tortminder's posts about:
Political
See all posts with this tag
| Page 1 of 2 |
1 |
2 |
 |
Last |
Son of the Republic, Look & Learn
The father of our country, George Washington, was a man of prayer. Many of us have
read of how he went to the thicket many times to pray during the winter his army was at
Valley Forge. However, little publicity has been give to the vision and prophecy he
received at that time.
The account of this vision was given
in 1859 by an old soldier. He gave it to a writer, Wesley Bradshaw, who published it. In
the vision God revealed to George Washington that three great perils would come upon the
republic. He was given to know that America was going through the first peril at that
time. The old soldier who told the story of the vision said the nation would soon see the
account verified by the second peril descending upon the land.
We give the account here as printed
in the U.S. war veterans paper The National Tribune, in December 1880. The National
Tribune became, "The Stars and Stripes", and this article was
later reprinted in that
publication.
I do not know whether it is owing to the anxiety of
my mind, or what, but this afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaging in preparing
a dispatch, something in the apartment seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing
opposite to me a singularly beautiful being. So astonished was I, for I had given strict
orders not to be disturbed that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the
cause of the visit. A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat my question,
but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of the eyes.
By this time I felt strange sensations
spreading through me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me
rendered volition impossible. I tried once more to speak, but my tongue became useless, as
if paralyzed. A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me.
All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor.
Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed to fill with sensations, and grew
luminous. Everything about me seemed to rarefy, the mysterious visitor also becoming more
airy and yet more distinct to my sight than before. I began to feel as one dying, or
rather to experience the sensations I sometimes imagine accompanying death. I did not
think, I did not reason, I did not move. All were alike impossible. I was only conscious
of gazing fixedly, vacantly on my companion.
Presently I heard a voice say,
"Son of the Republic,
look and learn,"
while at the same time my visitor
extended an arm eastward. I now beheld a heavy white vapor at some distance rising fold
upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked upon the strange scene. Before me lay,
out in one vast plain all the countries of the world -- Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.
I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America lay billows of the Atlantic, and
between Asia and America lay the Pacific.
"Son of the
Republic", said the same
mysterious voice as before,
"Look and learn."
At that moment I beheld a dark shadowy being, like an angel, standing, or rather
floating in mid-air, between Europe and America. Dipping water out of the ocean in the
hollow of each hand, he sprinkled some upon America with his right hand, while with his
left he cast some over Europe. Immediately a cloud arose from these countries and joined
in mid-ocean. For awhile it remained stationary, and then it moved slowly westward, until
it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashed of lightning gleamed through at
intervals, and I heard the smothered groans and cries of the American People.
A second time the angel dipped water from
the ocean and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud drew back to the ocean, in whose
heaving billows it sank from view.
A third time I heard the mysterious voice
saying,
"Son of the Republic,
look and learn."
I cast my eyes upon America and beheld
villages and town and cities spring up one right after another until the whole land from
the Atlantic to the Pacific was dotted with them. Again, I heard the mysterious voice say,
"Son of the Republic,
the end of the century cometh, look and learn."
And this time a dark shadowy angel turned his face southward. From Africa I saw an
ill omened spectra approach our land. It flitted slowly and heavily over every town and
city of the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle array against each
other. As I continued look I saw a bright angel on whose brow was traced the word 'Union.'
He was bearing the American flag. He placed the flag between the divided nation and said,
"Remember, ye are
brethren. "
Instantly the inhabitants, casting down
their weapons became friends once more, and united around the National Standard.
Again I heard a mysterious voice saying,
"Son of the Republic,
look and learn."
At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a
trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he
sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia, and Africa.
Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene. From
each of these continents arose thick black clouds that were soon joined into one. And
throughout this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men.
These men, moving with the cloud marched by land and sailed by sea to America, which
country was enveloped in the volume of the cloud. And I dimly saw these vast armies
devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns and cities, which I had seen
spring up.
As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of swords, and the
shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I again heard the mysterious voice saying,
"Son of the Republic,
look and learn."
When the voice had ceased, the dark
shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long and fearful
blast. Instantly a light, as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and
pierced and broke into fragments of the dark cloud, which enveloped America. At the same
moment the angel upon whose head still shown the word 'Union,' and who bore our national
flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions
of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived
were well-nigh over come, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken
ranks, and renewed battle.
Again amid the fearful
voice of the conflict I heard the mysterious voice say,
"Son of the Republic,
look and learn."
As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel
for the last time dipped the water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly
the dark clouds rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the
inhabitants of the land victorious.
Then once more I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I had
seem them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard cried with a loud
voice:
"While the
stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union
last."
And taking from his brow the crown, which
blazoned the word 'Union,' he placed it down upon the standard while the people, kneeling
down said, 'Amen.'
The scene instantly began to fade and
dissolve, and I at last saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor, I at first beheld. This
also disappeared, and I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor who, in
the same voice I heard before said,
"Son of the
Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted: Three great perils will come upon the
Republic. The most fearful for her is the third. But the whole world united shall not
prevail against her. Let every child of the Republic learn to live for his God, his land
and Union."
With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I
had seen a vision wherein had been showed me the birth, progress, and destiny of the
United States."
U.S. Constitution
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
On the surface, the wording of the 1st. Amendment seems pretty straightforward, but as they say in the late-night infomercials;"But wait, there's more!"
First off, the 1st. Amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The 10th. Amendment, on the other hand, states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Read literally, this can be construed that, although the Federal authority, (CONGRESS), is enjoined from limiting the exercise of free speech, assembly and redress of grievances, since it is not expressly prohibited to the STATES, such activity is reserved to the STATES.
Secondly, the Rights protected by the 1st. Amendment have been modified by the actions of the US Supreme Court on a number of occasions.
The Supreme Court did not consider a single case in which it was asked to strike down a federal law on the basis of the Free Speech Clause until the twentieth century. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were never ruled upon by the Supreme Court, and even the leading critics of the law, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued for the laws' unconstitutionality on the basis of the First Amendment, among other Constitutional provisions.
The Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause in 1919. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had during the war published leaflets challenging the conscription system then in effect. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's conviction for violating the Espionage Act when it decided Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court, suggested that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
The Supreme Court effectively shaped the First Amendment in such a manner as to permit a multitude of restrictions on speech. Further restrictions on speech were accepted by the Supreme Court when it decided Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Writing for the majority, Justice Edward Sanford suggested that states could punish words that "by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state." Lawmakers were given the freedom to decide which speech would constitute a danger.
FREE SPEECH ZONES are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech as an exercise of what is commonly called "TPM" or "time, place manner" regulation of speech. Free speech zones are set up by the Secret Service who scout locations near which the president is to pass or speak. Officials may target those displaying signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Protesters who refuse to go to free speech zones could be arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. In 2003, a seldom-used was brought up that says that “willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” is a crime. (That means that this law can be invoked at eithe convention, since the candidates are under the protection of the Secret Service).
Thirdly, the RIGHT to petition for the redress of grievances is directed to the GOVERNMENT. While each political party has delusions that they are a part of the government of these United States, they are, in fact, private business enterprises and there is no 1st. Amendment right to petition or protest them. This is the fallacy that has been used to justify the "protests" against the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, the picketing of abortion clinics, the picketing of gun shops and so forth. None of these entities are any part of the government, and as such should be afforded protection under the laws that guarantee safety and free passage of citizens and the right to be secure in their person and premises.
In the end, what it comes down to is courtesy and common sense, (two commodities which, sadly, are in short supply in todays' American society). The right to make a fist and swing it about in the air terminates at the point of the other guys' nose. If you disagree with something being done by a public business, no matter if it is a news outlet, a toy manufacturer, a food processor or a political party, then organize to boycott their product, (Newscast or newspaper...protesting to advertisers is a good tactic here; toy manufacturer or food processor... don't buy their product and try to convince others not to but their product; political party...don't elect their candidates).
In the end, be careful what you ask for and be sure you have read and understand exactly what the law says and not what you THINK it says.
Do you use a "peferred customer card"? Is your state in compliance with the new Department of Homeland Security mandate on Enhanced Personal Identity regarding your drivers license? Do you hold a valid United States passport? Do you pay for purchases by credit card that are of a personal or confidential nature?
The right against unsanctioned invasion of privacy by the government, corporations or individuals is part of many countries' privacy laws, and in some cases, constitutions. Almost all countries have laws which in some way limit privacy; an example of this would be law concerning taxation, which normally require the sharing of information about personal income or earnings. In some countries individual privacy may conflict with freedom of speech laws and some laws may require public disclosure of information which would be considered private in other countries and cultures.
"Call it Big Brother on steroids. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is looking for beefed up RFID technology that can read government-issued documents, (such as passports and drivers licenses), from up to 25 feet away, pinpoint pedestrians on street corners, and glean the identity of people whizzing by in cars at 55 miles per hour.
Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID) is a controversial technology that uses tiny microchips to track items from a distance. These RFID microchips have earned the nickname "spychips" because each contains a unique identification number, like a Social Security number for things, that can be read silently and invisibly by radio waves. Privacy and civil liberties advocates are opposed to the use of the technology on consumer items and government documents because it can be used to track people without their knowledge or consent.
Radio-frequency identification (RFID) is an automatic identification method, relying on storing and remotely retrieving data using devices called RFID tags or transponders.
An RFID tag is an object that can be applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification using radio waves. Some tags can be read from several meters away and beyond the line of sight of the reader.
SPECIFIC PRIVACY CONCERNS
RFID tags differ from conventional barcode tags in a number of ways. It is these differences that create the benefit of adopting the technology, while simultaneously creating the greatest concern over the privacy issues involved. For example, under today's barcode technology, a pack of Wrigley's gum sold in Houston has the same barcode as a pack sold in New York City. With RFID, however, each pack would have a unique ID code which could be tied to the purchaser of that gum when they use an "item registration system" such as a frequent shopper card or a credit card.
Continuing with the gum example, the purchaser could then be tracked if he/she ever entered that same store again, or perhaps more frightening, if they entered any other store with RFID reading capability. Because, unlike a barcode, RFID tags can be read from much greater distances and the reading of such devices is non-directional. This means that if you enter a store with a pack of gum in your pocket, the reader can identify that pack of gum, the time and date you bought it, where you bought it, and how frequently you come into the store. If you used a credit card or a frequent shopper card to purchase it, the manufacturer and store could also tie that information to your name, address, and e-mail. You could then receive targeted advertisements by gum companies as you walk down the aisle, or receive mailings through your e-mail or regular mail about other products.
As the technology behind RFID advances, the potential for privacy infringement does as well. A more recent development is a study which reveals that RFID already has the capability to determine the distance of a tag from the reader location. With such technology already available, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which retailers could determine the location of individuals within their store, and thus target specific advertisements to that customer based upon past purchases. In effect, that store would be creating a personal log of your past purchases, your shopping patterns, and ultimately your behavioral patters. While such information gathering would be considered intrusive enough by many consumer's standards, the danger that such information could be sold to other retailers, (similar to the way such profiles are currently sold regarding Internet commerce), could create potentially devastating information vulnerabilities. While some RFID critics have pointed out that the technology could lead to some sort of corporate "Big Brother," there is a more widespread concern that allowing RFID to develop without legal restrictions will eliminate the possibility for consumers to refuse to give such information to retailers.
When you're stacking up grocery items at the checkout line, you're probably not worried about whether your supermarket chain is compiling a profile of you based on what you buy, and storing that information for its own use. After all, who cares if you buy one brand of tissues over another, or favor name-brand microwave pizzas over store brands?
Supermarket chains care. So does CVS. So much so that they use discount cards (referred to as "membership" or "loyalty" cards) to offer you what seem like great bargains. They use the cards to keep tabs on what you purchase, how often you shop, and what your buying preferences are.
And, just as data brokers like ChoicePoint collect personal data and use it to build an aggregate "profile" of individual consumers, supermarket chains use their stored data to target buyers with "special" offers and "preferred" advertisements from their marketing partners.
Valuetec, a leading provider of gift and loyalty cards to businesses and retail store chains, recently partnered with credit card payment processor CardSystems to provide "comprehensive gift card and loyalty card products", as well as implementing "stored value systems", where a customer gets a set point balance on their card, which replenishes when they make purchases at the sponsoring store. CardSystems was the vendor responsible for 40 million Visa and MasterCard users' data being exposed to potential theft in June 2005.
In a headline-making case from August of 2004, Philip Scott Lyons, a firefighter from Everett, Washington, was arrested and accused of arson after a police canine unit sniffed out a fire starter unit hidden in his home with a Safeway label attached. Safeway provided the Lyons' purchasing history to the police, revealing that they did buy the fire starter a month earlier.
The charges were later dropped when another person came forward and confessed to the crime. The fact remains, however, that Safeway provided a customer's personal information to law enforcement, thus skirting the Constitutional and Federal laws that prohibit government and police agencies from collecting personal information and creating databases.
On a more basic level, the data collected about your buying habits can be used for everything from custody hearings to psychological profiles to decisions regarding employment. Buying condoms? Must mean you're sexually active, and possibly an unfit parent or health risk. Buying weight-loss diet pills? You might end up with a higher health insurance premium or unexpected physical evaluation at your job.
We have seen the enemy, and he is us!
Hey Brother Can YouDime?
Jul 27, 2008 | 9:07 PM PST
Category:
Political
Once I had a railroad... made it run... made it run on time.
Once I had a railroad, now it's done... hey brother can you spare a dime?
Home Owners Loan Corporation II was established by the Congress on August 7, 2007.
The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or Home Owner's Refinancing Act, was a New Deal agency established in 1933 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its purpose was to refinance homes to prevent foreclosure. It was used to extend loans from shorter loans to fully amortized, longer term loans (typically 20-25 years). Through its work it granted long term mortgages to over a million people facing the loss of their homes. The HOLC stopped lending circa 1935, once all the available capital had been spent. HOLC was only applicable to nonfarm homes, worth less than $20,000. HOLC also assisted mortgage lenders by refinancing problematic loans and increasing the institutions liquidity.
This crisis is quite different from the one faced by HOLC I. Instead of a depression, we have had an eruption of inflation, comparable in magnitude to the one we experienced in the late 70s and early 80s. As then, the inflation has caused a sharp spike in interest rates, but the consequences of the recent rate spike have been much worse. It punctured the housing bubble, with house price declines especially large in areas where appreciation had been strongest. New construction in such areas has been cut in half, and construction of condominiums has ceased almost entirely.
Another major difference between this rate spike and the previous one is that this time we had many more mortgages with little or no equity before prices started to drop. This reflects both the widespread use of 80/20 first and second mortgage combinations in the financing of home purchases, and extensive cash-out refinancing for purposes other than building equity. In addition, a substantial proportion of outstanding mortgages are adjustable rate (ARMs), many with the option to pay interest-only, and in the case of option-ARMs, even less.
It is estimated that 9 million mortgages are now underwater -- the loan balance exceeds the value of the property. A large proportion of those are interest-only and option ARMs, on which the interest rate and mortgage payment are rising as we speak.
1. We will only refinance mortgages on which the balance does not exceed our estimate of “long-run sustainable value” (LRSV). The LRSV will be above current market prices but below the prices reached before the crash. HOLC I followed a very similar rule.
2. Only mortgages secured by the borrower’s primary residence will be considered. Mortgages on second homes and rental properties are not eligible.
3. Mortgages larger than $1 million will not be eligible.
Unfortunately, less than one of 10 of the mortgages now underwater meet these conditions. A large proportion are in what had been the hottest markets, where current prices are well below LRSVs, and balances had not been paid down because of the popularity of interest-only and option ARMs. Many of the underwater mortgages are on second homes and rental units which had been purchased on speculation. And a surprising number is larger than $1 million, with a concentration in California.
Unlike HOLC I, HOLC II has no authority to refinance loans held by distressed institutions if those loans are not otherwise eligible. The earlier Congress was concerned about bank failures, which could cause loss to depositors – deposit insurance did not arise until several years later. The Congress establishing HOLC II had no such concerns. It took the position that lenders who loaded up on inherently risky ARMs in go-go markets should bear the full consequences of their folly.”
The United States Senate voted Saturday (7/26) to pass the “Foreclosure Prevention Act”– legislation that will "help homeowners hit by foreclosures, stabilize the housing market, reform the oversight of government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and strengthen mortgage disclosure requirements. In addition, the Act provides an increased standard deduction for those who pay property taxes but do not itemize deductions on their federal returns."
As passed by the Senate, the “Foreclosure Prevention Act”includes the following:
*Government Sponsored Enterprise Reform. Strengthened and modernized regulation of the housing government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks – which are central to the mortgage market. A new “world-class” regulator is needed to guard against threats to our capital markets and protect against negative consequences for taxpayers that could arise without proper oversight. (In other words, a bail-out for Freddy Mac and Fannie May).
*First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit. A $7,500 refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers to help reduce the existing stock of unoccupied housing. (A little bit of "pork" to try to help stimulate home sales).
* Hope for Homeowners. Voluntary program that will allow distressed mortgages to be refinanced and insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). (Another taxpayer financed bail-out for folks who got in over their heads).
* FHA Modernization. Significant reforms to modernize, streamline, and expand the reach of the FHA program. Downpayments of 3.5% will be required for any FHA loan to help provide for more stable homeownership.(Means a down-payment of $4,750.00 on a $150,000 home. Lots of folks can get that type of cash advance from a credit card starting the whole vicious cycle over again.)
* Mortgage Revenue Bonds. $11 billion of Federal tax-exempt private activity bond authority that may be used to refinance subprime mortgages. The measure also exempts interest earned on the bonds from the alternative minimum tax. (More of our tax dollars to bail out lenders who churned unqualified buyers into loans they couldn't afford nor hope to pay back.)
* Housing Finance Market Stabilization. Secretary of Treasury authority to temporarily increase the existing line of credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to directly invest in these companies if necessary to stabilize the housing finance markets. Authority could only be used in an emergency, taking into account certain taxpayer protections. (The Fed cannot create wealth... just increase the debt load on future generations.)
* Pre-Foreclosure Counseling. $150 million in additional funding for housing counseling. These funds will be distributed by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation by the end of the year to ensure timely assistance for families in need. (The use of more tax money to tell folks that they shouldn't buy more house than they can afford.)
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-- Albert Einstein
You are responsibile for you
Jul 24, 2008 | 12:36 PM PST
Category:
Political
A number of times the issue has come up; "Are the police doing enough to stop the violence, (crime, gang activity, drug activity, etc., etc.)." Time and time again, we hear the politicians and their cohorts say, we need more, (choose one), police, education, social services, basketball hoops, tax money, tax money, tax money. As the late Ann Landers might have said; "Horsefeathers!"
Most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.
Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.
Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries.
If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants.
The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
"Cowardice" and "self-respect" have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered "self-esteem" as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. "Self-respect" implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. "Self-esteem" simply means that one feels good about oneself. "Dignity" used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life's vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the emptiness of our character, the hollowness of our souls.
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We have become a nation of cowards and shirkers.
The ugly fact is if you don't want the criminals to walk all over you, you have to get up off the floor and stand up for yourself.
What I believe
Jul 23, 2008 | 11:38 AM PST
Category:
Political
Originally posted by
printman31Tort,
You once said you don't share my belief that this country is
doomed...With all your postings showing how peoples rights are
constantly being infringed upon....I think you do indeed share that
same view...
Print;
I share many of your views, (as you have seen from my postings over the last few months).
I
prefer, however to hope for the best while planning for the worst... in
my mind, to do otherwise is too depressing and leads to a paralysis
that a prudent person cannot afford.
I do honestly fear for our
Republic and the way of life we have come to know, however, I was well
taught by my parents and grandparents so I have useful skills that will
help to see me through tough times.
We as Americans must not
surrender, or give up our Liberties and Freedoms, to be safe and
secure, because of the corrupting nature of power, and the abuses of
power, whether it's by one or many.
We must destroy the
enemies of our Country, our Liberty and our Freedom, to remain safe,
secure and free. Our Forefathers created this Country and the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, for a moral and good people, because,
"only the good can love freedom, the rest love not freedom but license,
which never has more scope than under tyrants," and these Terrorists
are Tyrants, against our Country, our Liberty and our Freedom.
Moral
and Good people do not need many Laws or Regulations, to keep
themselves safe, secure and free. Morality and ethical behavior is
needed in commerce and all of human endeavor, to keep America free,
though morality should not be made law, but the free choice of every
individual.
America should protect our rights and freedoms,
especially our right to live free from harm, for our property and for
ourselves, and not enforce its ethics and morality upon us. We have to
have the right and freedom to choose for ourselves our own ethics and
morality.
Many will suffer... some will perish... I will persist until I succeed or no longer draw breath.
From the Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007
Obama knows his way around a ballot
The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.
"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."
But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.
"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."
Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."
Obama behind challenges
America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago's 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.
It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.
But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.
Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.
"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."
His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.
"There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements."
Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.
Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.
"We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren't going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody," Obama said. "I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm."
And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business."
At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.
"He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions."
In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest.
While Obama didn't attend the hearings, "he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing," Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.
But Obama didn't gloat over the victories. "I don't think he thought it was, you know, sporting," said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. "He wasn't very proud of it."
Endorsement or informal nod?
By the summer of 1995, Obama, 34, had completed his globe-trotting education and settled deep into Chicago's South Side.
He had gone to Harvard Law School with private ambitions of someday following Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago. At Harvard, where Obama was celebrated as the first black president of the Law Review, classmate Gina Torielli remembers him "saying that governor of Illinois would be his dream job."
Back in Chicago after graduation, Obama won respect for running Project Vote, which registered tens of thousands of black Chicagoans. "It's a power thing," the volunteers' T-shirts said.
Community organizers packed his wedding to Michelle Robinson, a South Shore resident and fellow Harvard Law graduate. The newlyweds bought a Hyde Park condo.
His memoir, "Dreams from My Father," was published that summer to warm reviews. He was working at a small but influential legal firm, teaching constitutional law as a University of Chicago adjunct professor and sitting on the boards of charities.
At the same time, the South Side's political map was thrown up for grabs when then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds was convicted of sex crimes and a special election was called to fill his congressional seat.
Palmer joined the race and, according to multiple accounts, introduced Obama as the successor for her Illinois Senate seat.
"She said, 'I found this wonderful person, this fine young man, so we needn't worry that we'd have a good state senator,' " said former 5th Ward Democratic committeeman Alan Dobry, who volunteered to help both Palmer and Obama that year.
In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.
Obama says he told her: "We haven't started the campaign yet."
"I hadn't publicly announced," he said. "But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it's going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay."
Obama "did say that to me," Palmer says now. "And I certainly did say that I wasn't going to run. There's no question about that."
But beyond that, the private discussions they held in 1995 are shrouded today in disputed and hazy memories.
Obama said Palmer gave him her formal endorsement. "I'm absolutely certain she … publicly spoke and sort of designated me," he recalled.
Palmer disputes that. "I don't know that I like the word 'endorsement,' " she said. "An endorsement to me, having been in legislative politics … that's a very formal kind of thing. I don't think that describes this. An 'informal nod' is how to characterize it."
In July 1995, Obama announced he was planning to run for Palmer's seat. He filed papers creating his fundraising committee a month later and officially announced his candidacy in September.
He emerged that winter as a gifted campaigner who after finishing hectic workdays would layer on thermal underwear to knock on South Side doors.
In impromptu street-corner conversations and media interviews, he disparaged local pols for putting self-preservation ahead of public service. At the last house on a dark block, "he would start a discussion that should have taken five minutes and pretty soon someone was cooking him dinner," said paid campaign consultant Carol Anne Harwell.
Then Palmer's congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.
Palmer didn't fade quietly away. Citing an "outpouring" of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.
But she had two big problems. To get on the ballot, Palmer needed to file nominating petitions signed by at least 757 district voters—and the Dec. 18 deadline was just days away.
And then there was Obama, the bright up-and-comer she had all but anointed.
Obama's aides said he seemed anguished over the prospect of defying Palmer. "I really saw turmoil in his face," Harwell said.
Obama sought advice from political veterans such as 4th Ward Ald. Toni Preckwinkle and then-15th Ward Ald. Virgil Jones, who say they urged him to hold his course.
"I thought the world of Alice Palmer," said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But "at that point she had pulled her own plug."
According to Palmer, it was without her knowledge that her supporters initiated discussions to persuade Obama to step aside. They invited him to the home of state Rep. Lovana "Lou" Jones, now deceased. Obama arrived alone.
"It was a brief meeting," said Black, a Palmer friend who had advised Obama when he was a young community organizer in the mid-1980s.
Obama didn't try to justify his decision to reject Palmer's plea, Black said.
"He did not put it in inflammatory terms, he just did not back away. It was not arguments, it was stubbornness," Black said. "Barack had by then gone ahead in putting together his own campaign, and he just didn't want to stop."
'If you can get 'em, get 'em'
Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures—about twice the minimum required. That day, Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw.
"I am disappointed that she's decided to go back on her word to me," he said.
Obama campaign aides also responded that day—but quietly, and out of the limelight.
Davis and Dobry marshaled volunteers and began poring through the nominating petitions of Palmer and the three lesser-known Democrats, according to interviews.
"We looked at those petitions and found that none of them met the requirements of the law," Dobry said. "Alice's people, they'd done it in a great hurry. Almost all her petitions were signed a day or so before the deadline."
According to Davis, Palmer "had kids gathering the names. I remember two of her circulators, Pookie and Squirt."
Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.
Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February's elections, an election board spokesman said.
Davis recalled telling Obama: "If you can get 'em, get 'em. Why give 'em a break?
"I said, 'Barack, I'm going to knock them all off.'
"He said, 'What do you need?'
"I said, 'I need an attorney.'
"He said, 'Who is the best?'
"I said, 'Tom Johnson.' "
Obama already knew civil rights attorney and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson, who had waged election cases for the late Mayor Washington and had offered Obama informal legal advice since the days of Project Vote.
With Johnson's legal help, Obama's team was confident. They piled binders of polling sheets in the election board office on the second floor of City Hall, and on Jan. 2, 1996, began the days-long hearings that would eliminate the other Democrats.
Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama's objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show. Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the board's decision, but Johnson intervened on Obama's behalf and prevailed when Ewell's case was dismissed days later.
Ewell could not be reached for comment, but the federal judge's decision showed how he was tripped up by complexities in the election procedures.
City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.
Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters—but Obama's challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.
Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.
Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said.
Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama's team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team's objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.
It was wrenching to withdraw, she said. "But sit for a moment, catch your breath, get up and keep going. I'm a very practical person. Politics is not the only vehicle for accomplishing things." She became a special assistant to the president of the University of Illinois and is now retired.
Obama said he has not been in touch with Palmer since 1996. "No, not really, no," he said.
Though she hasn't determined whom to support in the presidential race, Palmer, 67, said her dispute with Obama doesn't affect her assessment of his fitness to hold office.
Saying that jobless high school dropouts "are sitting on the steps next to my house," Palmer added: "There is a savage economy going on out here, and we've got collateral damage. I am looking closely to see who has the courage, the smarts."
One Nation, Under God
Jul 11, 2008 | 11:36 AM PST
Category:
Political
The Founding Fathers did not forget that the single official purpose of
all government is to secure the God-given attributes of the individual
human being.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in 1823; "The equal rights of men
and the happiness of every individual are now acknowledged to be the
only legitimate objects of government."
A Republican form of government strictly and constitutionally dedicated
to the protection of the God-given unalienable rights of men appeared
in the world for the first time with the organization of the United
States of America.
Most of us on this board profess to hold a belief in the sovereignty of
the individual, even those who would profess that "religion" and most
specifically Christianity are, at best, a fairy story.
An interesting quote here would be; "The democratic concept of man is
false, because it is Christian. The democratic concept holds that each
man is a sovereign being. This is the illusion, dream and postulate of
Christianity" - Karl Marx (not Grouchos' very oldest brother!)
Our American Forefathers knew that God must be in the government of any
people to insure them against despotism. All of them were scrupulous in
their official reliance upon God as the source of individual liberty.
It must be remembered that 95% of the peace, order and welfare existing
in human society is always produced by the conscientious practice of
man to man justice and person-to-person charity.
When any part of this important domain of personal virtue is
transferred to the government, that part is automatically released from
the restraints of morality and put into the area of conscious-less
coercion. The field of personal responsibility is thus reduced at the
same time and to the same extent that the boundaries of your
responsibility are enlarged.
Expansion of the governmental domain in this manner is unfortunate
for two reasons. The first is purely practical: government cannot
manage these fields of human welfare with the justice, economy and
effectiveness that is possible when these same fields are the direct
responsibility of morally sensitive human beings. This loss of justice,
economy and effectiveness is increased in proportion that such
governmental management is centralized.
The second reason is basic: any shrinkage in the area of personal
responsibility tends to frustrate the purpose for which man was
created. Man is here to be tested for his free compliance with the
moral law. A great part of this law concerns man's relationship with
man.
Government cannot make men good; neither can it make them prosperous
and happy. The evils of society are directly traceable to the vices of
individual human beings.
At its best government may simply attack the secondary manifestations
of these vices. Their primary manifestations are found in the pride,
covetousness, lust, envy, sloth and plain incompetency of individual
people when government goes far beyond the simple duty and deploys its
forces along a broad complicated front, under unified command, it
invariably propagates the very evil that it is designed to reduce.
The way that our government is currently constituted generates a system
of moral anarchy for many of man's common relationships with man. In
this manner the growth and centralization of governmental power
gradually destroys that sense of individual conscientious,
responsibility which, as we have seen, is the main spring of our
general welfare. A "welfare state" is thus a contradiction in terms.
Every human being has a God-imposed PERSONAL obligation to assist his
neighbor when the latter is in poverty, destitution or distress. The
government cannot excuse any man from this obligation and should not
pretend to do so by "institutionalizing" relief. More and more people
now shirk this responsibility and moral duty because they are
encouraged to believe that every type of human misery is the exclusive
concern of the government. It is due to buying into this moral vacuum
that government and the politicians of all stripes who run it are able
to get the majority of the population to sit still for confiscatory
taxation, dehumanizing violation of God-given rights and the
bastardization of the principles upon which our Republic was founded.
The seminal document which began the journey we have come to know as
the United States of America acknowledged God; "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, the they are endowed
BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" They then pledged to each
other their "Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor" relying upon the
"Protection of Divine Providence".
These United States are one nation UNDER GOD.
We can deny that, but at our own peril.
"The
police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve
disorder." - Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley August, 1968
Following a series of shootings in
Chicago's South Shore neighborhood recently, Chicago Alderman Ike Carothers is
looking for answers from Police Superintendent Jody Weis about a plan to end
the violence.
Alderman Carothers chairs the city's police
and fire committee. He thinks the Chicago police superintendent should do more
and wants the superintendent to come before the committee.
"He's the chief law enforcement officer
of the city and should tell us something. He is the lead of chain in the police
department. He needs to examine whether what he made are the best steps,"
said Ald. Carothers.
Alderman Carothers is no stranger to law
enforcement, aside from his role as chairman of the Police and Fire Committee. Federal
investigators have requested city records on four West Side zoning changes
pushed by Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th), amid questions about Carothers'
relationship with a Chicago developer who made secret recordings as an FBI
mole.
Last year, Carothers' New 29th Ward Campaign Committee got $11,000 in contributions
from Morgan Properties Inc., which lists FBI mole John Thomas as
"manager."
The contributions came in payments of $9,000, $500 and $1,500, with the last
one made on Feb. 23, 2007 -- four days before the aldermanic election, records
show.
Thomas is the Chicago
developer-turned-FBI-mole who played a pivotal role in one of the two federal
cases involving Tony Rezko, the indicted developer and political fund-raiser
who is accused of business fraud and of seeking kickbacks and campaign
contributions for Gov. Blagojevich from companies seeking state pension
business.
The problem here is not one of faulty police
work but one of the failure of individual morality. Our uniformed policemen merely poke their
clubs into that callused and comparatively small area of humanity which the
moral law does not penetrate. The
uniformed policeman does not originate right and wrong. He merely extends and reinforces the
observance of those rights and duties that stem from the morality based on the
10 Commandments. In all respects he is
nothing more than a projection of the individual human conscience and in no
case can he be made to substitute for it.
"Everybody is looking at law enforcement
to fix the violence problem, which it will never do, instead of looking at
public health to help people manage their relationships, to resolve
conflicts," said Dr. Carl Bell, Community Mental Health Council.
It is in this direction-the direction of a
more acutely developed sense of individual conscientious responsibility-that we
must look to for any permanent improvement in the general welfare of our
society.
It must be remembered that 95% of the peace,
order and welfare existing in human society is always produced by the
conscientious practice of man to man justice and person-to-person charity. When any part of this important domain of
personal virtue is transferred to the government, that part is automatically
released from the restraints of morality and put into the area of
conscious-less cool worship. The field
of personal responsibility is thus reduced at the same time and to the same
extent that the boundaries of your responsibility are enlarged. Expansion of the governmental domain in this
manner is unfortunate for two reasons.
The first is purely practical full: government cannot manage these
fields of human welfare with the justice, economy and effectiveness that is
possible when these same fields are the direct responsibility of morally
sensitive human beings. This loss of
justice, economy and effectiveness is increased in proportion that such
governmental management is centralized.
The second reason is basic full: any shrinkage in the area of personal
responsibility tends to frustrate the purpose for which man was created. Man is here to be tested for his free
compliance with the moral law. A great
part of this law concerns man's relationship with man.
Government and cannot make men good;
neither can it make them prosperous and happy.
The evils of society are directly traceable to the vices of individual
human beings. At its best government may
simply attack the secondary manifestations of these vices. Their primary manifestations are found in the
pride, covenants, lost, and the sloth and plane and competency of individual
people when government goes far beyond the simple duty and deploys its forces
along a broad complicated front, under unified command, it invariably
propagates the very evil that it is designed to reduce.
The way that our government is currently
constituted generates a system of moral anarchy for many of man's common
relationships with man. In this manner
the growth and centralization of governmental power gradually destroys that
sense of individual conscientious, responsibility which, as we have seen, is the
main spraying of our general welfare. A
"welfare state" is thus a contradiction in terms.
If Alderman Carothers, or any of his
colleagues want to really do something about the crime situation in Chicago,
they would better spend their efforts in using their influence to ensure better
parenting, community involvement, and common morality in their wards. To paraphrase the late Richard J. Daley;
"city government isn't here to create disorder. It is here to preserve disorder."
Who's in charge here-Part 1
Jun 24, 2008 | 1:05 PM PST
Category:
Political
What makes Illinois run and who controls the actual power in Illinois, especially in Cook County, isn’t some Mayor or some Senator, or even some Judge; it is actually a two tier power control. Tier one is the Money, and not just any money, but the Foundation and Associations money. Tier two is the Organizers of people and votes. So let’s examine them for a moment!
Foundations and Associations
Chicago has some of the strongest Foundations and Associations in the country, not because of what they control, but because of the large dollars they control and the powerful philanthropists controlling those dollars. These Foundations and Associations have and control Billions upon Billions of dollars. The circle of people within these groups is small, and while claiming to be philanthropists, they like everyone else are simply pushing their own agendas under the guise of doing so for the well being of the community. The more Foundations and Associations a person is on defines the power that person controls, because the greatest of strengths is the networking of the Foundations and Associations, thus controlling more of the money and its usage.
The Foundations and Associations of which a person is allowed to become a member is based upon the position they have in the working world. Status also increases the person’s chances of securing a Chairmanship of Foundations and Associations. That can bring immortal power and even more status to such an individual.
Chicago has many such Foundations and Associations, but the top ones that control the workings of Illinois life are:
* the Chicago Urban League ,
* the Chicago Symphony Orchestra ,
* Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industy ,
* the Chicago United,
* the Community Renewal Society (Project funder for the United Church of Christ – Rev Wright anyone? Today a Minister from TUCC sits on the board),
* the Illinois Council on Economic Education,
* the Chicago Public Education Fund,
* the Chicago Community Trust,
* the Erikson Institute,
* the Woods Fund Chicago
and the jewel Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago’s most prestigious business group.
These philanthropy associations drive politics in Illinois.
First discover who is Thomas Ayers. This man welded power in every way!
Thomas G Ayers was many things, but most importantly, he was the behind the scenes Godfather of Illinois Politics right up to his death last June and beyond. He passed the torch to his sons, especially Bill Ayers, Obama’s terrorist friend.
Normally, when you have a child who turns out to be a criminal of major proportions, more so when a child is one of the FBI’s most wanted and a terrorist, life usually becomes unbearable: you’re shunned from the community, and employment is at risk. But not for Thomas Ayers. While his son Bill was bombing America, Thomas Ayers was being promoted to one of a highest profile and prestigious positions in Illinois and the country. He was also handed the keys to the most Nuclear Plants in the country as Chairman of Con Ed!
So why did no one questioned his promotion? When you control a monopoly and you’re the Godfather of Illinois politics, anything is possible and no one can stand in your way.
Many think Mayor Richard J. Daley was the Chicago Kingpin till his death, only to be followed by his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley, but that is not really so. They in fact are simply crooked politicians in fancy suits, mouthpieces for those behind the scenes!
A lot of the following information was pulled from Tom Ayers Obituary of June 8, 2007, at the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, but for some reason they are no longer available. This is also the case with stories on Thomas Ayers. But other sources were found with it!
He was the Chicago establishment, he served on many boards, including that of G.D. Searle & Company (Donald Rumsfeld was CEO from 1977 to 1985 – that why Obama had such high praise of Rumsfeld?), Chicago Pacific Corp (sold Hoover to Maytag in 1985 – Crown Family), Zenith Corp., Northwest Industries, First National Bank of Chicago, the Chicago Cubs and Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune.
But it was during his time as CEO of Con Ed that Thomas Ayers learned to work both sides of the street, making him the go to person in Illinois, the man with the “power”. It all started in the early 1960’s when he helped negotiate the first labor contract between Con Ed and the 12,000 member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers! Thomas Ayers learned then that power comes from the streets; he also learned that power came from championing the plight of the Black community that provided real power in Chicago!
When Rev. Martin Luther King Jr brought his open house campaign to Chicago in the mid 1960’s, Thomas Ayers was called upon to negotiate between Mayor Richard J. Daley’s administration and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also developed the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities to fight racial discrimination in housing.
Mr. Thomas Ayers learned then the power of philanthropy and became a leader in Chicago Philanthropy circles and an agent for change. He worked with many powerful nonprofit groups and many Foundations, serving as the chair of the Chicago Urban League, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industy, Chicago United, Community Renewal Society (Project funder for the United Church of Christ – Rev Wright anyone? Today a Minister from TUCC sits on the board), Illinois Council on Economic Education, The Chicago Public Education Fund, the Chicago Community Trust, Bank Street College of Education in New York (where Bill Ayers went to school after surfacing in 1980), Erikson Institute and the jewel Commercial Club of Chicago, Chicago’s most prestigious business group. These philanthropy associations drive politics in Illinois, especially with a combined worth exceeding $5 billion. Thomas Ayers knew how to network (new name for manipulate) them all for his own agenda!
If you look at all these Associations and Foundations Board of Directors, you will see the Who’s Who behind Obama’s campaign! According to Thomas Ayers, it all starts at the basics, elections and grass roots, in order to be working from inside the establishment and not fighting from the outside!
James O’Connor, former Chairman and CEO of Com Ed summed it all up about Thomas Ayers: “He had an extraordinary social conscience. He was willing to step into situations where very few people were willing to risk their reputation. He had total courage and never seemed to weigh the consequences of that sort of activity. He never did anything for applause or for any sort of recognition.” In other words it was “all about the power”!
“He was a guy of great intelligence and integrity, and he was willing to put the time in as well,” former Northwestern U president Arnold Weber said. “Those offices are not just honorary or for social distinction.” Again, it is for the “POWER.”
Michael Klonsky (former SDS leader and Founder of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) USA, and author of “Remembering the Summer of ‘66? (Klonsky also collaborated with Bill Ayers on several projects over the years, and the duo, along with Gabrielle Lyon, of A Simple Justice: The Challenge of Small Schools) had these comments about Thomas Ayers:
"Tom Ayers, was a force in the civic life of Chicago. “He will be remembered, not only as a business leader, but as an individual committed to civil rights and school reform. I loved to argue politics and baseball with Tom although I can’t say I ever made him see it my way in either area.”
Equally important to Mr. Thomas Ayers was the educational and financial advancement of African-Americans. “He felt the black community’s success was key to Chicago’s success,” son John Ayers said. “He pushed business people to be more open in the 1960s.”
Look at Thomas Ayers present day successor at Con Ed, Mr. Frank M Clark, who joined Con Ed under Ayers’s reign in 1966. Now compare Clark to Ayers by the Foundations Clark is on: the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Metropolitan Family Services, The Chicago Community Trust, the governing board of the Illinois Council on Economic Education, the Economic Club of Chicago, The Commercial Club of Chicago, and the Executives’ Club of Chicago. Clark also was ranked among the 50 Most Powerful Black Executives in America by Fortune magazine in 2002. Mr. Clark also happens to be a super bundler for Obama. He is also a lobbyist.
——————————————-
“In the ’60s and ’70s, we went through some rough patches in our family,” he said. “He was very sweet and supportive of us all. He used to say, ‘It takes all kinds’ to get the world moving forward.” John Ayers worked on School Reform in the 1980’s representing the powerful Commercial Club of Chicago Civics Commitee that was put in place in 1983 in part to provide business sector leadership in support of the reform of the Chicago Public School system and public school financing.
During a 1993 interview by the Chicago Magazine with Bernadine Dohrn, many revelations materialized, some lies (she is a terrorist, after all), some not! She and her husband Bill Ayers have held high-profile dinner parties and seem to do so often. Obama’s campaign and political career launch party in 1995 was just one in a line of them.Terrorism today according to Bill Ayers’s good friend and fellow Weather Underground member, who is also today’s MDS partner, Mark Rudd is explained on his website. It starts at the basics, elections and grass roots, to be working from inside the establishment, according to Thomas Ayers, and not fighting from the outside!
Basically, Ayers and Dohrn are the same, living the same past lives, but something expressed by Bill Ayers brother John about their father is revealing: With his sons deep in protest of the Vietnam War (one, Bill Ayers, was a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society who went underground for about 11 years) the businessman supported his children and their campaign. “Our father always stood by us,” John Ayers said. “He was an establishment guy, but he believed in us. He believed in change.”
———————————————-
So how powerful a man was Thomas Ayers? Well when Bernadine Dohrn was seeking her NY State law licence, two people wrote on Dohrn’s behalf to the Ethics Committee in her application. Her supporters included two powerful lawyers, Don H. Reuben (Sydley Austin), at one time the Chicago Tribune’s lawyer. The other supporter was a very well respected Federal Judge Harold Tylor!
How did she get into Sidley Austin Law Firm, where both Michelle and Barack Obama not coincidentally both worked? Howard Trienens, a partner at Sidley Austin since 1956, has been a member of the Northwestern University board of trustees since 1967 and chairman of the board from 1986 to 1995, replacing Thomas Ayers as Chairman (One more item: Ayers’ wife, fellow ex-terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, is a law-professor (without a licence to practice law) at Northwestern U since 1991. Maybe it’s just a coincidence, but Thomas Ayers served as the Chair of the Board of Trustees from 1975 to 1986 at the prestigious college. He was named a Life Trustee in 1987). He received two degrees from Northwestern, a bachelor’s degree in 1945 and a J.D. in 1949, and was editor in chief of the Illinois Law Review.
——————–
Equally important to Mr. Thomas Ayers was the educational and financial advancement of African-Americans.
“He felt the black community’s success was key to Chicago’s success,” son John Ayers said. “He pushed business people to be more open in the 1960s.” “In the ’60s and ’70s, we went through some rough patches in our family,” he said. “He was very sweet and supportive of us all. He used to say, ‘It takes all kinds’ to get the world moving forward.” John Ayers worked on School Reform in the 1980’s representing the powerful Commercial Club of Chicago Civics Commitee that was put in place in 1983 in part to provide business sector leadership in support of the reform of the Chicago Public School system and public school financing.
When William Ayers resurfaced in the 1980s, it was as though no time had passed between him and his father. “It was as if we were in the middle of a conversation and nothing much had changed,” William Ayers said. Probably because the communication was always there while in hiding!
While chairing the Northwestern University Board of Trustees, he helped start Chicago United in 1968 upon the request of Mayor Daley. Chicago United was dedicated to racial minority group access to jobs and education. In 1973, Chicago United joined with other civic organizations to create the Regional Transit Authority.
After the Board of Education’s financial collapse of 1979, Mayor Jane M. Byrne named Mr. Thomas Ayers as her choice for president of the new board.
In 1987, Mayor Harold Washington asked Chicago United (Thomas Ayers) to head a broad-based school reform coalition, one that lead directly to the landmark School Reform Act of 1988.
Active in the local control from below, on the “community” side of this effort was the University of Illinois, where Bill Ayers who had returned to Chicago in 1987 as an Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Illinois’ Chicago Circle campus. Another ally in this battle at the same time was Executive Director Barack Obama’s Developing Communities Project (DCP), as Obama notes briefly in his Dreams From My Father. The DCP had its origins in the “radical” movement started by Saul Alinsky.
A lengthy report done by Bill McKersie, published in 1992, on Philanthropy’s Paradox: Chicago School Reform (The Role of Chicago Foundations in Reform, 1987-1990) for the American Educational Research Association, exposes several things. McKersie wrote this having experience on the inside, having worked for the Joyce Foundation.
McKersie points out that the money funnelled to Community Activists was to represent parents and Community residents and that these Activists were pushing for a fast moving change agenda. The shift of Foundation money only occurred after the School Reform act was completed and sent for passage at the State level. Thus prior to late 1988, Foundation money was used and targeted to Activists to voice the peoples concerns to those involved in representing the Government (Thomas Ayers group) and the researchers and developers of the Reform Act (Bill Ayers group).
Two of the Foundations continually funded mainly Community Organizations, the Wieboldt and the Woods Fund. In 1987, the DCP, Obama’s group, was given in excess of $36,000/yr directly for School Reform work. What is important to note is that these two Foundations used Community Organizers to shape the agenda for School Reform for much larger Education funders, demanding also faster action to Reform. How does this happen? By being active with the Communities and those working for the Government and Institution researchers setting the agenda for School Reform!
But unfortunately, the Activist side of setting the agenda was squashed in late 1987, hmm-same time Obama decided to go to Harvard! It was in early 1988 that AT&T, Chicago Community Trust (Thomas Ayers), Joyce Foundation and McArthur Foundation came together and decided it was time to look at everything and actually do something concrete after linking up with the Community Renewal Society (Thomas Ayers), and the project came to fruition. Basically, it was the convergence of groups, the Activists (Obama et al) attempting to set an agenda without a plan and the Institutions able to forge a plan (Thomas/Bill/John Ayers et al). Basically, it is noted that the Foundations via the Activists attempted to have “Bought Reform.” But in the end, they didn’t: all they bought was moving certain ideas through discussions, but it took the Institutions to enact the final outcome and resolve. Sounds exactly like a POTUS campaign going on presently!
The reasoning for the Foundations funding of Activists was to make sure that multiple and diverse voices were heard! Obama was recruited by the Woods Fund to work the Afro-American community, the one community that they could not previously reach with their white Jewish Organizers, thus putting Obama front and center for the Black group of voices representing the DCP with all the powers to be, namely Thomas Ayers, since 1985 when the movement started on School Reform! Therefore, Slate is correct in stating Obama has more than 20 years experience in School Reform. Unfortunately, Obama’s work in School Reform has been a failure!
What this endeavour of School Reform also brought to Obama was not only his meeting Thomas Ayers, but also brought him closer to the powers to be at the Woods Foundation and other organizations such as the Joyce Foundation and ACORN, who endorses Obama, just to name a few.
When the ordeal was finally resolved, imagine who the head of the school reform coalition was, none other than Thomas Ayers son and Bill Ayers brother John Ayers! Coincidence?
So who brought Obama to Chicago? The DCP? Well, yes and no! The DCP brought him, but actually was funded by The Woods Fund Chicago!
——————————————
So what is the Woods Fund?
Frank Woods had a broad vision of philanthropy. Under his leadership, institutions like the Art Institute, which he chaired, were great beneficiaries. But he also gave grants to help equalize opportunities before the Civil Rights era and supported small community-based groups. He appeared to have valued risk taking in philanthropy, setting up fund at Chicago Community Trust (Thomas Ayers), whose purpose was to encourage “high risk grants.” He was known to be very open to community organizing and got involved early in its funding. Following Frank Woods’s death, George Kelm provided leadership. One critical leadership contribution of Mr. Kelm was hiring the Fund’s first full time staff director, Jean Rudd. She shaped the Director’s philanthropic visions into clear grant making guidelines, creating two major grant making programs – in community organizing and in public workforce development policy – that remain to this day. So you know, George Kelm was President and CEO and Chair of Sahara Enterprises and Sahara Coal Company, Illinois largest coal company, a main supplier to Con Ed (Thomas Ayers, David Axelrod and Obama’s vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill)!
The Woods Foundation has a lot bigger a role than expected!
The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago’s economically depressed South Side. Obama became friendly with Woods director Jean Rudd (why if he was working for the DCP? The School Reform Act of course), and after he graduated from Harvard Law School and moved back to Chicago (1991), Rudd asked him to join the board, which met four times a year to review grant proposals. (Obama also served on the board of the larger Joyce Foundation, which specialized in environmental conservation, welfare reform and education.) “Community organizing was a central priority of this foundation, so more and more we drew him in,” says Rudd, who retired in 2000. Obama and Ayers happened to not only fund Rezko on the board, but also Dohrn and Rev. Wright via the Gamaliel Foundation.
Note: Obama was on the Woods Fund board for at least 6 years before Ayers joined it! Also, the Joyce Foundation is an anti-gun foundation hidden under the guise of being an environmental Fund. How come Obama never mentions this Fund he was on? Maybe because the NRA calls the Joyce Foundation an activist foundation whose “shadowy web of huge donations” leads “straight to puppet strings that control the agenda of gun ban groups.”
What seems to be critical is why would Obama be known to a Foundation, when the money was a grant to the DCP? Following this logic of Jean Rudd being involved in where the Woods Fund money goes, then is Jean Rudd’s involved in the money the Woods gave to Rezko, Ayers, Klalhia, and other assorted people, as today she heads the oversight for all Chicago slum rehabilitations?
I found the old Woods Fund site (hidden not removed). Some links don’t work, but I find it interesting who they gave money to! And notice the dates: everything is deleted during Obama years. Wonder why?
Obama also tends not to mention another Foundation he was on in the 1980’s, the Gamaliel Foundation, which teaches the works and practices of Saul Alinsky to community organizers! The Gamaliel Foundation is a church based Foundation, supported by many of Tom Ayers Foundations and happens to be a part of the United Church of Christ. Rev. Wright ring a bell?
Shades of
Gray-White Guilt, Black Shame
Anti-Americanism
on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt. It stigmatizes
America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western
past so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin. .
. Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be
"good," in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in
relation to America. . . This formula is the most dependable source of power
for today's international left. Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism. And
it is all the more appealing since, unlike real virtues, it requires no
sacrifice or effort--only outrage at a very slight echo of the imperialist
past. . .
White
guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of
the past. In the abstract it seems a slight thing, almost irrelevant, an
unconvincing proposition. Yet a society as enormously powerful as America lacks
the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy and superbly educated minority
students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all
these things. Just can't do it.
Whether
the problem is race relations, education, immigration or war, white guilt
imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger
and deepen. Our leaders work within a double bind. If they do what is truly
necessary to solve a problem-- win a war, fix immigration--they lose legitimacy.
. .
Possibly
white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites—and nonwhites--to
appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even
elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation.
One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true.
There are
no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see
this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there
surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward
minorities.
This is a
fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so
that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its
most profound problems.
