April 1, 1762, by the Reverend James Maury, in the Hanover County Court.

Counsel for the Collectors set up the act of 1758 in bar.

The plaintiff demurred, insisting that this law had never been binding, and on November 5, 1763, the court sustained the demurrer.

This was the first and only time that the Two-Penny Act was judicially declared invalid, because outside the competence of the legislature.

It was before a special jury at the December court, called to fix the amount of the damages, that Patrick Henry made his incendiary speech, and secured a verdict of one penny against his clients.

It is quite true, as is frequently pointed out, that technically Henry had no business to argue the law in the case.

The court had ruled on the law, and the only question before the jury was the amount due Mr. Maury.

The further conclusion that Henry had no law on his side is an entirely different matter.

While his attack on the established clergy was entirely gratuitous and irrelevant, his argument that “the act of 1758 had every characteristic of a good law” was perfectly sound.

As to his contention that “a King by disallowing Acts of this salutary nature, from being the father of his people degenerated into a Tyrant, and forfeits all right to his subjects’ obedience,” it seems probable that the reference was not to ordinary disallowances at all.

The real issue was the alleged right of the king to declare a law void from its inception, a right hitherto never heard of in Virginia.

However inflammatory Henry’s language may have been, the position which he was defending was essentially the conservative one.

Again the disappointed parson could only appeal.

In 1764, the Reverend Patrick Henry, the orator’s uncle, started suit in Hanover County.

This continued until the General Court had passed on the fundamental issues involved, and was then dismissed.

In all the litigation, however, the crucial case was the one instituted in behalf of the Reverend John Camm.

Since his parish was in Williamsburg, suit was brought originally in the General Court, October 10, 1759.

The court, it would seem deliberately delayed a decision, and the proceedings dragged along until April 10, 1764, when by a vote of five to four the Act of 1758 was upheld, and judgment was given against Camm.

Two members of the court refused to vote, on the ground that they were Camm’s parishioners.

The Governor, who needed to vote only in case of a tie, publicly expressed his approval of the decision.

Camm appealed to the Privy Council.

In this of course he was fighting the cause of all the ministers.

The assembly, in turn, realizing the extent to which their legislative independence would be curtailed by an adverse decision, undertook the expense of defending the Collectors.

The case was referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, and there argued at length.

In accordance with the Committee report, the Council dismissed Camm’s appeal.

The decision was not at all on the merits of the case, but on the technical ground that the original suit should have been brought as an action of debt instead of trespass upon the case.

It was generally understood that this was a mere pretext for evading the issue.

Presumably it was regarded as highly inexpedient to risk offending colonial opinion, already dangerously excited over the Stamp Act controversy.

The General Court of Virginia calmly accepted this technical victory as a complete vindication of their position, and dismissed the pending appeals of White, Warrington and Maury.

Naturally enough, the clergy were bitterly disappointed, and talked for several years of renewing the contest in the courts, but nothing definite was done, and the whole matter was lost sight of in the excitement of new issues.

In every one of the court decisions against them, the clergy naturally felt that public opinion, prejudice against the established church, official pressure, personal animosities, and selfish interests were arrayed against them.

Furthermore, in yielding to political considerations, and refusing a decision on the merits of the case, it was felt that the Privy Council had been guilty of a breach of faith.[/b]

The present doctrine of the power of courts to declare a law unconstitutional, rests on three assumptions:

First, that there is a distinction between ordinary and fundamental law.

The power of the legislature is not absolute, but is limited by the fundamental law.

Second, when the legislature transcends the limits set to its powers by the fundamental law, its action is null and void, and no one is bound thereby.

Third, whenever in the ordinary course of administering justice, the courts encounter an apparent conflict between an ordinary act of the legislature and the fundamental law, they not only may but must consider and decide whether the ordinary law can be reconciled with the fundamental law.

If they believe that no reconciliation is possible, it is their right and their duty to disregard the ordinary law entirely, deciding the case before them in all respects as if it had never existed.

In essence these three principles are clearly discernible in the Two-Penny Cases.

As to the first, it was asserted that the legislative power of the Virginia assembly was limited by the king’s instructions and by the laws of natural justice.

Second, it was argued in so many words that the pretended law of 1758 was from the moment of passage null, void and no law at all, because in passing it the legislature violated both royal instructions and natural equity.

Therefore no citizen was bound to obey it, nor could any official plead it in justification of any of his acts.

Third, the courts were asked to recognize and act on both of these principles.

It was insisted that they should take notice of the conflict between the act of 1758 and fundamental law, as expressed in the instructions and natural equity.

And they were urged to decide cases as if the law of 1758 had never existed.

The most significant sentence in Otis’s speech on the Writs of Assistance was the declaration that “An act against the Constitution is void; an act against natural equity is void.”

These were substantially the points raised in the Virginia cases also.

In both instances, the judges ignored the natural justice plea; but the fact that it was advanced is another indication of the current belief that men had natural rights which the legislature might not lawfully violate.

The mere fact, too, that good lawyers seriously urged the courts to disregard an act of assembly is interesting.

It is significant that one jury, one bench of justices, and four of the ablest judges of the general court actually decided that the Act of 1758 had never been law.

Of course the idea that courts might, and should, disregard a law as unconstitutional was not present in men’s minds with anything like the clearness which it assumed a generation later.

But in spite of that, these cases deserve to be considered along with Winthrop v. Lechmere, and the Writs of Assistance Case as helping to illustrate the long and gradual process by which the American doctrine of judicial review took shape.

The Two-Penny Cases further find a place in the history of the long struggle for a greater degree of colonial legislative independence.

For years American assemblies had been asserting rights analogous to those of Parliament.

Just as the king could make laws for England only with the consent of Parliament, so it was felt he could legislate for the colonies only with the consent of the local assemblies.

Any limitation on the freedom of action of the representatives of the people was resented and resisted.

The Virginia assembly was not alone in refusing to recognize the king’s right to bind them directly by instructions to his governors.

The issue came up at various times in other colonies, and the legislative bodies regularly refused to yield the point.

The controversy over the act of 1758 thus deserves a place in the study of the pre-revolutionary period, but not primarily because it illustrated the presence of a seditious and rebellious spirit.

Its real significance lies in the fact that for six critical years it helped to bring the people of Virginia face to face with fundamental questions.

The legislative freedom of their assembly was imperiled.

This made necessary a clear statement and a closely reasoned defense of the American view of the constitutional place of the colonies in the Empire; and in that work Patrick Henry’s speech was far less significant than the widely read pamphlets of Carter and Bland.

On a small scale, the whole episode illustrates the clash of political theories which lay back of the American Revolution.

The arguments by which the colonists defended the law of 1758 were exactly the same as those on which they based their resistance to king, ministry and Parliament.

The principles on which they relied were the ones on which they founded their whole political system.

The entire controversy, like so many other incidents in colonial history, has been too exclusively regarded as a sign of growing irritation on the part of the colonists.

Its importance as an incident in the attempted working-out of a new imperial system has been too largely overlooked.

ARTHUR P. SCOTT.

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

[Livyjr]

Over in "Religion and Politics", Abu Beacon, or Mr. A.B., as he is known in here, has a thread going on the "religious" aspects of the George W. Bush presidency, and in a recent post of mine over there, on that subject, I called this the "secular" side of that thread, which in many ways, this thread is, where we look at history and legal precedent, as opposed to religiosity, as is the case in Mr. A.B.'s thread, which does look at the religiosity side of this very same equation!

NOW ......

I have said above that OUR America has its own "political" traditions, and when you actually study American politics, you find, at least as I propose, that OUR American politics is inextricably linked to the question of RELIGION in OUR colonial politics, and that is why, once we had the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of England, separation of church and state became a basis of OUR political tradition, BECAUSE of the role of religion in OUR colonial government and the problems that it caused, BEFORE the Revolution!

And the best example of that that I can find, right now, is the "PARSON'S CAUSE", which I would say is related directly to the issues before us Americans today in connection with the administration of George W. Bush, and its insistence on bringing religion back in to OUR American politics, to the detriment of those of us in OUR America who are not members of these churches that George W. Bush favors as his own!

Discrimination, and big time; by the President of OUR America, against us in America who are not members of his personal religion!

"THE CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE “PARSON’S CAUSE”

http://www.dinsdoc.com/scott-1.htm

OF the various important trials and lawsuits during the colonial period, few have attracted more attention from the general historian than the cases growing out of the Virginia Two-Penny Act of 1758.

Particularly since the appearance of the Life of Patrick Henry, by Wirt, Henry’s speech in the “Parson’s Cause” has been commonly regarded as a prophecy of the Revolution, “the first intimation of the approaching conflict.”

It is thus linked with James Otis’s argument in the Writs of Assistance case, when, as John Adams would have it, American independence was born.

A wider study of contemporary material has resulted in a better appreciation of the real legal, constitutional and social issues involved in the whole Two-Penny-Act controversy, a controversy in which Henry’s speech in Parson Maury’s case was but a single incident, and not the most important one.

Eckenrode, for instance, has brought out the connection of this agitation with the whole movement against the established church, culminating in the Revolutionary separation of church and state. 

The outstanding facts in the controversy are too familiar to call for more than a brief restatement.

By an Act of Assembly of 1748, confirmed by the King in 1751, the salary of the Virginia clergy was fixed at 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year.

By an Act of 1753, however, two counties were ordered to pay £100 in Virginia currency instead.

In June 1755 the assembly permitted two counties to pay tobacco levies in money, at a rate to be fixed by the justices of the peace.

Later in the same year a threatened shortage in the tobacco crop led to the enactment of a law, to expire at the end of ten months, allowing the payment in money of all tobacco debts at the rate of two pence a pound.

Some of the clergy protested vigorously at the time, even appealing to the Bishop of London, but, as it turned out, two pence was not far from the market value, and the matter was not pressed.

In 1758, however, another threatened crop-failure led to a popular demand for relief.

The assembly responded on October 12th by providing that all debts, public and private, contracted on a tobacco basis, might if the debtor so desired be paid in currency at the rate of two pence a pound.

SO!

1758!

Eckenrode, in a Report of the Virginia State Library, 1909-10 (Separation of Church and State. Special Report of Dept. of Archives and History), brought out the connection of this agitation with the whole movement against the established church, culminating in the Revolutionary separation of church and state.

And what is that now, some 249 years ago, this year, that this controversy involving the clergy in America being paid by direct taxation of the American people was raised, and thus began the transformation of OUR American politics which is at issue today where the president of OUR America, Mr. George W. Bush, once again appears bent on using public funds, or tax monies, to compensate certain churches for the use of their programs by his government, for its own partisan political purposes, in conjunction with those of the clergy of these established churches, in defiance of OUR political traditions and history, and OUR Constitution, which derives from that history and traditions!

At one time in OUR America, of course, before the Declaration of Independence, the colonists here were taxed directly for the maintenance of the established churches, and as can be seen above, the clergy in Virginia were apparently handsomely compensated with 16,000 pounds of tobacco a year to be "paid" to each of them by the people of Virginia, regardless of whether they had any of the fruits of their labor left to themselves afterwards.

Now, think on that for a moment!

16,000 pounds of tobacco a year!

And since this was a commodity, as opposed to specie, someone had to labor to produce this actual amount of tobacco, which means that people, and many of them would be slaves, were working for the church and its maintenance, whether they believed in the tenets of that particular church, or not; which is becoming an issue all over again, here in OUR America, with George W. Bush's unilateral insistence that as president, he has this power to void out laws set forth by OUR Congress, through the specious device of regulations enacted by him, for the purpose of by-passing the laws enacted by OUR Congress, for OUR benefit, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE TENETS, PRECEPTS, AND PROVISIONS OF OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

And whether or not they actually provided any kind of service to the populace, the clergy of these established churchs in essence had a free ride, because they were favorites of a foreign king over there in England!

And that brings us to today, where once again, we have clergy who are the favorites of George W. Bush, who has set himself up as a version of a tyrannical foreign despot over us; those in OUR America who do not cleave to his particular religious standard, which I personally find repugnant to my own belief system here in OUR America, and thus, I would say that by his actions of promoting a state-sponsored religion here in OUR America, that George W. Bush is acting in direct and wilfull violation of my Constitutional liberty, which is not his right to do as president of OUR America!

Over in his thread in "Religion and Politics", of course, Mr. A.B. has made a similar argument, although along different lines, but it still comes down to the issue of LIBERTY, here in OUR America, as I see it anyway, regardless of which viewpoint you come at it from!

Hence this discussion in here; and hence this thread; so as to be able to continue to explore this question of LIBERTY, and whether or not OUR political traditions and history should now be discarded, and disregarded, in what George W. Bush is calling the "Post 9-11" environment, here in OUR America, which he says has changed the entire paradigm under which OUR government is now to operate into the future, until God alone knows when!

[jeffmoskin]

Hence this discussion in here; and hence this thread; so as to be able to continue to explore this question of LIBERTY, and whether or not OUR political traditions and history should now be discarded, and disregarded, in what George W. Bush is calling the "Post 9-11" environment, here in OUR America, which he says has changed the entire paradigm under which OUR government is now to operate into the future, until God alone knows when!

And it is very pervasive. I was at a symphony concert last week, and the conductor was giving a pre-concert talk about the music we were about to hear. He had written one of the works himself, called "Insomnia", in 2002. He went on to say, matter-of-factly, that "After 9/11, everything changed. The world changed."

And I thought to myself,

"No, on 9/11, a truly heinous act was committed by a small group of Saudi dissidents. We were still America on 9/12. We had been hurt, but not destroyed.

"George W Bush is busy destroying America. He is destroying our Bill of Rights; he is destroying our currency; he is destroying our Social Security System; he is destroying our image in the rest of the world; he is on a personal Crusade against all of us who don't believe the way he and his ilk believe."

And this destruction is coming from within not without. And we must resist it.

As Americans, we have no choice.

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: Feb 27 2005, 05:52 PM

[Livyjr]

And it is very pervasive.

I was at a symphony concert last week, and the conductor was giving a pre-concert talk about the music we were about to hear.

He had written one of the works himself, called "Insomnia", in 2002.

He went on to say, matter-of-factly, that "After 9/11, everything changed."

"The world changed."

And I thought to myself,

"No, on 9/11, a truly heinous act was committed by a small group of Saudi dissidents."

"We were still America on 9/12."

"We had been hurt, but not destroyed."

"George W Bush is busy destroying America."

"He is destroying our Bill of Rights; he is destroying our currency; he is destroying our Social Security System; he is destroying our image in the rest of the world; he is on a personal Crusade against all of us who don't believe the way he and his ilk believe."

And this destruction is coming from within; not without.

And we must resist it.

As Americans, we have no choice.

And I guess that is really the issue, is it not, jeffmoskin, whether or not we do have choices, and duties and responsibilities, and exactly what those just might be, for while this "reign" has been predicted, in fact, it is without precedent, here in OUR America, as I see it, unless you go back to the days of George III, and Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine, and tyranny and despotism, BEFORE the Revolution!

SO?

Have we in fact circled right back to before the days of OUR own beginnings as a nation on this earth?

Stay tuned!

[Livyjr]

Even the finest arms are an instrument of evil,

A spread of plague,

And the way for a vital man to go, is not the way of a soldier!

But in time of war, men civilized in peace

Turn from their higher to their lower nature!

Arms are an instrument of evil,

No measure for thoughtful men

Until there fail, all other choice

But sad acceptance of it!

Triumph is not beautiful.

He who thinks triumph beautiful

Is one with a will to kill!

And one with a will to kill

Shall never prevail upon the world.

It is a good sign when man's higher nature comes forward,

A bad sign when his lower nature comes forward

When retainers take charge

And the master stays back

As in the conduct of a funeral.

The death of a multitude is cause for mourning;

Conduct your triumph as a funeral!

- Lao Tze

[jeffmoskin]

And of course this is all about oil. I posted this little ditty ages ago. I think I am being proven correct with every passing day:

It is not about BUYING all the oil we need. We get that from the Saudis and Venezuelans.

It is about:

1. CONTROL of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.

2. Having that resource as backing for the US Dollar, which otherwise would become worthless since our manufacturing might has migrated to China.

3. In concert with (2), making sure that the Euro does not gain any more acceptance as payment for oil with other OPEC countries.

I've posted many times before that the Bush Agenda was to CONTROL Iraq's oil - not to pump it. Just follow the money:

a) Halliburton only makes money when oil sells for more than drilling costs. They have more work than they can handle in "stripper" wells in Texas and Oklahoma.

B) our GOOD and LOYAL friends, the Saudis (Bush's "family"), make more money to finance their totally corrupt society, and to fund the Wahabbi Madrassas in other Arab countries that will provide tomorrow's terrorists.

c) Putin is happy. He's selling as much oil as the Saudis. Don't forget, he's got 60 years of mismanagement to make up for. They need bucks in a big way.

d) perhaps, after making the good college try for democracy in Iraq, Bush will give it up as hopeless, but leave a small armed force to guard the oil wells from Iraqi terrorists (ha ha ha ). In other words, yes it's all about oil, but not about pumping it. It's about keeping it from being pumped.

This post has been edited by jeffmoskin: Feb 27 2005, 07:23 PM

[jeffmoskin]

d) perhaps, after making the good college try for democracy in Iraq, Bush will give it up as hopeless, but leave a small armed force to guard the oil wells from Iraqi terrorists (ha ha ha ). In other words, yes it's all about oil, but not about pumping it. It's about keeping it from being pumped.

In 1944, the "gnomes of Zurich" met at Bretton Woods to figure out world how currencies would be exchanged after WW II. They settled on the current gold standard which was $35.00 per troy ounce. This lasted until 1971 when, with Europe finally on her feet again and Charles deGaulle knocking on our window at Fort Knox to exchange his dollars for gold (the unofficial world price had risen to about $43.00 an ounce), Nixon went off the gold standard.

For a few years, this meant chaos. All currencies would seek their market value level. The dollar kept falling due to inflation fueled by the Viet Nam war.

Then, in 1975, Kissinger convinced our GOOD FRIENDS the SAUDIS to accept ONLY US DOLLARS as payment for oil.

Wow!!!

What a deal. It used to be that you wanted to own dollars to buy American products. Now, you had to have US dollars to buy oil from OPEC.

So those dollars were now backed by OIL, not gold.

OIL REALLY IS THE GOLD STANDARD.

Hell, you can't run your car on gold now, can you?

During the 90s, under Clinton, American products were outsourced to China. Now the only reason to hold dollars was for the oil.

In September 2000, Saddam Hussein told Europe he would gladly accept the EURO as payment for his oil.

Can't permit this to happen. Since America doesn't make products anymore, the dollar would become toilet paper, like Turkish Lira or Mexican Pesos.

I truly believe that this is the very moment that BushCorp decided that George W Bush HAD TO BE INSTALLED IN THE WHITE HOUSE BY HOOK OR BY CROOK.

And that is why they stole Florida.

And that is why they invaded and occupied Iraq.

We may not be able to pump it. But we OWN IT.

We have to. It is all that is propping up our otherwise worthless dollar.

[Livyjr]

Wow!!!

What a deal.

It used to be that you wanted to own dollars to buy American products.

Now, you had to have US dollars to buy oil from OPEC.

So those dollars were now backed by OIL, not gold.

OIL REALLY IS THE GOLD STANDARD.

Good morning, jeffmoskin, nice to see you back after a hiatus!

And here I am just coming into the "cold world" of reality here, after a quick visit to "A.B.'s Corner" and the cozy stove over there, where I had my morning chuckle at your musings on the Oscars, which I don't really pay any attention to ....

OOOOPS!

Was that un-American to say?

Non P.C.?

Perhaps I'd better beat a hasty retreat and make an retraction, and then lie, and say the Oscars were something I have been waiting all year for, except they are not, and so .......

Over in "A.B.'s Corner", I was saying that a young friend from San Francisco had finally decided to try living life without a car, which can be done quite well out there in S.F., and my remark back to him was that life in S.F. without a car is like swimming without a boat anchor tied around your leg.

And let the "big-bottom" boys have to worry about finding some other sucker to buy the gas and oil that he will no longer be buying, to keep up their "bottom line"!

BOYCOT THE BIG-BOTTOM BOYS!

Let them get jobs like the rest of America has to do!

And here, I must wonder, jeffmoskin, at how many people even know, or have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, as it is, or seems, anyway, so esoteric, and I believe that it is probably intended to be that way, so that we would not have any ideas as to what was really going on out there, vis-a-vis this currency exchange rate business.

People reading your posts on that subject would probably think you were coming in from Mars, or something, with your words, or maybe they would think that you were "Chicken Little", talking about U.S. currency becoming worthless, BUT ....

I personally think you are right dead on the money, as I, independent of you, have been researching this same matter, and have arrived where you are, coming in from a different direction.

Since you brought up the Oscars, this is like being in one of those scenes in an "action thriller", I think the genre is properly called out there in George W. Bush's Hollywood, where a maniac has taken over a bus, and it is swerving all over the L.A. Freeway, and we are all stuck in the back, unable to do anything but "hang on tight"!

Keep posting, jeffmoskin, keep posting, and the only thing I would say by way of critique is don't assume too much intelligence on our part as your readers!

It is an esoteric, and sometimes complex subject, and so, do as the lawyers say they do for most judges these days, dumb it way, way down!

See Dick run,

See Jane run after him,

See the bucket full of worthless American dollars that Dick and Jane hold between them .......

[Livyjr]

And here I really do wonder how many people in America even know they are on a "bus", let alone where it might be taking them, besides over a cliff!

"Stop the world, I want to get off!"

That is one of those "sayings" that you used to hear, here in OUR America, back around the Viet Nam times, as I recall, and it was a way of saying that life, even then, had already become so complex, that people just could not stand it, and now, it seems that it is even more so, at least to me!

For example, WW II!

A pretty big war, and yet, it did not solve a thing!

Then Korea!

Nothing solved!

Viet Nam!

Nothing really solved, other than that the United States, as big as it thinks it might be, can get its a** kicked pretty good by a bunch of rag-tags with a budget of about $3.57 per week in American money, just as mighty England got its own a** kicked real good by a bunch of rag-tag Americans on a budget of about $3.57 in pounds sterling back in 1777!

Nothing solved, and nothing learned, especially by George W. Bush and his NEW CON crowd, who have simply erased the history of Viet Nam, as if it had never happened, for that is what we do today with "history"; we re-write it to say what we want people to believe, so that they will then do as we tell them to do, because of course, those who can re-write history must know something, musn't they, eslewise, how could they dare to change the past?

And so, as a consequence, the truth of my youth has been erased as well, it seems, and life in OUR America now seems to be nothing but one big lie, from morning to night, with no interruptions in between, and when it gets to be that way, usually nation-states are not much longer for the world, or at least that is what history would intimate, anyway!

"The end of the world is coming!"

RUN!

RUN!

RUN!

Except you can't!

And how many times, now, has the "world" ended?

Once?

Three times?

Countless times?

And yet, people always remain!

And that is the way it is!

If you are playing "musical chairs" and the music ends, and you are still standing, IS YOUR LIFE OVER?

Of course not!

You're just out of the game, and there, my friends, is the point!

It is all a game, a great big game, called the "GREAT GAME OF HOUSES", and it has been going on now for years and years and years!

In fact, you would hard pressed trying to find a time or place in the history of the world where the game was not going on, and the players today have not invented anything new; to the contrary, they have just inherited the game from those who came before, and they have simply continued it onwards, like me taking over for jeffmoskin in a game of Monopoly, except, I might be more or less "cut-throat" than he, and actually, Monopoly is a good metaphor for all of this which is going on out there around us in the cold, cruel world, as you sometimes hear it called.

In the game of Monopoly, owning "Park Place" is equivalent to having money in the bank, although the "money" itself might not actually be; and it is the "equivalence", rather than the "actuality" that counts, because with "Park Place", you can get money, even if you have none of your own, at the time, and that is the case with this Iraqi oil!

WE NOW DO OWN IT, or more properly George W. Bush and his crowd do, since that oil will not really benefit any of us serfs and commoners here in OUR America, except for "trickle-down", which generally occurs in the form of the bills for the "big-bottom boys" having those lush, big-bottoms coming down to us to have to pay; and so, we, or more properly, George W. Bush and his crowd, now control the flow of money that the oil represents!

AND THAT IS POWER, in and of itself!

And there is the point!

This thing called power!

The aphrodisiac!

The "HEAD TRIP"!

The ultimate corruption!

Is it the "human condition", then?

Is it unescapable?

Someone will always have "power", and so, someone else must always be "subjugated", or victimized?

Seems that way, don't it?

And so, the saying, "stop the world, I want to get off!"

Except you can't!

Or can you?

Questions for OUR times, here, in OUR America!

Stay tuned!

Live, late-breaking!

Updates as they happen!