 |
 |
Who can win like this?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Focus and solutions group:
http://www.thetruth247.com/ - be sure to watch the two videos!
Reported cases.
Most of these are not unique cases but rather are representative of much broader problems!
There are a great many more which I didn’t include regarding New Hampshire. Some
may conclude that only in New Hampshire was the problem bad but I would like to
point out that New Hampshire is one of the few left that where a paper trail is afforded
those who seek to verify the vote count - almost all other states are 100% digital. So in
reality they got busted the most there because it is there that they are the most bustable.
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
You've broken rule 8. You've given links with no guidance on what you wish us to discuss.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks 
You've broken rule 8. You've given links with no guidance on what you wish us to discuss.
I thought it was obvious. There seems to be very wide spread election and voter fraud being
perpetrated on the people of the United States. There's of course no way for ME to direct which
direction the discussion moves in. I've posted similar to this at other US Political sites and
some say Civil War NOW while other's say it's another loon conspiracy theory. One even said
that this kind of fraud is needed to keep americans from hurting themselves - LOL - and they
were actually serious.
So, I have no way or will to direct it. Watch the vids - listen to the testimonies - decide if it
is or isn't election fraud and take action or not. You don't need me for that.
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 11, 2008 at 01:51 PM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Youtube is not credible. Anyone can string a few clips together, and because people would have to pause the video and transcribe it in order to check the sources, nobody bothers to do it. Also, I'd be surprised if even one person bothered to sit through any of those videos all the way through.
Just use text. If your new-found message doesn't have a text-format source, that should tell you not to trust it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yea, voter fraud happens, but do you think I'm going to go watch 200 youtube videos on the subject?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hope Romney still has the receipt for the election he bought....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
You've broken rule 8. You've given links with no guidance on what you wish us to discuss.
It's pretty obvious to me, even if I didn't agree with what he's posting. It's called election fraud.
|
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Landlockinated
Status:
Offline
|
|
Election fraud happens, we all know it is true. But the system is the system we have.
Question is, where is the OP's axe being grinded? Seems like every clip has something to do with Romney (who is out of it) and Paul (who is not a contender.)
|
|
[ sig removed - image host changed it to a big ad picture ]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by davesimondotcom
Election fraud happens, we all know it is true. But the system is the system we have.
Question is, where is the OP's axe being grinded? Seems like every clip has something
to do with Romney (who is out of it) and Paul (who is not a contender.)
My axe? I'm squarely against voter and election fraud! That's my axe! I think the FEW
candidates that are not CFR members and therefore not in on the fraud as either fake
runners or coconspirators are the ones willing and wanting to speak up on the issue.
So that's Ron Paul and Dennis K.
I think it's interesting that Obama got Zero votes in many parts of Harlem N.Y. LOL
Baahahahaa and has had many many other anomalies all along the way but says
nothing. The same deal with Gore in 2000. No one could figure out why he wanted
to drop it so bad. Or Bush's good Skull and Bones buddy J. Kerry in 2004. It's pretty
sick just how deep the corruption is and just what a sham and the election processes
has become. As I see it it's nothing more than a public muse to keep people's focus
away from any meaningful issues.
People the closest to the monitoring and overseeing of both polling and recounting
have called the process "a criminal enterprise" and "nationwide syndicated vote fraud
network" among other things.
If enough people or the right people make enough noise something CAN be done
about it! We do NOT have to live with it or accept it as "just the way it is" as you
imply. This kind of defeatism is exactly how it got this bad in the first place. There
still are many honest people in the process and if they can be made to understand
what is happening, how bad it is, and taught to circumvent it then there is a chance.
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Youtube is not credible. Anyone can string a few clips together, and because people
would have to pause the video and transcribe it in order to check the sources, nobody
bothers to do it. Also, I'd be surprised if even one person bothered to sit through any
of those videos all the way through.
Just use text. If your new-found message doesn't have a text-format source, that
should tell you not to trust it.
That's an insane assertion. You're saying all people are liars. And FYI I am someone who
does pause, scribble notes, and goes research stuff. I spend about 10 solid hours a day
doing research and 4 or 5 hours a day listening and reading opinion and speculation.
I have been doing this for about a year now. Wanna count the hours with me?
One! Ah-ahahaha... On fabulous hour!
Two! Muahahaaa Two wonderful hours!
...
...
...
3021 dreadfully terrific hours! Ah-ah-ah-ah-aaa
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Tesselator
If enough people or the right people make enough noise something CAN be done
about it! We do NOT have to live with it or accept it as "just the way it is" as you
imply. This kind of defeatism is exactly how it got this bad in the first place. There
still are many honest people in the process and if they can be made to understand
what is happening, how bad it is, and taught to circumvent it then there is a chance.
Who are the right people? You? And then what, then we're under a different thumb but we're still under someone's thumb...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Tesselator
That's an insane assertion. You're saying all people are liars.
No. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Ever hear that expression in all your reading? Have you ever heard of the "word" "sheeple?" 
I spend about 10 solid hours a day
doing research and 4 or 5 hours a day listening and reading opinion and speculation.
I have been doing this for about a year now. Wanna count the hours with me?
 I'm not going to waste my time just because you wasted yours! Did you find any text sources during those hours? No? I'm not buying it.
One! Ah-ahahaha... On fabulous hour!
Two! Muahahaaa Two wonderful hours!
...
...
...
3021 dreadfully terrific hours! Ah-ah-ah-ah-aaa
You are so abe
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Who are the right people? You? And then what, then we're under a different thumb but we're still under someone's thumb...
Why are you just being an a$$ about it? Nothing constructive to say?
The "right people" would maybe be a group of election officials forming a
a committee, going public, and demanding investigation. There are lots
of other "right people" around if they can organize something CAN be done
about it. I don't accept your defeatism tho. People like you or who wander
off to commit suicide are sad sure, but more meaningless than anything else.
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Did you find any text sources during those hours? No? I'm not buying it.
Text sources? Yes, thousands and thousands! There are currently 5 investigations
and 12 law suits on the books that I have been able find. There are several members
of congress including Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul who are now directing a heck of
allot of effort into uncovering this criminal syndicated fraud network. Why not do some
homework on your own instead of just sitting there like a goof and taking cheap shots
at people trying to raise the awareness levels? Oh, that's right... you're a suicidal defeatist. 
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 21, 2008 at 05:12 AM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Tesselator
Why are you just being an a$$ about it? Nothing constructive to say?
The "right people" would maybe be a group of election officials forming a
a committee, going public, and demanding investigation. There are lots
of other "right people" around if they can organize something CAN be done
about it. I don't accept your defeatism tho. People like you or who wander
off to commit suicide are sad sure, but more meaningless than anything else.
You're the one being negative! Your claim is that the current system is broken, that's negative. That's you taking shots at the current system. People organizing to criticize and dismantle the current system are negative. The hard part isn't finding fault, the hard part is replacing the broken bits yourself with bits that aren't broken. No system is perfect, so just the fact that you managed to find fault with the current system says nothing to whether your solution (if you even have one or had thought ahead enough to know you should have one) would be any better. I have no interest in replacing the current system unless the replacement can be shown to be better. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility; the effort spent replacing like with like could be better spent on plugging along with the current system.
Text sources? Yes, thousands and thousands!
Show us then. I guess you're not getting it, what I'm saying is no one wants to watch your Youtube videos. The information content is lower than text, the effort and time it takes for the viewer is higher than text, you can't watch them discreetly at work, they're not searchable, copyable or printable, and personally my machine isn't fast enough to play them if I wanted to. It just sucks. I'm not going to go way out of my way to watch those, and I would be extremely surprised if anyone else would either, and as such I have no idea what you think your point is. So tell it.
Why not do some
homework on your own instead of just sitting there
Why not present your argument normally instead of obfuscating it by making someone sit through a video? Why not present your argument yourself instead of telling your audience to do your arguing for you and convince themselves? How would they even know what to look for? They don't want to go out and find a source, analyze it, and rebut it, only then to wait for you to turn around and say that's not the one you were referring to. This is your case, you make it. But not with video, that's just not a viable medium.
(
Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Feb 21, 2008 at 01:16 PM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Dork.
I hope Romney still has the receipt for the election he bought....
He should. I think it is a tax write off.
|
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
You're the one being negative! Your claim is that the current system is broken, that's negative. That's you taking shots at the current system. People organizing to criticize and dismantle the current system are negative. The hard part isn't finding fault, the hard part is replacing the broken bits yourself with bits that aren't broken. No system is perfect, so just the fact that you managed to find fault with the current system says nothing to whether your solution (if you even have one or had thought ahead enough to know you should have one) would be any better. I have no interest in replacing the current system unless the replacement can be shown to be better. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility; the effort spent replacing like with like could be better spent on plugging along with the current system.
I'm not really saying the current one is broken. I'm suggesting the old one (form 1900 and on) has
been infiltrated and is currently executing a communistic totalitarian agenda.
NORTHCOM: NAU Martial Law Appartus By 2020
Red Alert, FEMA camps and Martial Law
Foundations are in place for martial law in the US - smh.com.au
What Your Textbooks Won't Tell You About the Cold War
Chapter Seven - An Enemy Is Welcomed
Marxism in the United States (review)
American Socialsim
Communism & NWO: Wall Street's Utopian Hoax
U.S. Northern Command News
etc.
That all the front runners are in on it in one way or another.
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS: Mitt Romney's communist connection
Hillary Clinton�s Global Agenda
Hillary Clinton and socialism's "common good" path to communism in America
Reading Hillary Clinton's hidden thesis - Hillary Clinton News - MSNBC.com
[LibertarianExchange] Barack Obama - a Democratic communist
NewsByUs: Obama's Communist Mentor by Cliff Kincaid - Feb 19, 08
McCain aide linked to Russian billionaire
Aide Helped Controversial Russian Meet McCain - washingtonpost.com
Kerry and McCain Shield Communist Vietnam's Slaughter of Christians
etc.
And that if we don't restore our constitutional government pretty quick we're all going
to be in pretty big trouble.
San Francisco Chronicle Acknowledges ENDGAME By Homeland Security
Rule by fear or rule by law?
I'm not saying to dismantle anything but rather restore what we had. One of the
most important elements necessary for any kind of restoration is getting the
crooks out of our voting booths. It's heavily heavily under criminal control and
that needs to be made known to everyone imo.
Our constitution ROCKS!
But in yesterday's news (which I knew specifics on in 2003 FIVE YEARS AGO!) Constitutionalists
(as were gun owners) were named as being one of the groups that should "rounded up" and
imprisoned.
No system is perfect but when you do your own research the USA has the worst human rights
record on the planet. We have a corporate controlled media that lies about just about everything
and has the Orwellian double-speak and double-think down pat! War is peace. Elections work,
Fox is fair and balanced. We must save THEM from communism (when WE are the communists).
We must save THEM from evil dictations when WE are the ones who put them in power. And no
Americans do their own research on these issues. The one's that do are called "Conspiracy Nuts"
and disregarded out of hand. Of course a few of them ARE nuts... Green lizard spirits controlling
world leaders?  Hello??? And all manner of paranoid dimwits just grabbing at straws... Or
are some or most of these disinformationists? <shrug> But most form a healthy body of very
credible journalists, investigative reporters and whistle-blowers from VERY high positions in
various security agencies and etc. and we just pass them off as part of the nut-base.
Very irresponsible!
Show us then. I guess you're not getting it, what I'm saying is no one wants to watch your Youtube videos. The information content is lower than text, the effort and time it takes for the viewer is higher than text, you can't watch them discreetly at work, they're not searchable, copyable or printable, and personally my machine isn't fast enough to play them if I wanted to. It just sucks. I'm not going to go way out of my way to watch those, and I would be extremely surprised if anyone else would either, and as such I have no idea what you think your point is. So tell it.
Well I did some above. But I believe the people that haven't already done this on their own
are probably lost and without hope. When I say there are thousands of sources that's a very
VERY modest figure. How could anyone in the past 2 or 3 years read anything political AND
honest and not be lead directly into what's been going on in the USA - the New World Order,
and Marxism (leninism/fabianism), etc. unless they were either a collectivist themselves or
to scared to look at it for what it was. So I'm not sure how I could make my points any clearer.
The people who know what's going on know and the folks sitting around making pot-shots
have their underlying reasons.
Why not present your argument normally instead of obfuscating it by making someone sit through a video? Why not present your argument yourself instead of telling your audience to do your arguing for you and convince themselves? How would they even know what to look for? They don't want to go out and find a source, analyze it, and rebut it, only then to wait for you to turn around and say that's not the one you were referring to. This is your case, you make it. But not with video, that's just not a viable medium.
Why? Well I figure the only people not already aware of these conditions that might be
willing to listen or wanting to find out are those who either can't read well or that hate
reading. Videos take care of that and at the same time offer some proof as to who is
actually saying what.
When one sees a video of Dick Cheney admitting he was the chairman of the CFR and is
still a member. When you see a video of the document that states such a membership
is High Treason... When you see a documentary that shows the CFR is a communistic
oligarchy over the US federal government and the United Nation and the western world
banks... Well, the conclusion the person will draw based on these truths is obvious. So
those are the reasons for the videos. Proof of who is saying what for the simple minded
and those too lazy or not liking to read. 95% of those who like to read already know
this stuff and are of a similar opinion as to what is going on. The other 5% probably
know it but think Marxism, torture, unlawful unjust wars, and US sponsored terrorism
are good things.
Most of the videos I linked to here in this thread are about the corporate controlled
media element, them constantly saying the exact opposite of the actual truth, and the
individual experiences of people who were ripped off or otherwise disenfranchised at
the polls.
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Tesselator
I'm not really saying the current one is broken. I'm suggesting the old one (form 1900 and on) has
been infiltrated and is currently executing a communistic totalitarian agenda.
You're mistaken. This change happened with FDR, his stacking the deck in the Supreme Court, and the New Deal.
And that if we don't restore our constitutional government pretty quick we're all going
to be in pretty big trouble.
Actually, this old Constitution can take a large amount of abuse, and she just keeps bouncing back.
I don't suggest that it's appropriate to try and find out how much abuse she can take, but it withstands a surprising amount. Whether it's atrocious decisions by a Supreme Court in error, or Senators violating their oaths of office by writing and passing legislation that is in direct violation of the Constitution, these things tend to find ways to get reversed. It just takes longer than you or I might wish.
I'm not saying to dismantle anything but rather restore what we had. One of the
most important elements necessary for any kind of restoration is getting the
crooks out of our voting booths. It's heavily heavily under criminal control and
that needs to be made known to everyone imo.
I don't mind the crooks in the voting booths, I object to the crooks that count the ballots.
It does.
But you don't get to pick and choose the parts you don't like. You have to accept every article, section, and ratified amendment as it is. No penumbras, no re-interpretations in light of the context of our times. It means what it says, and if people don't like it, they need to put up a new amendment to modify it. If that burden is heavy, too bad.
When thinking about the unconstitutional acts and spending that Congress engages in, I reflect: If the 18th amendment was necessary to ban alcohol (and it was, or no one would have gone to the trouble for a constitutional amendment of what is clearly a state issue under the 9th amendment) and a 21st amendment was necessary to repeal it - then why is there no amendment to cover the prohibited substances that DEA fights against?
But in yesterday's news (which I knew specifics on in 2003 FIVE YEARS AGO!) Constitutionalists
(as were gun owners) were named as being one of the groups that should "rounded up" and
imprisoned.
Incorrect. This is an exaggeration based on a tri-fold photocopied flyer made by one FBI field agent in Arizona. The field office said clearly and plainly that they have nothing against anyone who believes in the US Constitution.
The flyer was made in 1999, and came to the attention of the internet in 2001.
Politech: FBI flyer links defenders of Constitution with terrorists
No system is perfect but when you do your own research the USA has the worst human rights
record on the planet.
False. When you do the research, you find that the USA is reasonably good.
However, the human rights watchdog groups love to pick on it for a few reasons:
(a) it's a big target, which attracts a lot of attention.
(b) they think they can influence the big target because it's easier to embarrass, than say, Iran, where when Ahmadinejad says 'there are no gays in Iran, and if there are, please tell me (so that I might have them killed)' the human rights groups know they will have little success.
Among the many countries of the world, the USA has a very good human rights record.
We have a corporate controlled media
Well, shoot. It's that darned freedom of the press. Heaven forbid that a corporation own some media. My lord, it is talk like you're making that makes you sound like a socialist.
Capitalism is simply me wanting something more than the money I have, and if you have that something and want the money more than you want to keep possession of the something, we come to an agreement on a sale.
Corporation owned media is just fine. In fact, there's nothing wrong with corporations if you're a capitalist, because corporations are simply people banding together to earn more money together than they could separately. It potentially increases everyone's standard of living.
Every corporation started out as a small business. If you want to limit small businesses from becoming larger corporations then you're going to end up telling them "I'm sorry, but you can only be -this- successful, stop working so hard -now-.' --- where's the freedom in that?
that lies about just about everything
Freedom of speech is so pesky to you, isn't it?
and has the Orwellian double-speak and double-think down pat! War is peace. Elections work,
Fox is fair and balanced. We must save THEM from communism (when WE are the communists).
We must save THEM from evil dictations when WE are the ones who put them in power. And no
Americans do their own research on these issues. The one's that do are called "Conspiracy Nuts"
Alex Jones, who you cite from time to time, latches on to every single conspiracy he can.
I think it was you in another thread who mentioned that there was Jewish mob involvement in the JFK murder, but the JFK conspiracy theorists all collectively ignored it. (Which is pretty unlikely. Those guys will bring up everything, no matter how far-fetched.)
The people who know what's going on know and the folks sitting around making pot-shots
have their underlying reasons.
Let me restate that how I interpret it:
"Anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant or is trying to undermine me because they are part of a conspiracy."
Which is pretty silly - under that sort of rule, I can't join the discussion because you've already assumed that I'm either ignorant or conspiring against you.
Why? Well I figure the only people not already aware of these conditions that might be
willing to listen or wanting to find out are those who either can't read well or that hate
reading.
Again with the presumption of ignorance or illiteracy.
Videos take care of that and at the same time offer some proof as to who is
actually saying what.
cite original broadcasts and air dates so that it can be verified.
When one sees a video of Dick Cheney admitting he was the chairman of the CFR and is
still a member. When you see a video of the document that states such a membership
is High Treason..
Tell us why it's high treason?
High treason is Adam Gadhan, who left the US to join Al-Qaeda and make war against the US.
Treason is defined in the Constitution, Article III Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
So, why is the CFR an enemy of the US? Is it trying to replace the Constitution with some other document? Is the CFR declaring war on the US?
When you see a documentary that shows the CFR is a communistic
oligarchy over the US federal government and the United Nation and the western world
banks... Well, the conclusion the person will draw based on these truths is obvious. So
those are the reasons for the videos. Proof of who is saying what for the simple minded
and those too lazy or not liking to read. 95% of those who like to read already know
this stuff and are of a similar opinion as to what is going on. The other 5% probably
know it but think Marxism, torture, unlawful unjust wars, and US sponsored terrorism
are good things.
Again with the "everyone who sees it agrees with me, or is a bad person and likes evil things." Come off it. Essentially, you leave no room for disagreement, debate, or any position other than your own.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
You're mistaken. This change happened with FDR, his stacking the deck in the
Supreme Court, and the New Deal.
Not mistaken. And of course I know about the new deal. Really, I am studied
on the topic guys, I'm not a dumb-s***. I'm saying that whole thing including
the depression itself was engineered! Don't believe silly American text books
and do your own research. The international Bankers with help from inside the
federal government redistributed american wealth (the depression) monopolized
the banking system, began the change over to communism (the new deal, big
government, etc.), and turned us into a tool for world domination. Hitler himself
and the associated eugenics programs was our baby! The real criminals of WWII
(besides Wilson and FDR themselves I mean):
- Eastman Kodak Company (USA)
- Ford Motor Company (USA)
- IBM (International Business Machines) (USA)
- J. P. Morgan Chase & Company (USA)
- Eastman Kodak Company (USA)
- Exxon Mobil Corporation (USA)
- General Motors Corporation (USA)
- American Express (USA)
- Bank of the City of New York (Bank of New York) (USA)
- Chase Manhattan (J.P. Morgan Chase & Company) (USA)
- Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (acquired by J.P. Morgan & Co.) (J.P. Morgan Chase & Company) (USA)
- Bank of New York Company, Inc. (USA)
- American International Group (USA)
- IG Farben (Aventis, BASF Aktiengesellschaft, and Bayer AG) (Germany) Mentioned
because I believe it was part of the Operation PaperClip acquisition. These were
the worst corporations of all! And the officials and scientists went from German
concentration camp famed horror directly into key positions in the US federal
government including in the dept. of education, social services, and like JPL/NASA
- Barclays PLC (UK)
- Lloyds TSB Group PLC (UK)
- J.P. Morgan et Cie (France)
- Rothschild Frères (France)
- General Motors Corporation (USA)
3/4 of these US companies also are among a growing number of American
multinationals that say they have found evidence that their subsidiaries
abroad used forced labor during those years.
Sources: - The American Jewish Committee
- New York Times
- Institute for Historical Review
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency
- Mark Fritz - Los Angeles Times
- U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
- Corporate Watch UK
- Harvard Business School - Business History Review
- BBC News | Business | Bertelsmann admits Nazi past
- BBC News | Business | IG Farben to be dissolved
- BBC News | Europe | Nazi slave cash dismissed as 'gesture'
- BBC News | Europe | Fund for Nazi slave labourers
- BBC News | Europe | German Bayer company Nazi lawsuit
- Nazi Chemical Giant | Business & Economics | Deutsche Welle
- Company profile - Bayer AG
- Banks and Jewish Souls - Gregg J. Rickman, ISBN: 1560004266
- From Cooperation to Complicity: the Third Reich - Peter Hayes, Cambridge
University Press, ISBN: 0521782279
- Daimler-Benz in the Third Reich - Neil Gregor - 1998, Yale University Press
ISBN: 0300072430
- The Nazi Dictatorship and the Deutsche Bank - Harold James - 2004, Cambridge
University Press, ISBN: 0521838746
- The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi Economic War Against the Jews: The
Expropriation of Jewish-Owned Property - Harold James - 2001, Cambridge
University Press, ISBN: 0521803292
- TRADING WITH THE ENEMY: Holocaust Restitution, The United States Government,
and American Industry by Michael Bazyler & Amber Fitzgerald, June 24, 2003
- Henry Ford And The Jews: The Mass Production of Hate - Neil Baldwin - 2002,
Perseus Books Group, ISBN: 1586481630
- Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power, 1919-1933
- James E. Pool - 1997, Pocket, ISBN: 0671760831 - Dial Press ISBN: 0803790392
- The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third
Reich - Max Wallace - 2004, St. Martin's Press, ISBN: 0312335318
- The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich
and Jewish Palestine - Edwin Black - 2001, Carrol & Graf, ISBN: 0786708417
- Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust ["Henry Ford:
From Slaughterhouse to Death Camp"]- Charles Patterson - 2002, Rudolph Steiner
Press, ISBN: 1930051999
- Flivver King: A Story of Ford-America - Upton Sinclair - 1984, Charles H. Kerr
Pub. Co., ISBN: 0882860542
- General Motors and the Nazis - Henry Ashby Turner Jr. ISBN: 0300106343
- Chicago Tribune, April 30, 2000
- Michael Dobbs - Washington Post Staff Writer
- IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and
America's Most Powerful Corporation - Edwin Black - 2002, Random House, Inc.,
ISBN: 0609808990
- BBC News | Europe | Swiss bank exploited Nazi slaves
- The Avalon Project at Yale Law School (online) Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol.6
THE FORTY-FOURTH DAY Monday, 28 January 1946 - Hollerith (IBM)
- "Counted for Persecution; IBM's Role in the Holocaust" - Merry Madway Eisenstadt
- IBM 'dealt directly with Holocaust organisers' - Oliver Burkeman, New York,
Friday March 29, 2002, The Guardian
- BBC News | Americas | German firms face slave labour case
- BBC News | UK | Holocaust victims win battle for lost property
- The Secret (Insurance) Agent Men - Mark Fritz - Los Angeles Times, September
22, 2000
- American Academy of Actuaries
- The Association of Jewish Refugees
- BBC News | Europe | Swiss come clean on Nazi dealings
- Sir Henri Deterding and Royal Dutch-Shell: Changing Control of World Oil,
1900-1940 - Paul Hendrix - 2002, Bristol Academic Press, ISBN: 0951376284
- The Arms of Krupp: The Rise and Fall of the Industrial Dynasty that Armed
Germany at War - William Manchester - 2003, Little Brown & Co., ISBN:
0316529400
- The House of Krupp: The Steel Dynasty That Armed the Nazis - Peter Batty
2002, National Book Network, ISBN: 0815411553
- FBI - Freedom of Information Act - Henry Ford
- Holocaust Issues - Department of State - United States of America
- U.S. National Archives - Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act
- U.S. National Archives & Records Administration - Holocaust-Era Assets Records,
Research, and Restitution
- CANDLES Holocaust Museum and Education Center - Home
- Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies : University of Minnesota
- College of the Holy Cross | Francis and Jacob Hiatt Collection of Holocaust Materials
- I CARE - Crosspoint Anti Racism
- D�W - Dokumentationsarchiv des �sterreichischen Widerstandes
- The El Paso Holocaust Museum - Home
- Fritz Bauer Institut - Home
- Links
- Holocaust, Genocide, and Human Rights
- Home
- The Holocaust History Project Homepage
- Meyer's Holocaust Links
- There are over 100 more I have here in front of me (well, actually in my
garage!) that confirm and reconfirm my assertions!
Actually, this old Constitution can take a large amount of abuse, and she just keeps bouncing back.
No, not really. it's disappearing little by little and has been since 1900.
I don't suggest that it's appropriate to try and find out how much abuse
she can take, but it withstands a surprising amount. Whether it's atrocious
decisions by a Supreme Court in error, or Senators violating their oaths of
office by writing and passing legislation that is in direct violation of the
Constitution, these things tend to find ways to get reversed. It just takes
longer than you or I might wish.
The NAU will finish her off for good.
I don't mind the crooks in the voting booths, I object to the crooks that count
the ballots.
LOL! Agree. (but you really didn't know that's what I meant?)
But you don't get to pick and choose the parts you don't like. You have to
accept every article, section, and ratified amendment as it is. No penumbras,
no re-interpretations in light of the context of our times. It means what it says,
and if people don't like it, they need to put up a new amendment to modify it.
If that burden is heavy, too bad.
Of course.
When thinking about the unconstitutional acts and spending that Congress engages in,
I reflect: If the 18th amendment was necessary to ban alcohol (and it was, or no one
would have gone to the trouble for a constitutional amendment of what is clearly a
state issue under the 9th amendment) and a 21st amendment was necessary to r
epeal it - then why is there no amendment to cover the prohibited substances
that DEA fights against?
Indeed.
Incorrect. This is an exaggeration based on a tri-fold photocopied flyer
made by one FBI field agent in Arizona. The field office said clearly and plainly that
they have nothing against anyone who believes in the US Constitution.
Maybe that's what the field office "said" the lying bags of s.... but that's NOT what
the literature says! Training manuals and operational directives specifically say to
look for and target pocket constitutions, hanging copies of the constitution, and
other related items.
False. When you do the research, you find that the USA is reasonably good.
However, the human rights watchdog groups love to pick on it for a few reasons:- it's a big target, which attracts a lot of attention.
- they think they can influence the big target because it's easier to embarrass,
than say, Iran, where when Ahmadinejad says 'there are no gays in Iran, and if
there are, please tell me (so that I might have them killed)' the human rights
groups know they will have little success.
All wrong. Again with the media doped spin. Really, you do the research like I did
and then come talk to me. We've murdered over a billion people on the planet just
in the last 200 years. Our war crimes count is higher than any nation on the planet.
Ethnic cleansing, biological warfare, Nuclear weapons usage, chemical warfare. The
list goes on and on and when we don't do it directly we set others up as a puppet
nation and have them do it for us. YOR'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! 
Among the many countries of the world, the USA has a very good human rights record.
That's what Americans are told. It couldn't be further from the truth in reality though!
Well, shoot. It's that darned freedom of the press. Heaven forbid that a corporation own some media.
My lord, it is talk like you're making that makes you sound like a socialist.
Uh, no... It's called a monopoly. Really where do you get you info? The UN comic book
propaganda distributions?
Every corporation started out as a small business. If you want to limit small businesses from
becoming larger corporations then you're going to end up telling them "I'm sorry, but you can
only be -this- successful, stop working so hard -now-.' --- where's the freedom in that?
That remark is a bit uneducated or at least not very thoughtful. We're talking about
corporate monopolies, corporate welfare, corporate fascism, and the military industrial
complex... NOT StarBucks. :-/ Grrrr... All those things as they exist in the USA are a
result big government and the perverse transformation it's undergone in the last 100
years.
Freedom of speech is so pesky to you, isn't it?
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, legalities or illegalities of any kind. Why are
you even typing this if you don't intend to think first? It's kind of a waste of time.
Alex Jones, who you cite from time to time, latches on to every single conspiracy he can.
Show me where I ever cited Alex Jones please.
I think it was you in another thread who mentioned that there was Jewish mob involvement
in the JFK murder, but the JFK conspiracy theorists all collectively ignored it. (Which is
pretty unlikely. Those guys will bring up everything, no matter how far-fetched.)
Again dead wrong. I would never say such a stupid thing and I doubt Alex Jones
would either - in fact I know he wouldn't. So please show me where Alex or I ever
said anything like that - ever. Alex always does his research in depth! He often
comes to much more extreme conclusions than I do and I think he misinterprets
some things but his "data" is 99% of the time right on. You just wanna build up
to the point where you can yell "conspiracy nut" instead of having to take an honest
look at your country and admit that you're been a sucker all your life. That's human
but it's not very intellectually honest!
So, why is the CFR an enemy of the US? Is it trying to replace the Constitution
with some other document? Is the CFR declaring war on the US?
Yes. And Yes.
Again with the "everyone who sees it agrees with me, or is a bad person and likes
evil things." Come off it. Essentially, you leave no room for disagreement, debate,
or any position other than your own.
Yeah, you're probably right on that. I should word it differently from now on.
Preemptively calling people ignorant or evil can be fun but it really IS bad
form as you say.
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 24, 2008 at 04:36 PM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
You cited Alex Jones in your first post in this thread.
"New Hamshire:
YouTube - Alex Jones 1-9-08 1of14 The fraud revealed."
You pushed the JFK conspiracy bits in the McCain thread where you were talking about the Jewish mobsters being the criminal links behind McCain.
You wrote:
"One particularly famous Texas-based mob functionary, nightclub keeper Jack Ruby, for example, is known to have actually been a lieutenant of the Bronfman family (a point that has often been lost or suppressed in the legends surrounding Ruby’s ties to organized crime). And it is known—although again not mentioned by most JFK assassination “researchers”— that Ruby was a key player in a Texas-based network smuggling arms (stolen from U.S. military installations) to Israel, the Bronfman empire’s favorite foreign nation.
Aside from that historical digression, the fact (relevant to our review of John McCain) is that McCain’s home state of Arizona has long been under Bronfman control. "
in this post here: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3594317
Here in your latest post, http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...s/#post3609197 , you're citing the Institute for Historical Review, which is a Holocaust Revisionists site. But hey, if you want to link to guys that say killing Jews wasn't that bad, don't blame me when it damages your credibility.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
You cited Alex Jones in your first post in this thread.
"New Hamshire:
YouTube - Alex Jones 1-9-08 1of14 The fraud revealed."
EDIT: after actually looking at that link you will find that is a document written
by Joseph Watson. Alex Jones is only in the title of the video. Kind of poor
detective work on your part.
.................................................. ....................... and that was part of a huge
body of links wasn't it? I don't usually "cite" Mr. Jones. I use him occasionally
for the source materials he references but I almost always just use the source
materials themselves directly. Like I say Alex's conclusions are sometimes a
little bit too extreme. If you listen to him he's 100% SURE that there's a PLAN to
kill and torture mass numbers of American citizens. If you look at the data there
definitely IS that potential but I kinda doubt it's part of any plan. The potential
itself is bad enough imo to shut it down and impeach or fire anyone involved!
You pushed the JFK conspiracy bits in the McCain thread where you were talking
about the Jewish mobsters being the criminal links behind McCain.
You wrote:
"One particularly famous Texas-based mob functionary, nightclub keeper Jack Ruby,
for example, is known to have actually been a lieutenant of the Bronfman family (a
point that has often been lost or suppressed in the legends surrounding Ruby’s ties
to organized crime). And it is known—although again not mentioned by most JFK
assassination “researchers”— that Ruby was a key player in a Texas-based network
smuggling arms (stolen from U.S. military installations) to Israel, the Bronfman empire’s
favorite foreign nation.
Aside from that historical digression, the fact (relevant to our review of John McCain)
is that McCain’s home state of Arizona has long been under Bronfman control. "
in this post here: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post3594317
Yeah that's quoted text from another site and was pasted here only to show some
of the dirt or potential dirt on McCain. What Ruby had to do with JFK I'm not sure
but I AM sure that the fact he was jewish had nothing to do with it. So that's a
conclusion that is kind of silly really - at least by the way I think. A man is judged
by his actions not his ethnicity or his religious affiliations.
Here in your latest post, http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...s/#post3609197 ,
you're citing the Institute for Historical Review, which is a Holocaust Revisionists site.
But hey, if you want to link to guys that say killing Jews wasn't that bad, don't blame
me when it damages your credibility.
They say that??? Wow! Where do they say that and what can you point to that shows
them as being "Holocaust Revisionists"? Also though I recommend being a little careful
with that term! All history is subject to revision as new evidence is uncovered, referenced,
and verified. That's as it should be! No historical event is frozen in time - that would be
intellectually very dishonest.
Finally, it's absolute common sense that all deaths, any deaths, of any persons, from any
ethnic descent is "bad" if it's not directly out of on the spot self defense or something.
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 25, 2008 at 01:16 PM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Even though the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were established by many of the same people, the two documents were very different. The original five-paged Articles contained thirteen articles, a conclusion, and a signatory section. The following list contains short summaries of each of the thirteen articles.
1. Establishes the name of the confederation as "The United States of America."
2. Asserts the precedence of the separate states over the confederation government, i.e. "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated."
3. Establishes the United States as a league of states united ". . . for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them . . . ."
4. Establishes freedom of movement–anyone can pass freely between states, excluding "paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice." All people are entitled to the rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited to and tried in the state in which the crime was committe d.
5. Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (United States in Congress Assembled) to each state, which was entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members. Members of Congress were appointed by state legislatures; individuals could not serve more than three out of any six years.
6. Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign relations and to declare war. No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress (although the state militias are encouraged).
7. When an army is raised for common defense, colonels and military ranks below colonel will be named by the state legislatures.
8. Expenditures by the United States will be paid by funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states based on the real property values of each.
9. Defines the powers of the central government: to declare war, to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states.
10. Defines a Committee of the States to be a government when Congress is not in session.
11. Requires nine states to approve the admission of a new state into the confederacy; pre-approves Canada, if it applies for membership.
12. Reaffirms that the Confederation accepts war debt incurred by Congress before the Articles.
13. Declares that the Articles are perpetual, and can only be altered by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures.
Still at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain, the colonists were reluctant to establish another powerful national government. Jealously guarding their new independence, members of the Continental Congress created a loosely-structured unicameral legislature that protected the liberty of the individual states at the expense of the confederation. While calling on Congress to regulate military and monetary affairs, for example, the Articles of Confederation provided no mechanism to ensure states complied with requests for troops or revenue. At times, this left the military in a precarious position, as George Washington wrote in a 1781 letter to the governor of Massachusetts, John Hancock.
[edit] The end of the war
The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representatives failed to attend sessions of the national legislature. Yet Congress had no power to enforce attendance. Writing to George Clinton in September 1783, George Washington complained:
Congress have come to no determination yet respecting the Peace Establishment nor am I able to say when they will. I have lately had a conference with a Committee on this subject, and have reiterated my former opinions, but it appears to me that there is not a sufficient representation to discuss Great National points.[3]
[edit] Function
The Articles supported the Congressional direction of the Continental Army, and allowed the 13 states to present a unified front when dealing with the European powers. But as a tool to build a cen tralized war-making government, they were largely a failure. Under the articles; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. There was a requirement for unanimous approval befo re any modifications could be made to the Articles. Because the majority of lawmaking rested with the states, the central government was also very weak.[citation needed] Major laws also required approvals from nine of the thirteen states as well.[citation needed]
Congress was denied the power of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving the confederation chronically short of funds. Congress was also denied the power to regulate commerce trade, and as result, the states fought over trade as well.[citation needed] The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and how to pay the debt s became a major issue. Some states paid off their debts; however, the centralizers favored federal assumption of states' debts.
Nevertheless, the Congress of the Confederation did take two actions with lasting impact. The Land Ordinance of 1785 established the general land survey and ownership provisions used throughout later American expansion. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 noted the agreement of the original states to give up western land claims and cleared the way for the entry of new states.
Once the war was won, the Continental Army was largely disbanded. A very small national force was maintained to man frontier forts and protect against Indian attacks. Meanwhile, each of the states had an army (or militia), and 11 of them had navies. The wartime promises of bounties and land grants to be paid for service were not being met. In 1783, Washington defused the Newburgh conspiracy, but riots by unpaid Pennsylvania veterans forced the Congress to leave Philadelphia temporarily.[4]
[edit] Signatures
The Second Continental Congress approved the Articles for distribution to the states on November 15, 1777. A copy was made for each state and one was kept by the Congress. The copies sent to the states for ratification were unsigned, and a cover letter had only t e signatures of Henry Laurens and Charles Thomson, who were the President and Secretary to the Congress.
But, the Articles at that time were unsigned, and the date was blank. Congress began the signing process by examining their copy of the Articles on June 27, 1778. They ordered a final copy prepared (the one in the National Archives), and that delegates should inform the secretary of their authority for ratification.
On July 9, 1778, the prepared copy was ready. They dat  ed it, and began to sign. They also requested each of the remaining states to notify its delegation when ratification was completed. On that date, delegates present from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina signed the Articles to indicate that their states had ratified. New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland could not, since their states had not ratified. North Carolina and Georgia also didn't sign that day, since their de legations were absent.
After the first signing, some delegates signed at the next meeting they attended. For example, John Wentworth of New Hampshire added his name on August 8. John Penn was the first of North Carolina's delegates to arrive (on July 10), and the delegation signed the Articles on July 21, 1778.
The other states had to wait until they ratified the Articles and notified their Congressional delegation. Georgia signed on July 24, New Jersey on November 26, and Delaware on February 12, 1779. Maryland refused to ratify the Articles until every state had ceded its western land claims.
On February 2, 1781, the much-awaited decision was taken by the Maryland General Assembly in Annapolis[5]. As the last piece of business during the afternoon Session, "among engrossed Bills" was "signed and sealed by Governor Thomas Lee in the Senate Chamber, in the presence of the members of both Houses… an Act to empower the delegates of this state in Congress to subscribe and ratify the articles of confederation" and "perpetual union among the states." The Senate then adjourned "to the first Monday in August next." The decision of Maryland to pass the ratification was reported to the Continental Congress on February 12. The signing of the Articles by the Maryland delegates took place in Philadelphia at noon time on March 1, 1781 and was celebrated in the afternoon. With these events, the Articles entered into force and the United States came into being as a united, sovereign and national state.
Congress had debated the Articles for over a year and a half, and the ratification process had taken nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates, and some of the signers had only recently arrived. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were signed by a group of men who were never present in the Congress at the same time.
The signers and the states they represented were:
* New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett and John Wentworth Jr.
* Massachusetts Bay: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Francis Dana, James Lovell, and Samuel Holten
* Rhode Island and Providence Plantations: William Ellery, Henry Marchant, and John Collins
* Connecticut: Roger Sherman¹, Samuel Huntington, Oliver Wolcott, Titus Hosmer, and Andrew Adams
* New York: James Duane, Francis Lewis, William Duer, and Gouverneur Morris
* New Jersey: John Witherspoon and Nathaniel Scudder
* Pennsylvania: Robert Morris², Daniel Roberdeau, Jonathan Bayard Smith, William Clingan, and Joseph Reed
* Delaware: Thomas McKean, John Dickinson³, and Nicholas Van Dyke
* Maryland: John Hanson and Daniel Carroll³
* Virginia: Richard Henry Lee, John Banister, Thomas Adams, John Harvie, and Francis Lightfoot Lee
* North Carolina: John Penn, Cornelius Harnett, and John Williams
* South Carolina: Henry Laurens, William Henry Drayton, John Mathews, Richard Hutson, and Thomas Heyward Jr.
* Georgia: John Walton, Edward Telfair, and Edward Langworthy
¹ The only person to sign all four great state papers of the United States: the Articles of Association, the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.
² One of only 2 people to sign three of the great state papers of the United States: the United States Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.
³ One of only 4 people to sign both the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution.
[edit] Presidents of the Congress
The following list is of those who led the Congress of the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation as the Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled. Under the Articles, the president was the presiding officer of Congress, chaired the Cabinet (the Committee of the States) when Congress was in recess, and performed other administrative functions. He was not, however, a chief executive in the way the successor President of the United States is a chief executive, but all of functions he executed were under the auspices and in service of the Congress.
* Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781)
* Thomas McKean (July 10, 1781 – November 4, 1781)
* John Hanson (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782)
* Elias Boudinot (November 4, 1782 – November 2, 1783)
* Thomas Mifflin (November 3, 1783 – October 31, 1784)
* Richard Henry Lee (November 30, 1784 – November 6, 1785)
* John Hancock (November 23, 1785 – May 29, 1786)
* Nathaniel Gorham (June 6, 1786 – November 5, 1786)
* Arthur St. Clair (February 2, 1787 – November 4, 1787)
* Cyrus Griffin (January 22, 1788 – November 2, 1788)
For a full list of Presidents of the Congress Assembled and Presidents under the two Continental Congresses before the Articles, see President of the Continental Congress.
[edit] Gallery
Articles of Confederation, page 1
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
Articles of Confederation, page 2
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
Articles of Confederation, page 3
Articles of Confederation, page 4
Articles of Confederation, page 5
[edit] Revision and replacement
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
In May 1786, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed that Congress revise the Articles of Confederation. Recommended changes included granting Congress power over foreign and domestic commerce, and providing means for Congress to collect money from state treas
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
uries. Unanimous approval was necessary to make the alterations, however, and Congress failed to reach a consensus.
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
In September, five states assembled in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments that would improve commerce. Under their chairman, Alexander Hamilton, they invited state representatives to convene in Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the federal government. Although the states' representatives to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia were only authorized to amend the Articles, the representatives held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote a new constitution. The new Constitution gave much more power to the central government, but characterization of the result is disputed. Historian Forrest McDonald, using the ideas of James Madison from Federalist 39, describes the change this way:
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
The constitutional reallocation of powers created a new form of government, unprecedented under the sun. Every previous national authority either had been centralized or else had been a confederation of sovereign states. The new American system was neither one nor the other; it was a mixture of both.[6]
Historian Ralph Ketcham comments on the opinions of Patrick Henry, George Mason, and other antifederalists who were not so eager to give up the local autonomy won by the revolution:
Antifederalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the "consolidated government" proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international p restige only the lust of ambitious men for a "splendid empire" that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.[7]
According to their own terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until November 1788,[8][9][10][11] though seldom with a quorum near the end.[citation needed]
Historians have given many reasons for the perceived need to replace the articles in 1787. Jillson and Wilson (1994) point to the financial weakness as well as the norms, rules and institutional structures of the Congress, and the propensity to divide along sectional lines.
Rakove (1988) identifies several factors that explain the collapse of the Confederation. The lack of compulsory direct taxation power was objectionable to those wanting a strong centralized state or expecting to benefit from such power. It could not collect cust oms after the war because tariffs were vetoed by Rhode Island. Rakove concludes that their failure to implement national measures "stemmed not from a heady sense of independence but rather from the enormous difficulties that all the states encountered in collecting taxes, mustering men, and gathering supplies from a war-weary populace."[12] The second grou p of factors Rakove identified derived from the substantive nature of the problems the Continental Congress confronted after 1783, especially the inability to create a strong foreign policy. Finally, the Confederation's lack of coercive power reduced the likelihood for profit to be made by political means, thus potential rulers were uninspired to seek power.
When the war ended in 1783, certain special interests had incentives to create a new "merchant state," much like the state people had rebell ed against. In particular, holders of war scrip and land speculators wanted a central government to pay off scrip at face value and to legalize western land holdings with disputed claims. Many of the participants in the closed Constitutional Convention were scrip and/or land speculators.[citation needed] Also, manufacturers wanted a high tariff as a barrier to foreign goods, but competition between states made this impossible without a central government.
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
YouTube - Apple Soundtrack
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Tesselator, the Institute for Historical Review is curiously focused on Jews, and republishes the work of anti-semites like Mearshimer and Walt.
Interestingly, Mearshimer and Walt have a similar reaction to critics of their work as you do to critics of the content of your posts.
Mearshimer and Walt suggest that critics of their work are attempts to silence them and proof that there is a Jewish lobby. You suggest that people who don't agree with your posts are ignorant or in on the conspiracy. You said you'd stop doing that, but you did it after you said you'd cease, when I contended that the USA record on human rights is one of the best among nations in the world. - Again, we can't have a decent discussion if no one is allowed to join the debate.
As for the Institute for Historical Review, at some point we pretty much know the facts of events that took place, especially events that drew as much attention as the Holocaust. We understand what took place. We know what took place. But the IHR continually wishes to challenge, diminish it, and give support to deniers of it. As far as they are concerned, "deniers" should be placed in scare quotes that show they don't believe deniers are in fact deniers. It's a pretty repugnant set of positions they take.
They also engage in posting content that makes the claim that neo-conservatism is a Jewish cabal. That's pretty offensive as well. Criticize the ideas of neo-conservatism all you please, but the criticism of it in association with a religion that hasn't got a thing to do with it is an anti-semitic position. That represents IHR, who gives support to that position by publishing it without comment or criticism.
If I view your posts as a continuum, as a holistic body of work, you seem to be choosing material that always comes back to having some focus on the Jews. Perhaps you need to consider some sources that don't find it necessary to do that.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
Interestingly, Mearshimer and Walt have a similar reaction to critics of their work as you do to critics of the content of your posts.
Mearshimer and Walt suggest that critics of their work are attempts to silence them and proof that there is a Jewish lobby. You suggest that people who don't agree with your posts are ignorant or in on the conspiracy. You said you'd stop doing that, but you did it after you said you'd cease, when I contended that the USA record on human rights is one of the best among nations in the world. - Again, we can't have a decent discussion if no one is allowed to join the debate.
Nah, you're reading into it or you're too sensitive...
As for the Institute for Historical Review, at some point we pretty much know the facts of events that took place, especially events that drew as much attention as the Holocaust. We understand what took place. We know what took place. But the IHR continually wishes to challenge, diminish it, and give support to deniers of it. As far as they are concerned, "deniers" should be placed in scare quotes that show they don't believe deniers are in fact deniers. It's a pretty repugnant set of positions they take.
They also engage in posting content that makes the claim that neo-conservatism is a Jewish cabal. That's pretty offensive as well. Criticize the ideas of neo-conservatism all you please, but the criticism of it in association with a religion that hasn't got a thing to do with it is an anti-semitic position. That represents IHR, who gives support to that position by publishing it without comment or criticism.
If I view your posts as a continuum, as a holistic body of work, you seem to be choosing material that always comes back to having some focus on the Jews. Perhaps you need to consider some sources that don't find it necessary to do that.
What are you even talking about?? There was one link in there from them. 
So remove that link. That message doesn't change a bit - and it has nothing to do
with semitism or anti-semitism.
----------
Kerrigan,
What was that giant mess? It looks like you're copy buffer got hit by a truck or
something. And why all the links to the same music file?
(
Last edited by Tesselator; Feb 26, 2008 at 01:17 PM.
)
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it!"
- Thomas Paine
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top