text:
99 Percent Space is now archive only. No new content will be added. After a long and fruitful contribution to the awareness of modern slaves worldwide, 99 Percent Space has reached the end of its useful life, like almost everything else belonging to the old paradigm. There just ain't much left to say anymore, much … Continue reading
In The Spirit of Yuletide (Bobby's Song)
Bobby's Song, or what's a nice reader like you doing in a place like this? Celebrate! A toast to the best and worse of times! Play video below for musical reference. Full Lennox! Bob knows you owe some gentlemen A big fat wad of bills at interest rates of two digits and payback with no … Continue reading
The Folks Guide to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques
Now that the CIA's infamous "torture report" has finally gone public, it's time to speak of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) and what folks need to know about it. First of all, EIT is actually the sound folks make when trying to breathe on the waterboard. It's an inside joke. Yeah, they tortured some folks… but … Continue reading
Catalan Vote: Disturbance in the Farce
Part III of Dispatches from the Catalan Front. Politics: a farce or elaborate game of "parties" that "celebrate" elections and steal the silverware while everyone's high on flag porn. In Spain, a neo-feudal constitutional monarchy whitewashed with a thin veneer of illusory representative democracy, the farce has become so thick that the ongoing litany of … Continue reading
We're On! Catalan Vote Plan B Unveiled
Part II of Dispatches from the Catalan Front. So today October 14th Catalan president Mas just finished a historic press conference assuring the citizens of Catalonia that there will indeed be a vote on November 9th despite the constitutional court's suspension of the Catalan law of public consultations. How will this happen? Via Plan B: … Continue reading
The Scots are Fallen; Bring On the Catalans!
Part I of Dispatches from the Catalan Front. The stanzas seem to vary but the leitmotif is oddly familiar: we suspect history is rhyming again. The Scottish rebellion by vote has failed, outmanouvered by limey crown rep Cameron who lulled them into a honey trap and beat them soundly with sweet nothings. The Yes camp … Continue reading
Sights Never Seen: The NSA Marquee Chronicles
As a top-secret spy facility collecting private data from the public at large, the NSA's Utah Data Center has neither time or need to interact openly with said public. However, most folks don't know that the center's welcome sign is actually a marquee that provides a rare glimpse into the mystery-shrouded world of national security. … Continue reading
The World Coup: THIEFA vs. Brazil (video)
Regular readers know 99PS is a pro-bono home-cooked affair, a blog where all written content is 100% OP and asset munching is generally discouraged. However, every now and then a jewel in video form surfaces from the internet meme cauldron which complements this blog's overall message. The truth is a man hasn't enjoyed 8 minutes … Continue reading
Four Days of Kingdoms Come and Gone
… and a pox partially lifted by Hope. June 18th This is not the first rainy night I ponder on the language of karma, but it may well be the most significant, a moment of mighty confluence between material and subtle currents. Tonight is the last night of the old kingospain; tomorrow Flip becomes the … Continue reading
Mr Tung Sten's Metals Bazaar and Other Tales of Fakery Most Foul
If a man were to list the seven diseases of the modern world, surely fakery would have to be one of them. The erzstatz quality of appearing to be without being that affects every level of our lives, starting with the maritime-law based statute codes falsely posing as Law of the Land. And our fake … Continue reading
Bye-Bye Johnny, Here's Flip 6
It seems hard to believe anyone was actually surprised at the news of kingospain's abdication. I mean, c'mon, just look at the guy, he looks like death warmed over. Heck, even national TV had a "secret" content tag on its website called "abdication of the king". This blog has been announcing the end of the … Continue reading
A Bug Died Here
If there is a single term that describes Spain's extractive elite it is "criminal impunity". Criminal because they are corrupt thieves, and impunity because they still walk among over us in freedom. The impunity, however, does not extend beyond the legal code and does not grant bulletproofness, which is a lesson the politico class seemed … Continue reading

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We extend a cordial welcome to you to Saint
Ambrose Parish, Little Hocking, Ohio. Over
the years many parishioners and friends of
our parish have sacrificed a great deal of
time, talent, and financial support to make
this holy place possible. It is a building
set aside for prayer, education, and social
functions and is a gift to the honor and
glory of God.
We ask God's blessing on all who enter this
holy place. The church is a place not only
where people gather, but also a place where
God gathers with us to nourish us,
strengthen us and console us with His Word
and His Sacraments.


text:
The couple is off to have a rest at the lake but when they get nude and start swimming, they realize that they place, they thought to be secluded is actually full of horny guys watching them….
When passion absorbs you, there is no way you can resist it, these two lovers have no limits, they are having sex right in the street, in the rain!
Fucking your girlfriend's butt is great, it's even better when she doesn't mind it! This guy has a walk with her girlfriend, he's so hot that he can't hold his desire, as soon as they get back to the apartment, he gets to her butt!


text:
Archives by date
You are browsing the site archives by date.
Firefly 2014 tickets to go on sale WednesdayJune 24, 2013 Respond
**UPDATE: Here's the link for the early bird tickets. Firefly os having problems geting the link onto its website.** After declaring this year's Firefly Music Festival a success, the organizers say tickets for next year's event will go on sale Wednesday. Firefly will return to the Woodlands in Dover on June 20-22, 2014. Red Frog
VIDEO: Cormier, Calagione review Vampire Weekend
VIDEO: Day 3, Firefly's finale report with Ryan Cormier
Slightly dreary and probably wet from several afternoon showers, Firefly Music Festival goers are soaking up the final hours of the weekend. Tonight closes out with Vampire Weekend and Foster the People.
VIDEO: Sunday afternoon in the Forest Cinema
Firefly goers relax on Sunday afternoon in the Forest Cinema.
Musical chairs: Fans riff on Lumineers dropping out, Foster the People's headlining gig
One of the topics of conversation for many with eyes and ears on Firefly is whether or not Foster the People, who are best known for the megahit "Pumped Up Kicks," has enough oomph to be referred to as a headliner. The group is closing out the festival tonight with a 9:30 set on the
VIDEO: Selling and serenading at Firefly Music Festival
Karl Clark, sales manager for Hank's Cheesecakes, serenades fans to promote business.
Partly muddy, partly sunny Sunday afternoon of Firefly Music Festival
The third day of Firefly got off to a slow start, with fans trickling in throughout the afternoon. The grounds that were shoulder-to-shoulder (with a marijuana haze floating over it) the night before for Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers were barely dotted with fans the next afternoon as one of the earliest bands, The Chevin, took the Firefly Stage
VIDEO: Firefly vendor decorates free tote bags
Darin Hoopes of Austin Tx creates free Firefly totes with silkscreen designs. Several hundred fans waited in line for one at the Toyota Hybrid House Party tent Saturday.
One fan's perspective: How does Firefly stack up to Bonnaroo and Hangout?
When I got the email saying I was accepted as an intern for the News Journal, what caught my eye was that I'd be attending Firefly Music Festival. As if I wasn't excited for the summer already. I hadn't seen the lineup yet, and when I did my anticipation heightened that much more. I've attended
The best Firefly mom ever
Peggy Dalessio is not a band groupie, but she will accompany her 17-year-old daughter, Danielle, to concerts. A few years ago, the pair found themselves in the pit during a My Chemical Romance set and Dalessio held Danielle tight against the ropes to avoid injury. So, when Danielle won a three-day Firefly pass at 10


text:
In nearly 150 countries, paid sick leave is a matter of law. The United States, however, is not one of them.
Indeed, not only is there no federally mandated paid sick leave in this country, but only one state has such a law on its books. And that state-Connecticut-enacted the requirement only a year ago.
Should more states-or Washington-follow in Connecticut's footsteps? Many people think so. And with a particularly hard flu season this year, the push to require businesses to provide some paid sick leave to their employees has come to the fore again.
At a glance, this issue seems like a no-brainer. It's not simply a matter of economic fairness-studies have shown that a large majority of low-wage workers do not have paid sick days-but also of public health. Many ill employees go to work because they cannot afford to stay home, often spreading colds, the flu and other illnesses to their co-workers and the public.
Opponents of a legal requirement to provide paid sick leave to employees maintain that it is nothing more than a tax and businesses will respond by limiting raises or even cutting workers' pay-or jobs.
Perhaps some employers would, but the fact that two-thirds of businesses already provide paid sick leave suggests it is not the burden some contend.
That said, devising a sensible mandate-whether at the state or federal level-could be trickier than it might seem. The Connecticut law, for example, requires employers to give full-time workers up to five paid sick days a year for themselves or to care for a child or spouse. However, it has exceptions for firms with fewer than 50 employees, most manufacturers, nationally chartered non-profits and more.
The Paid Sick Leave Act introduced by New York lawmakers in 2011 would require businesses with fewer than 10 employees to provide up to 40 hours of paid sick leave each year; larger companies would be required to provide up to 80 hours. This definition of a "small business" puts a heavy potential burden on firms with only a dozen or so employees.
While the prospects for this legislation are uncertain, the business community has the means to make it beside the point-by calling on all employers to act voluntarily.
2/15/13 (c) 2013 Rochester Business Journal. To obtain permission to reprint this article, call 585-546-8303 or email email@example.com.


text:
Harris M/A-Com P5100 Battery
This collection is empty
Stay up to date on two-way radios and exclusive discounts.
Free Standard Shipping on Orders $299 or More
Need help?
New customer?
Lost password?
Remembered your password?
Already have an account?
Free Shipping
Receive free standard shipping on orders $299 or more
Low Price Guarantee
Found a price lower? Email us an official quote of products similar or higher quality and we will match the quoted price.
Top-notch support
Contact us for questions or concerns Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5:30 pm EST
800-991-4569 or firstname.lastname@example.com
Secure payments
We accept Discover, MasterCard, Visa, Amazon Pay, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal and more.


text:
Keep your content safe
Rest easy with daily automatic content backup, and a 30-day archive with unlimited space. All carefully optimized for WordPress.Get Jetpack Personal
A focus on performance
Save on bandwidth costs and serve images faster with one of the world's most advanced CDNs. We'll even monitor your site's uptime to make sure you're there when readers need you.Get Jetpack Personal
Lock out the bad guys
Bulletproof spam filtering and brute-force login protection help maintain peace of mind while you build and grow your site.Get Jetpack Personal
Built by WordPress.com, packed with features you'll love.
- Site stats & analytics
- Social sharing
- Enhanced distribution
- Plugin auto-updates
- Bulk site management
- Centralized posting
- Convenient widgets
- Custom image galleries
- Easy CSS editing
Explore & Compare Plans
Design Tools
Rotate your device to view this chart
Marketing Tools
Rotate your device to view this chart
Security Tools
Rotate your device to view this chart
World-class Support
Rotate your device to view this chart


text:
View Cart
Prices are in US dollars
By: Blight, David W. (John Washington & Wallace Turnage.)
Price: $15.00 USD
By: Langdon-Davies, John.
Price: $20.00 USD
By: Besant and Rice. (Walter Besant and James Rice.)
Price: $25.00 USD
By: Montgomery, James.
By: Shulman, Morton, Dr. and Kastner, Susan.
Price: $17.50 USD
By: Belasco, David. Inscribed By Belasco. (William Shakespeare.)
Price: $55.00 USD
By: Wurlitzer Company.
Price: $40.00 USD
By: Frankowski, Leo.
Price: $45.00 USD
By: Shelley, Rick.
By: Friesner, Esther M.
By: Foster, Alan Dean.
Price: $35.00 USD
By: Foss, Charles H.
Price: $65.00 USD
Rhein, Donna E.
Lewy, Guenter.
Laing, Jane.
MacMillan, Hugh P. Foreword by Ted Cowan.
Ward, Michael. (C.S. Lewis.)
Beetles, Chris. With contributions from Rodney Dale and David Wootton.
Click Here to Buy a Gift Card for that Special Person


text:
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Gold futures once again settled higher on Wednesday, running the streak of gains to six, but failed to reach the key $1,300-an-ounce level.
Prices continued their climb a day after Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen said the central bank will remain on the loose-monetary path, which is supportive for gold.
Gold for April delivery US:GCJ4 rose $5.20, or 0.4%, to settle at $1,295 an ounce on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange. That was the highest close for a most-active contract since Nov. 7, according to FactSet data. Prices have now climbed 3.5% in six sessions, marking the longest streak of gains since the six-session climb that ended on June 15, 2012. Prices had gained 1.2% on Tuesday.
Silver for March US:SIH4 rose 19 cents Wednesday, or 0.9%, to $20.34 an ounce. The white metal, whose smaller trading market is known for its volatility, has now posted gains for eight sessions in a row.
Tyler Richey, an analyst for the 7:00's Report, which offers daily markets commentary, said the market is seeing a shift in the price action of gold. "Gold futures were acting as a 'fear hedge,' trading inversely to the stock market, but now traders are again focused on the Fed," evident by the fact that both the stock market and gold rallied Tuesday.
"Gold is now trading comfortable above the 100-day moving average and seems to have its sights set on $1,300," he said. "The largest influences on gold will again be upcoming economic data and Fed decision making."
But $1,300 may not be the most important near-term level for gold, though it's one futures prices haven't closed at or above since Nov. 7, based on the most-active contracts, FactSet data show.
Adrian Ash, head of research at BullionVault, said that level only offers psychological resistance.
The key level is really $1,320, he said, "the low from the first leg of gold's spring 2013 crash," he said. "There's heavy congestion around that level from last fall. And by end-month, $1,320 will also be the intersection of gold's longer-term downtrend, now running since Sept. 2012."
But don't expect gold prices to reach a record level any time soon, according to Capital Economics.
Gold prices have "decent" support at $1,200 right now, but the chance of them revisiting the previous highs of around $1,900 seen in August of 2011 "look slim," as the U.S. economic recovery gathers pace and the Fed continues to scale back its monetary stimulus, said Julian Jessop, head of commodities research at Capital Economics.
Other metals traded on Comex climbed on Wednesday. Platinum for April delivery US:PLJ4 rose $19.50, or 1.4%, to $1,407.30 an ounce while March palladium US:PAH4 added $12.70, or 1.8%, to $729.05 an ounce.
High-grade copper for March delivery
In Wednesday afternoon dealings, the Philadelphia Gold and Silver Index
Other must-read MarketWatch stories include:
Oil reclaims $100, but eases off session's high
Gold's looking good, but it's not record-worthy this year
B. of A. Merrill Lynch sees an end to gasoline demand as we know it
Coffee's up over 20% so far this year, but its gains aren't meant to last


text:
does anyone feel like giving me a hug for free, preferably a female, and one thats really attractive... and maybe single...?
i bet thats what it looked like when that sigrfried guy took one for the team.. or was it roid... right before the tiger destroyed his personal environment...
oh and yeah.. Gunco is the best. hands down. ery'body here chill for the most part. i dont go anywhere else anymore....
Gunco is #1!Best there is.I dont visit other forums anymore,either.No need to.I was kinda afraid of getting flamed on another so I rarely partisipated.Here I can axe a stupid question and not be reminded of how ignorant I am.I've come a long way on my builds in the short time I've been a member. Thanks to gunco and all its members.
Clan MacPherson
Glad I found Gunco, It's more like a home away from home! Just wish my job gave me more time in the evenings to spend with ally'll
Hello i gave money and i don't have that symble
Originally Posted by Detroitaks
Hehe.... I think I mailed you bunoer stickers too a few days ago. One guy's came back as incorrect address.
Initials S. H. for the name.
Thanks again!
This is the best group I've found on the net. I still visit a few other boards, mainly to keep track of pricing on 'stuff. It's funny how most of those board posters will refer folks with questions over to here. Best part of this board is that the members grew up with some decent manners.


text:
- 12
- 10
- Joined Apr 7, 2011
I was looking for a good recipe for chicken and waffles. It sounds simple, I know. But I have seen recipes for fried legs and thighs, and some for breaded cutlets. Some recipes put a gravy on the chicken and waffles. Some people use a more savory waffle recipe. Does anyone have a favorite way to make this dinner? I plan to experiment a bit either way.


text:
Automotive Tool Sales / Route - Full Training
- Employer
- Mac Tools
- Location
- Garrison, MD
- Posted
- Nov 09, 2018
- Closes
- Nov 12, 2018
- Industry
- Automotive, Other
- Career Level
- Experienced (Non-Manager)
- Hours
- Full Time
Mac Tools doesn't just offer a job. Our company provides opportunities for fulfilling route sales careers where you can build their own businesses selling our world-class automotive tools to automotive professionals. Imagine your day in a mobile tool store, on a protected local route, selling one of the most recognizable & respected tool brands in the world. We are always looking for great people to be part of the driving force behind Mac Tools and contribute to the ongoing success of our mobile automotive tools distribution model. Mac Tools is a worldwide supplier of automotive repair tools and is part of Stanley Black & Decker, one of the largest tool companies in the world. Founded in 1938, Mac Tools is an international business with Distributors in the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan. With a product line in excess of 42,000 items, Mac has the right tools for every automotive technician. Mac Tools (R) has a focus on innovative, first-to-market automotive technician tools that are exclusive to and only available on a Mac Tools (R) Truck. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LOCAL ROUTE AVAILABLE. We give you the tools to run a successful business: * Your own local route within protected territory of approx. 325 customers * No Experience necessary, we offer comprehensive training * Your Mac Tools truck, which will become your own personal mobile tool store * Initial Inventory of top-selling, high-transaction tools * Mobile business software to operate your business * 100% Financing for Qualified Candidates * Working capital to help your business grow * The power of Stanley Black & Decker behind us * National marketing support * Monthly flyers and promotions to help grow your business * Ongoing field support, training & mentoring NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY You don't need an automotive tools background to be a high-performing franchisee. People from all walks-of-life have found success with the Mac Tools brand! COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING & SUPPORT The Mac Tools training program consists of classroom and field-based training to ensure that you have all the tools you need to establish and run a successful business. Although you operate an independent business, you're far from being alone. You'll have one of the most extensive support systems in the industry with an ongoing training and support. AWARD WINNING #1 New Franchise 2014-2016 #3 Fastest Growing Franchise 2015 Top 100 Franchise 2018 * Entrepreneur Magazine OVER 75 YEARS OF KNOWLEDGE Mac Tools (R) has been operating in mobile tool distribution for over 75 years, creating a well-established brand with a long history. In this time, we have refined the model to help you be successful as a franchisee. Additionally, Mac Tools (R) has the power of Stanley Black & Decker Inc. behind us, allowing us to be stronger than ever. LOW START UP COST Mac Tools franchises have lower start-up costs than many other franchise opportunities. With our low start-up costs, we offer a variety of options to fit your unique financial needs. We offer up to 100% financing for qualified individuals. DISCOVERY DAY WITH MAC TOOLS Find out what it's like to be your own boss. We invite you to participate in a Discovery Day with an already successful Mac Tools franchise owner so that you can learn more about the mobile tool business. These events will help you to experience the business and learn about the full potential of the opportunity. There is no cost or obligation to participate in a Discovery Day. VETERANS PROGRAM Our Veterans Program offers vets or their spouse discounts of up to $10,000 off their starting tool inventory for a Mac Tools franchise. The International Franchise Association has recognized this incentive as part the Veterans Transition Franchise Initiative (VetFran). So what are you waiting for? If you've always aspired to run your own business and be a part of one of the leading mobile tool companies in the industry, then you owe it to yourself to learn more today! Mac Tools (R), a division of Stanley Black & Decker Inc. 505 N Cleveland Ave. Westerville, Ohio 43082


text:
!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event February 13, 2008: McCain Votes Against Anti-Waterboarding Bill. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
Edwin Meese. [Source: GQ (.com)]Attorney General Edwin Meese receives a report, "Separation of Powers: Legislative-Executive Relations." Meese had commissioned the report from the Justice Department's Domestic Policy Committee, an internal "think tank" staffed with hardline conservative scholars and policy advisers. Recommendations for Restoring, Expanding Executive Power - The Meese report approvingly notes that "the strong leadership of President Reagan seems clearly to have ended the congressional resurgence of the 1970s." It lays out recommendations for restoring the power taken from the executive branch after Watergate and Vietnam, and adding new powers besides. It recommends that the White House refuse to enforce laws and statutes that "unconstitutionally encroach upon the executive branch," and for Reagan to veto more legislation and to use "signing statements" to state the White House's position on newly passed laws. It also assails the 1972 War Powers Resolution and other laws that limit presidential power. Reinterpreting the Separation of Powers and the Concept of 'Checks and Balances' - Perhaps most importantly, the Meese report claims that for 200 years, courts and scholars alike have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Founders' intentions in positing the "separation of powers" system (see 1787 and 1793). The belief that the Constitution mandates three separate, co-equal branches of government—executive, judicial, and legislative—who wield overlapping areas of authority and work to keep each of the other branches from usurping too much power—a concept taught in school as "checks and balances"—is wrong, the report asserts. Instead, each branch has separate and independent sets of powers, and none of the three branches may tread or encroach on the others' area of responsibility and authority. "The only 'sharing of power' is the sharing of the sum of all national government power," the report claims. "But that is not joint shared, it is explicitly divided among the three branches." According to the report, the White House should exercise total and unchallenged control of the executive branch, which, as reporter and author Charlie Savage will later explain, "could be conceived of as a unitary being with the president as its brain." The concept of "checks and balances" is nothing more than an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to encroach on the rightful power of the executive. This theory of presidential function will soon be dubbed the "unitary executive theory," a title adapted from a passage by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. [Savage, 2007, pp. 47-48] Charles Fried, Reagan's solicitor general during the second term, will later write that though the unitary executive theory displays "perfect logic" and a "beautiful symmetry," it is difficult to defend, because it "is not literally compelled by the words of the Constitution. Nor did the framers' intent compel this view." [Savage, 2007, pp. 50]
Entity Tags: Charles Fried, Reagan administration, Domestic Policy Committee, US Department of Justice, Ronald Reagan, Edwin Meese, Charlie Savage
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Rene Lerner, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and Justice Department lawyer Adrien Silas send a memo to Assistant Attorney General William Moschella. The memo will remain classified, but the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will learn that it pertains to the so-called "McCain Amendment," later known as the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 15, 2005). President Bush will sign the bill into law, but will include a signing statement that states the administration will not follow the law because it impinges on the president's constitutional authority to conduct military operations (see December 30, 2005). It is unclear whether Bush's signing statement is influenced by the memo. [ProPublica, 4/16/2009]
Entity Tags: Detainee Treatment Act, Adrien Silas, American Civil Liberties Union, US Department of Justice, Rene Lerner, Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ), George W. Bush, William E. Moschella
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gathers a group of senior subordinates and warns them to stay away from three senators—John McCain (R-AZ), John Warner (R-VA), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—who are drafting a bill to govern the handling of terrorism suspects (see December 30, 2005). A Pentagon official with direct knowledge of the meeting will later recall, "Rumsfeld made clear, emphatically, that the vice president had the lead on this issue." Though Vice President Dick Cheney has, as he so often has done in the past, ensured that his bureaucratic fingerprints are not on the issue, he has already staked out a hardline position for the White House. This time, it came as a last-minute insert in a July 2005 "statement of administration policy" by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where Nancy Dorn, Cheney's former chief of legislative affairs, is deputy director. Cheney's staff adds, without the required staff clearance, a paragraph to the OMB's guidance for the 2006 defense appropriations bill (see July 21, 2005). Among those surprised by the position is Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, who for a year has advocated that the US issue clear rules about detention and interrogation of terror suspects. England attempts to clarify the issue (see Late 2005). [Washington Post, 6/25/2007]
Entity Tags: John McCain, Bush administration (43), Donald Rumsfeld, Gordon England, Office of Management and Budget, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, John W. Warner, Nancy Dorn, Lindsey Graham, US Department of Defense
The Army adopts a new, classified set of interrogation methods that some feel may change the nature of the debate over cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees in US custody. The Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 30, 2005), which bases its definition of torture in part on Army standards, is currently wending its way through Congress. The new set of instructions are being added to the revised Army Field Manual, after they are approved by undersecretary of defense Stephen Cambone. The addendum provides exact details on what kinds of interrogation procedures can and cannot be used, and under what circumstances, pushing the legal limit of what interrogations can be used in ways that the Army has never done before. Some military observers believe that the new guidelines are an attempt by the Army to undercut the DTA, and many believe the bill's sponsor, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) will be unhappy with the addendum. "This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official says. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this." McCain has not yet been briefed on the contents of the new guidelines. McCain spokesman Mark Salter says, "This is politically obtuse and damaging. The Pentagon hasn't done one molecule of political due diligence on this." One Army officer says that the core of the definition of torture—what is and is not "cruel, inhumane, and degrading" treatment—"is at the crux of the problem, but we've never defined that." The new Army Field Manual specifically prohibits such tactics as stress positioning, stripping prisoners, imposing dietary restrictions, using police dogs to intimidate prisoners, and sleep deprivation. The new manual is expected to be issued before the end of the year. [New York Times, 12/14/2005] The day after this is reported, President Bush agrees not to veto the DTA (see December 15, 2005).
Entity Tags: Stephen A. Cambone, Detainee Treatment Act, US Department of Defense, John McCain, US Department of the Army
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives, Civil Liberties
The Bush administration relents in its opposition to the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which would ban torture of prisoners by US personnel (see July 24, 2005 and After and December 30, 2005). President Bush meets with the bill's primary sponsor, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and John Warner (R-VA), chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, in a press conference to praise the bill. McCain says after the conference that the bill "is a done deal." The bill still faces some opposition from Congressional Republicans such as House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who says he won't vote for the bill unless it can be amended to ensure that the nation's ability to gather intelligence is not diminished. Both the House and Senate have voted by veto-proof margins to accept the bill, which is actually an amendment to a defense appropriations bill. McCain says after the conference with Bush and Warner, "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are." Bush says the ban "is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad." McCain has been the target of months of vilification and opposition from the White House over the bill, which argued that the bill would limit Bush's authority to protect the US from terrorist attacks, and that the bill is unnecessary because US officials do not torture. [CNN, 12/15/2005] Loopholes - But the bill contains key loopholes that some experts believe significantly waters down the bill's impact. Author Alfred McCoy, an expert on the CIA, notes that the bill as revised by White House officials does not give any real specifics. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will assert that the only restrictions on prisoner interrogations are the ban on "severe" psychological or physical pain, "the same linguistic legerdemain that had allowed the administration to start torturing back in 2002" (see August 1, 2002). Gonzales also implies that practices such as waterboarding are not prohibited. [TomDispatch (.com), 2/8/2006] Legal Cover - A provision of the bill inserted after negotiation with White House officials says that CIA and military officials accused of torture can claim legal protection by arguing that they were simply following the orders of their superiors, or they have a reasonable belief that they are carrying out their superiors' wishes. McCain dropped the original provision that all military personnel must follow the stringent guidelines for interrogation laid out in the Army Field Manual; the bill now follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says that anyone accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a "reasonable" person could conclude they were following a lawful order. McCain resisted pressure from the White House to include language that would afford interrogators accused of torture protection from civil or criminal lawsuits. [CNN, 12/15/2005; Associated Press, 12/15/2005] Controversial Amendment - Perhaps even more troubling is an amendment to the bill that would essentially strip the judiciary's ability to enforce the ban. The amendment, originally crafted by senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and added to by Carl Levin (D-MI), denies Guantanamo detainees the right to bring legal action against US personnel who torture or abuse them—effectively denying them the fundamental legal right of habeas corpus. It also gives the Defense Department the implicit ability to consider evidence obtained through torture or inhumane treatment in assessing detainees' status. Human Rights Watch (HRW) says that the DTA marks the first time in history that Congress would allow the use of evidence obtained through torture. HRW's Tom Malinowski says, "With the McCain amendment, Congress has clearly said that anyone who authorizes or engages in cruel techniques like water boarding is violating the law. But the Graham-Levin amendment leaves Guantanamo detainees no legal recourse if they are, in fact, tortured or mistreated. The treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees will be shrouded in secrecy, placing detainees at risk for future abuse.… If the McCain law demonstrates to the world that the United States really opposes torture, the Graham-Levin amendment risks telling the world the opposite." [Human Rights Watch, 12/16/2005] Geoffrey Corn, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Judge Advocate General lawyer, agrees. In January 2006, he will write that the "recent compromise inclusion of an 'obedience to orders' defense… has effectively undermined the goal Senator John McCain fought so long to achieve. Instead of sending a clear message to US forces that cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of detainees is never permissible, the compromise has validated President Bush's belief that the necessities of war provide the ultimate 'trump card' to justify 'whatever it takes' in the war on terror." [Jurist, 1/6/2006]
Entity Tags: Tom Malinowski, Lindsey Graham, US Department of Defense, Jon Kyl, Uniform Code of Military Justice, John McCain, John W. Warner, Geoffrey Corn, Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush administration (43), Alfred McCoy, Carl Levin, Detainee Treatment Act, Central Intelligence Agency, Human Rights Watch, Duncan Hunter
Without the knowledge of many in Congress, Vice President Cheney and his allies in Congress manage to insert language into the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 30, 2005) that renders much of the bill nearly worthless. Some of the widest exceptions are inserted without the knowledge of all but a very few Congressmen. One is the exemption for the CIA, which instead of being bound by the interrogation techniques described in the US Army Field Manual, is only forbidden in general to employ "cruel" or "inhuman" methods. Those terms will be defined in light of US constitutional law. Because of the Supreme Court's decision that cruelty is an act that "shocks the conscience," Cheney's chief lawyer, David Addington, has argued that harsh interrogations would be much less shocking if performed on detainees suspected of planning or taking part in mass casualty terrorist attacks. What "shocks the conscience" is to an extent "in the eye of the beholder," Cheney has already said. [Washington Post, 6/25/2007]
Entity Tags: Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Central Intelligence Agency, Detainee Treatment Act, David S. Addington
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives
After months of opposition and a recent, clandestine rewriting of the bill (see Before December 30, 2005), President Bush signs the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) into law, effectively outlawing torture by government and military officials (see December 15, 2005). However, Bush also inserts a signing statement into the record reserving for himself the right to ignore the law under his powers as commander in chief if he judges that torturing a prisoner is in the interest of national security (see December 30, 2005). Signing statements have no legal status, but serve to inform the nation as to how the president interprets a particular law. In this case, Bush writes that he will waive the restrictions on torture if he feels it is necessary to protect national security. "We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment," says a senior administration official, but under unusual circumstances—a "ticking time bomb" scenario, for example, where a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent an imminent terrorist attack, Bush's responsibility to protect the nation will supersede the law. Law professor David Golove is critical of the White House's position, saying: "The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me.' They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on." Bush has issued numerous signing statements signaling his intent to flaunt the law in the areas of domestic surveillance, detaining terrorist suspects without due legal process, and previous legislation forbidding the torture of prisoners. Many legal and civil rights organizations believe that Bush's signing statement is part of his push for a "unitary executive," where the president has virtually unlimited powers in the areas of foreign policy and national security, and neither Congress nor the courts have the right to limit his powers (see April 30, 1986). Former Justice Department official and law professor Marty Lederman says: "The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole. The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism." Human Rights Watch director Elisa Massamino calls the signing statement an "in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress. "The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch. Congress is trying to flex its muscle to provide those checks [on detainee abuse], and it's being told through the signing statement that it's impotent. It's quite a radical view." [Boston Globe, 1/4/2006; Boston Globe, 4/30/2006]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Detainee Treatment Act, Martin ("Marty") Lederman, Bush administration (43), David Golove, Elisa Massamino
Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, a former Justice Department official under both the Bush and Clinton administrations, notes the recent signing statement from the White House that essentially states President Bush will ignore the newly authorized Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005). "So much for the president's assent to the McCain Amendment" (see December 15, 2005), Lederman writes. Of Bush's signing statement itself, he writes: "Translation: I reserve the constitutional right to waterboard when it will 'assist' in protecting the American people from terrorist attacks.… You didn't think [Vice President] Cheney and [Cheney's chief of staff David] Addington (see December 30, 2005) were going to go down quietly, did you?" [Marty Lederman, 1/2/2006; Savage, 2007, pp. 225]
Entity Tags: Detainee Treatment Act, Martin ("Marty") Lederman
The three Republican senators who co-sponsored the recently passed Detainee Treatment Act prohibiting torture (see December 15, 2005) criticize President Bush for his signing statement indicating that he would not follow the law if he sees fit (see December 30, 2005). Senators John McCain (R-AZ), the primary sponsor of the bill, and John Warner (R-VA) issue a statement rejecting Bush's signing statement. "We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators write. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law." The third co-sponsor, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), says he agrees with the letter, "and would go a little bit further." Graham says: "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any… law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified. If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same." The White House refuses to respond to the senators' comments. Law professor David Golove, a specialist in executive power issues, says the senators' statements "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the two branches of government. "The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove says. "The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'" Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First says the senators' statements should warn military and CIA interrogators that they could be subject to prosecution if they torture or abuse a detainee, regardless of Bush's signing statement. "That power [to override the law] was explicitly sought by the White House, and it was considered and rejected by the Congress," she says. "And any US official who relies on legal advice from a government lawyer saying there is a presidential override of a law passed by Congress does so at their peril. Cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment is illegal." Golove notes that it is highly unlikely that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would prosecute anyone for performing actions Bush had authorized. [Boston Globe, 1/5/2006; Savage, 2007, pp. 225-226]
Entity Tags: David Golove, Alberto R. Gonzales, George W. Bush, John W. Warner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Elisa Massimino
During the Senate hearings to confirm conservative jurist Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the questioning turns to Alito's views on the "unitary executive" theory (January 1, 1992). The theory seems to have originated in the Reagan administration's Justice Department (see April 30, 1986), where Alito worked in the Office of Legal Counsel. Lawyer Testifies to Unitary Executive - Former Clinton White House counsel Beth Nolan testifies about the theory and its potential for dramatically revamping the power of the presidency: "'Unitary executive' is a small phrase with almost limitless import. At the very least, it embodies the concept of presidential control over all executive functions, including those that have traditionally been executed by 'independent' agencies and other actors not subject to the president's direct control.… The phrase is also used to embrace expansive interpretations of the president's substantive powers, and strong limits on the legislative and judicial branches." Nolan cites a November 2000 speech by Alito to the Federalist Society, where Alito said in part, "the president is largely impervious to statutory law in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and Congress is effectively powerless to act as a constraint against presidential aggrandizement in these areas." [Dean, 2007, pp. 100-106] During the questioning session, Alito denies ever discussing the idea of inherent presidential powers during that speech. Evasive Answers in Hearings - Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) says in his opening statement that he intends to press Alito on his support for what Durbin calls "a marginal theory at best… yet one you've said you believe." Durbin notes that the Bush administration has repeatedly cited the theory to justify its most controversial policies and decisions, particularly in conducting its war on terror. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) adds: "The president is not a king, free to take any action he chooses without limitation, by law.… In the area of executive power, Judge Alito, you have embraced and endorsed the theory of the unitary executive. Your deferential and absolutist view of separation of powers raises questions. Under this view, in times of war the president would, for instance, seem to have inherent authority to wiretap American citizens without a warrant, to ignore Congressional acts at will, or to take any other action he saw fit under his inherent powers. We need to know, when a president goes too far, will you be a check on his power or will you issue him a blank check to exercise whatever power alone he thinks appropriate?" [Savage, 2007, pp. 271-272] However, Alito refuses to address the issue in the hearings, giving what one journalist calls "either confused or less than candid" answers to questions concerning the subject. Failure to Recall - During questioning, Alito turns aside inquiries about his avowed support for the unitary executive theory, saying he was merely talking about the idea that a president should have control over lesser executive branch officials, and was not referring to the usurpation of Congressional power by the executive. Further questions elicit nothing but a dry definition of the term. Asked about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's stinging dissent in the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case (see June 28, 2004), where Thomas wrote that the authors of the Constitution believed a unitary executive was essential to the implementation of US foreign policies, Alito says he does not recall Thomas's mention of the phrase. Asked about Bush's signing statement that attempted to invalidate the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005), Alito merely recites the definition of a signing statement, and refuses to actually state his position on the issue (see February 6, 1986 and After). Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), disturbed by Alito's refusal to address the subject, says he will vote against him in part because of Alito's embrace of "the gospel of the unitary executive." Kennedy cites one of the authors of the theory, law professor Steven Calabresi, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, who, Kennedy says, "acknowledged that, if the concept is implemented, it would produce a radical change in how the government operates." [Dean, 2007, pp. 100-106; Savage, 2007, pp. 271-274] ACLU Opposes Alito - The ACLU, for only the third time in its history, formally opposes Alito's nomination, in part because of Alito's embrace of the unitary executive theory of the presidency, citing Alito's "expansive view of executive authority and a limited view of the judicial role in curbing abuses of that authority." In its 86-year history, the ACLU has only opposed two other Court nominees: William Rehnquist and former Solicitor General Robert Bork. [American Civil Liberties Union, 1/9/2006] Opposition Fails - However, none of this is effective. Alito is sworn in less than a month later, after Democrats in the Senate fail to successfully mount a filibuster against his confirmation. [CNN, 2/1/2006]
Entity Tags: Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ), Samuel Alito, Edward M. ("Ted") Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Beth Nolan, US Department of Justice, Bush administration (43), US Supreme Court, American Civil Liberties Union
In his column for the legal website FindLaw, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean writes: "Rather than veto laws passed by Congress, [George W.] Bush is using his signing statements to effectively nullify them as they relate to the executive branch. These statements, for him, function as directives to executive branch departments and agencies as to how they are to implement the relevant law.… Bush has quietly been using these statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed.… It is as if no law had been passed on the matter at all.… Bush is using signing statements like line item vetoes." Dean writes that Bush's signing statement for the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005) marks the first time that serious media attention has been focused on the statements. He writes, "Despite the McCain Amendment's clear anti-torture stance, the military may feel free to use torture anyway, based on the President's attempt to use a signing statement to wholly undercut the bill." [FindLaw, 1/13/2006]
Entity Tags: John Dean, George W. Bush
Al Gore speaks to the Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society. [Source: American Constitution Society]Former Vice President Al Gore delivers a long, impassioned speech on civil liberties and constitutional issues to the Liberty Coalition and the American Constitution Society. Gore joins former Representative Bob Barr (R-GA) in speaking out against the Bush administration's infringement on American civil liberties. Gore and Barr have what Gore calls a "shared concern that America's Constitution is in grave danger." Patently Illegal Domestic Surveillance - Gore's speech is sparked by recent revelations that the NSA has been spying on American citizens for years (see December 15, 2005), and in response, the administration "has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress precisely to prevent such abuses." As the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA) is perfectly sufficient, there was no need for the Bush administration to circumvent that law. "At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance," Gore says. "What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law, repeatedly and insistently. A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government." Gore says he agrees with Bush on the threat of terrorism, but disagrees that the US has to "break the law or sacrifice our system of government" to protect itself, as this will make it "weaker and more vulnerable." In addition, he says, "once violated, the rule of law is itself in danger," and, "Unless stopped, lawlessness grows, the greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles." It is patently obvious that the Bush administration has broken the law in conducting and approving its warrantless wiretaps, Gore says, regardless of what arguments and defenses administration officials may put forth (see September 12-18, 2001 and Early 2002). So, Gore says, "When President Bush failed to convince Congress to give him the power he wanted when this measure was passed, he secretly assumed that power anyway, as if Congressional authorization was a useless bother. But as [Supreme Court] Justice [Felix] Frankfurter once wrote, 'To find authority so explicitly withheld is not merely to disregard in a particular instance the clear will of Congress. It is to disrespect the whole legislative process and the constitutional division of authority between the president and the Congress.'… And the disrespect embodied in these apparent mass violations of the law is part of a larger pattern of seeming indifference to the Constitution that is deeply troubling to millions of Americans in both political parties." Illegal Seizure of American Citizens - Gore notes that Bush has declared that he has "a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen that he alone determines to be a threat to our nation, and that notwithstanding his American citizenship that person in prison has no right to talk with a lawyer, even if he wants to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person" (see November 13, 2001 and March 5, 2002). He says: "The president claims that he can imprison that American citizen—any American citizen he chooses—indefinitely, for the rest of his life, without even an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned." Gore then says: "No such right exists in the America that you and I know and love. It is foreign to our Constitution. It must be rejected." Specious Authority to Torture - Neither does the executive branch have the right to authorize torture, Gore says. After citing horrific examples from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, he calls it "a shameful exercise of power that overturns a set of principles that you're nation has observed since General George Washington first enunciated them during our Revolutionary War. They have been observed by every president since then until now. They violate the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention Against Torture, and our own laws against torture." Unlawful Kidnapping of Foreign Citizens - The president has no right to have foreign citizens kidnapped from their homes and brought to the US for interrogation and imprisonment, or worse, delivered to other nations for harsh interrogations and torture, says Gore. The closest allies of the US have been shocked by such claims. No Restraint in the Constitution? - Gore asks whether the president really has such powers under the Constitution and, if so, "are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?" He quotes the dean of Yale's law school, Harold Koh, who said, "If the president has commander in chief power to commit torture, he has the power to commit genocide, to sanction slavery, to promote apartheid, to license summary execution." Gore is "deeply troubl[ed]" that "our normal American safeguards have thus far failed to contain this unprecedented expansion of executive power." He cites the numerous usage of "signing statements" by Bush that signal his intent "not to comply" with particular legislation (see December 30, 2005). When the Supreme Court struck down Bush's indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" (see June 28, 2004), "the president then engaged in legal maneuvers designed to prevent the court from providing any meaningful content to the rights of the citizens affected." Historical Cycles - Since the founding of America, Gore says, the country has abrogated its citizens' rights in one circumstance or another, and cites numerous examples. But those abrogations were always rectified to some degree in a repeated cycle of what he calls "excess and regret." Gore is worried that the country may not be in such a cycle now. Instead, he says, the US may be on a path to permanent, state-sanctioned authoritarianism, with the constitutional safeguards American citizens have come to expect eroded and undermined to the point of irretrievability. Gore specifically cites the administration's support for the so-called "unitary executive" theory of government, which he says "ought to be more accurately described as the unilateral executive." That theory "threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the Constitution that the framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition." Stark Authoritarianism - Why are Bush and his top officials doing this? Gore says that "[t]he common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control. The same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the executive branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all executive branch employees." Gore continues: "Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time. The only check on it is that, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. Two thousand two hundred American soldiers have lost their lives as this false belief bumped into a solid reality." Gutting Congress - Though serious damage has been done to the judicial branch, Gore acknowledges, "the most serious damage in our constitutional framework has been to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of Congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the executive to attain this massive expansion of its power.… [T]he legislative branch of government as a whole, under its current leadership, now operates as if it were entirely subservient to the executive branch.… [T]he whole process is largely controlled by the incumbent president and his political organization" (see February 1, 2004). Gore says each member of Congress, Republican and Democrat, must "uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of American government that you are supposed to be under the Constitution of our country." We the People - The American people still, for the moment, have the power to enforce the Constitution, Gore says, quoting former President Dwight Eisenhower, who said, "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America." Gore continues: "Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction.… The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk. Yet in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights. Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment's notice to completely annihilate the country?" [Congressional Quarterly, 1/16/2006; American Constitutional Society, 1/16/2006]
Entity Tags: National Security Agency, Liberty Coalition, US Supreme Court, Harold Koh, George W. Bush, Albert Arnold ("Al") Gore, Jr., American Constitution Society, Bush administration (43), Convention Against Torture, Felix Frankfurter, George Washington, Geneva Conventions, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Robert "Bob" Barr
President Bush says that the recently passed Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 15, 2005) has no loopholes that would allow US interrogators to torture prisoners. "No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world," he says (see December 30, 2005 and January 2, 2006). [Ireland Online, 1/26/2006]
Entity Tags: George W. Bush, Detainee Treatment Act
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) file an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006) saying that because of the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA—see December 15, 2005), the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the case. Graham and Kyl argue their point by citing the "legislative history" of the DTA, in particular the official statements Graham and Kyl made during debate over the bill, and specifically an "extensive colloquy" between the two that appears in the Congressional Record for December 21, 2005. Graham and Kyl argue that this "colloquy," which argues that Guantanamo prisoners have no rights under the standard of habeas corpus, stands as evidence that "Congress was aware" that the DTA would strip the Court of jurisdiction over cases that involve Guantanamo detainees. (The Senate included an amendment written by Graham, Kyl, and Carl Levin (D-MI) to the DTA that would reject habeas claims in future court cases, but does not apply retroactively to cases already filed, such as Hamdan.) However, Graham and Kyl never engaged in such a discussion on the floor of the Senate. Instead, they had the text inserted in the Record just before the law passed (see December 30, 2005), meaning that no one in Congress heard their discussion. The brief indicates that the discussion happened during the debate over the bill when it did not. The Record indicates that the discussion that did take place concerning the Hamdan case comes from Democrats, and explicitly state that the DTA has no bearing on the case. C-SPAN video coverage of the debate proves that Graham and Kyl never made those statements, and Senate officials confirm that the discussion was inserted later into the Record. But in their brief, Graham and Kyl state that "the Congressional Record is presumed to reflect live debate except when the statements therein are followed by a bullet… or are underlined." The Record shows no such formatting, therefore, says the brief, it must have been live. The debate between Graham and Kyl is even written to make it appear as if it had taken place live, with Graham and Kyl answering each other's questions, Kyl noting that he is nearing the end of his allotted time, and another senator, Sam Brownback (R-KS) apparently attempting to interject a question. Lawyers for the prosecution will strenuously object to the brief, and Justice Department defense lawyers will use the brief as a centerpiece for their argument that the Supreme Court should throw the case out. [US Supreme Court, 2/2006 ; Slate, 3/27/2006; FindLaw, 7/5/2006] Former Nixon White House counsel John Dean will call the brief "a blatant scam," and will accuse Graham and Kyl of "misle[ading] their Senate colleagues, but also sham[ing] their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the US Supreme Court.… I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign.… [Graham and Kyl] brazenly attempted to hoodwink the Court regarding the actions of Congress in adopting the DTA." [FindLaw, 7/5/2006] Their efforts will not be successful, as the Supreme Court will ultimately rule against the Republican position in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld (see June 30, 2006).
Entity Tags: John Dean, Detainee Treatment Act, US Department of Justice, US Supreme Court, Samuel Brownback, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, Carl Levin
President Bush has abused his prerogative to issue "signing statements" that state the White House's interpretion of Congressionally passed laws (see Early 2005), according to former White House counsel John Dean and constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. History - Signing statements have no weight in law, but presidents have traditionally used them to state their belief that a particular legislative provision is unconstitutional, and on rare occasion (before the current president) to state their refusal to enforce that provision. Since Jimmy Carter's administration, various Justice Department officials have said presidents can refuse to enforce a particular provision of signed, legally binding legislation. [Dean, 2007, pp. 112-116] A group of young conservative lawyers in the Reagan administration decided that signing statements were a powerful, and stealthy, way to expand presidential power. Dean: Bush's Use of Signing Statements 'Extraordinary' - However, Dean says that Bush has used signing statements far more extensively than any president before him. Dean notes that, while presidential signing statements themselves are not illegal or inherently wrong, "[i]t is Bush's abuse of them that is extraordinary." Dean writes there has been no concerted effort to find out if Bush is just saying he will not comply with the inordinate number of legislative provisions he has objected to, or if he is refusing to comply with them in practice. If the latter is the case, Dean writes, "he should be impeached immediately… because it would be an extraordinary breach of his oath" of office. Tribe: Bush's Signing Statements 'Bizarre,' 'Reckless' - Dean cites Tribe, who said in 2006, "[W]hat is new and distressing [about Bush's use of signing statements] is the bizarre, frighteningly self-serving, and constitutionally reckless character of those views—and the suspicion that the president either intends actually to act on them with some regularity, often in a manner that won't be publicly visible at the time, or intends them as declarations of hegemony and contempt for the coordinate branches—declarations that he hopes will gradually come to be accepted in the constitutional culture as descriptions of the legal and political landscape properly conceived and as precedents for later action either by his own or by future administrations." [Dean, 2007, pp. 112-116; Joyce Green, 2007] Political science professor Christopher Kelley agrees. Kelley, who studied the Bush administration's use of signing statements, says: "What we haven't seen until this administration is the sheer number of objections that are being raised on every bill passed through the White House. That is what is staggering. The numbers are well out of the norm from any previous administration." Signing Statements Supplanting Vetoes - In another disturbing trend, according to author and reporter Charlie Savage, Bush is using signing statements to supplant the traditional presidential veto. By mid-2007, Bush had vetoed just two bills. In contrast, Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, vetoed 37 bills. George H. W. Bush vetoed 44, and Ronald Reagan vetoed 78. Legal experts studying Bush's signing statements conclude that Bush and his legal team are using signing statements to function almost as line-item vetoes, a power the president does not have. The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the Founding Fathers wanted the president to either accept a Congressional bill or reject it entirely, and if Congress overrode the veto, then the president had no other recourse than to follow the new law. But now, Savage writes, "the Bush-Cheney administration had figured out that if a president signed a bill and then instructed the government to consider selected provisions null (see December 30, 2005), he could accomplish much the same thing. Moreover, it was an absolute power because, unlike when there is a regular veto, Congress had no opportunity to override his legal judgments." [Savage, 2007, pp. 230-231]
Entity Tags: Laurence Tribe, John Dean, US Department of Justice, George W. Bush, Charlie Savage, James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr., Christopher Kelley
In a blistering editorial, the New York Times lambasts both the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership in the Senate for allowing Michael Mukasey, the new attorney general, to slide through the confirmation process with so little challenge (see November 8, 2007). The only thing left in the Senate's traditional responsibility of "advice and consent" is the "consent" part, the editors write. The editorial continues: "Once upon a time, the confirmation of major presidential appointments played out on several levels—starting, of course, with politics. It was assumed that a president would choose like-minded people as cabinet members and for other jobs requiring Senate approval. There was a presumption that he should be allowed his choices, all other things being equal. Before George W. Bush's presidency, those other things actually counted. Was the nominee truly qualified, with a professional background worthy of the job? Would he discharge his duties fairly and honorably, upholding his oath to protect the Constitution? Even though [he or] she answers to the president, would the nominee represent all Americans? Would he or she respect the power of Congress to supervise the executive branch, and the power of the courts to enforce the rule of law? In less than seven years, Mr. Bush has managed to boil that list down to its least common denominator: the president should get his choices." The Times observes that in the first six years of Bush's rule, he had an enthusiastically compliant set of Republican allies in Congress, but during that time, minority Democrats "did almost nothing… to demand better nominees than Mr. Bush was sending up. And now that they have attained the majority, they are not doing any better." The editors focus particularly on two issues: Mukasey's refusal to answer straightforward questions on whether waterboarding is torture, and the Democrats' refusal to filibuster the Senate vote. The Times notes that Mukasey passed confirmation with a 53-40 vote. Democrats have made what the Times calls "excuses for their sorry record" on a host of issues, and first and foremost is the justification that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. "So why did Mr. Mukasey get by with only 53 votes?" the Times asks. "Given the success the Republicans have had in blocking action when the Democrats cannot muster 60 votes, the main culprit appears to be the Democratic leadership, which seems uninterested in or incapable of standing up to Mr. Bush." The editors do not accept the rationale of Mukasey supporters like Charles Schumer (D-NY), who argued that by not confirming Mukasey, the path would be clear for Bush to make an interim appointment of someone far more extreme. The Times calls this line of argument "cozy rationalization," and by Mukasey's refusal to answer questions about his position on waterboarding, he has already aligned himself with the extremist wing of the administration. For the record, the Times notes, "Waterboarding is specifically banned by the Army Field Manual, and it is plainly illegal under the federal Anti-Torture Act, federal assault statutes, the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005), the Convention Against Torture (see October 21, 1994), and the Geneva Conventions." Therefore, "[i]t is hard to see how any nominee worthy of the position of attorney general could fail to answer 'yes.'" The Times speculates that Mukasey was not permitted to answer the question by the White House because a "no" answer "might subject federal officials who carried out Mr. Bush's orders to abuse and torture prisoners after the 9/11 attacks: the right answer could have exposed them to criminal sanctions." All in all, the Times is appalled by "the Senate giving the job of attorney general, chief law enforcement officer in the world's oldest democracy, to a man who does not even have the integrity to take a stand against torture." [New York Times, 11/11/2007]
Entity Tags: Michael Mukasey, New York Times, Geneva Conventions, Bush administration (43), Charles Schumer, George W. Bush, Convention Against Torture, Detainee Treatment Act
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) replies to a letter from the Justice Department that claims the CIA's detainee interrogation program is fully compliant with the Geneva Conventions and with US and international law (see September 27, 2007). Wyden challenges the legal rationale for the claims, noting that the cases cited do not directly apply to the question of whether the definitions of "humane treatment" and "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" can vary depending on the identity of the detainee and the circumstances surrounding his interrogation. He also challenges the Justice Department's rather narrow interpretation of the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment and the Detainee Treatment Act (see December 30, 2005). [US Senate, 3/6/2008 ]
Entity Tags: Detainee Treatment Act, US Department of Justice, Ron Wyden, Geneva Conventions
Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the presumptive Republican nominee for president, urges President Bush to veto an upcoming bill prohibiting waterboarding and other extreme methods of interrogation after himself voting against the bill. The bill passes the Senate on a largely partisan 51-45 vote. It has already passed the House on a similar party-line vote, and Bush has already announced his intention to veto the bill. McCain has won a reputation as an advocate of prisoner rights and a staunch opponent of torture; his five-year stint as a POW in North Vietnam is well-known. But McCain voted against the legislation when it came up for a vote in the Senate, and he opposes the bill now. McCain says he is opposed to waterboarding, but does not want the CIA restricted to following the practices outlined in the US Army Field Manual, as the legislation would require. McCain says: "I knew I would be criticized for it. I think I can show my record is clear. I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not" torture. "I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate" international rules against torture. McCain has said he believes waterboarding is already prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (see December 30, 2005). And CIA director Michael Hayden has said that current law may well prohibit waterboarding; he claims to have stopped CIA agents from waterboarding detainees in 2006, and also claims that the technique was not used later than 2003. McCain's Senate colleague, Charles Schumer (D-NY) says that if Bush vetoes the bill, then he in essence "will be voting in favor of waterboarding." [New York Times, 2/13/2008; Associated Press, 2/21/2008] Bush will indeed veto the bill (see March 8, 2008).
Entity Tags: Detainee Treatment Act, George W. Bush, John McCain, Michael Hayden, Central Intelligence Agency, Charles Schumer
President Bush vetoes legislation passed by Congress that would have banned the CIA from using waterboarding and other "extreme" interrogation techniques. The legislation is part of a larger bill authorizing US intelligence activities. The US Army prohibits the use of waterboarding and seven other interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual; the legislation would have brought the CIA in line with US military practices. Waterboarding is banned by many countries and its use by the US and other regimes has been roundly condemned by US lawmakers and human rights organizations. The field manual also prohibits stripping prisoners naked; forcing them to perform or simulate sexual acts; beating, burning, or otherwise inflicting harm; subjecting prisoners to hypothermia; subjecting prisoners to mock executions; withholding food, water, or medical treatment; using dogs to frighten or attack prisoners; and hooding prisoners or strapping duct tape across their eyes. Reasoning for Veto - "Because the danger remains, we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists," Bush explains. The vetoed legislation "would diminish these vital tools." Bush goes on to say that the CIA's interrogation program has helped stop terrorist attacks on a US Marine base in Djibouti and the US consulate in Pakistan, as well as stopped plans for terrorists to fly hijacked planes into a Los Angeles tower or perhaps London's Heathrow Airport. He gives no specifics, but adds, "Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland." John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagrees, saying he knows of no instances where the CIA has used such methods of interrogation to obtain information that led to the prevention of a terrorist attack. "On the other hand, I do know that coercive interrogations can lead detainees to provide false information in order to make the interrogation stop," he says. CIA Director Michael Hayden says that the CIA will continue to work within both national and international law, but its needs are different from those of the Army, and it will follow the procedures it thinks best. Bush complains that the legislation would eliminate not just waterboarding, but "all the alternative procedures we've developed to question the world's most dangerous and violent terrorists." [Reuters, 3/8/2008; Associated Press, 3/8/2008] Criticism of Veto - Democrats, human rights leaders, and others denounce Bush's veto. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) says, "This president had the chance to end the torture debate for good, yet he chose instead to leave the door open to use torture in the future." Feinstein notes that Bush ignored the advice of 43 retired generals and admirals, and 18 national security experts, who all supported the bill. "Torture is a black mark against the United States," she says. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says she and fellow Democrats will try to override the veto and thus "reassert [the United States's] moral authority." Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First says, "The president's refusal to sign this crucial legislation into law will undermine counterterrorism efforts globally and delay efforts to rebuild US credibility on human rights." [Associated Press, 3/8/2008] New York Times journalist Steven Lee Myers writes that Bush vetoes the bill not just to assert his support for extreme interrogation techniques or to provide the government everything it needs to combat terrorism, but as part of his ongoing battle to expand the power of the presidency. Myers writes, "At the core of the administration's position is a conviction that the executive branch must have unfettered freedom when it comes to prosecuting war." [New York Times, 3/9/2008]
Entity Tags: Nancy Pelosi, Human Rights First, George W. Bush, Elisa Massimino, Dianne Feinstein, Central Intelligence Agency, John D. Rockefeller, Michael Hayden, US Department of the Army, Senate Intelligence Committee, Steven Lee Myers
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.Donate Now
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.Contact Us
Except where otherwise noted,
the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike


text:
A Reluctant Politician Answers God's Call
Steve Largent
Rep. Steve Largent, 43, has represented the 1st congressional district of Oklahoma in the House of Representatives since 1994. He first gained national fame as a record-setting wide receiver in the National Football League. Now, Largent has emerged as a strong, new voice in Congress for pro-life positions and religious freedom. He recently spoke with Register correspondent Eleanor Kennelly.
Kennelly: How has your faith guided or strengthened you in what has been quite a successful public life?
Largent: Interestingly enough, I've been asked that question for 25 years. Prior to being in Congress, I was in professional football for 14 years and I was asked, "How do you mix your faith with what you do? How do you mix your faith with playing a violent sport that schedules all of its games on Sundays? How does that work?" So I've been answering that question for a long, long time. And my response is that my faith is at the foundation of who I am as a person.
It's not a club I belong to, or an appendage to everything else I do. It's not something I just take along and bring out to experience at appropriate times. My relationship with Jesus is the foundation of who I am. And so everything else is built on that foundation: all the decisions that I make, the way I conduct myself as a husband, a father, a congressman, or a football player all emanate from this core value and belief that I have in [my] relationship with Jesus. My faith strikes at the core of who I am.
Did you develop a commitment to faith at a young age or as you got older?
Actually, I was not raised in a religious family at all. My parents were divorced when I was six. My stepfather was an alcoholic. There were a lot of problems that accompanied that. And when I was a high school student I really began to sense, as Pascal said, the "God-shaped vacuum" that only God can fill. I discovered that friends, and football, and popularity, or drinking, or smoking, couldn't fill that vacuum I had in my life. It was when I was a high school student that I first had an experience with Christ.
What kind of experience was it?
Really it was the first time that I heard the message about love and forgiveness, about reconciliation, about joy versus happiness, about the eternal versus the temporal, about the invisible versus the visible, and all I can say is that for me, all the pieces came together and I knew that this was what I needed to fill the vacuum that I had in my life.
So did you join a Church at that time?
No, not really. I like to say all the time that following Jesus is not a destination that you arrive at, it's a process that you walk, with him. Like any relationship, it's a dynamic thing. It's different for different people. And I am still involved in that process, a process that began slowly and has no end.
As a pro football player, especially a successful one, you must have felt on top of the world. How were you able to maintain perspective in the midst of the kind of success so many young people dream about?
You can come home and think you're a superstar guy but when your wife tells you to change a diaper or take the trash out … it really has a humbling effect.
I can honestly answer this and say that two things were absolutely instrumental in helping me keep my feet on the ground and my head out of the clouds—my faith and my family. When you have a relationship with Jesus and he teaches you all the things that are diametrically opposed to the world in order to gain life, you have to lose your life. In order to receive, you have to give. All these principles are about humility, and about sacrifice, and about service and love. Those are not values that you learn in the NFL or in Congress. So my faith has a very important role in terms of gaining a healthy perspective on who I am and my role in the world.
My family also played an important role. You can come home and think you're a superstar guy but when your wife tells you to change a diaper or take the trash out, which I did, it really has a humbling effect. And I think part of the beauty and the chemistry we've had for 23 years is that my wife knew me when I was a pimple-faced, curly-haired, nerdy guy in high school. That's how our relationship began. It didn't begin when I was an NFL football player with money, all that sort of stuff.
You've gone from one career to another that are both hard on families.
It's hard on families and it's very inflating as well. When you walk down the hall and people say, "Hi Congressman" or "Let me open the door for you," or buy you lunch, or if your staff is bowing down to worship you because, you know, you're the boss: That is very addicting and ego-gratifying, and gives you tremendous temptation to let that go to your head.
How did you make the transition from sports to politics?
This is one thing [politics] I said I would never do, this and coaching. And I learned you should never say never. All I can say is that my wife had been whispering in my ear for a long time after I retired from football, "Why do you think it is you have this tremendous platform in name-identification and reputation? Is this just so you can come back to Tulsa and blend into the woodwork or are we supposed to leverage it for some higher purpose—like politics." And that was the end of the conversation because I wouldn't go any further. I didn't want to go down that road. I never had an appropriate answer for her until there was an open congressional seat and I got a call from [the Republican Party in Washington]. I said I would pray about it with my wife. We did, and my heart was changed. It was still not something I wanted to do, but it was something I knew I was supposed to do.
Now when you look back on that experience, do you have a clearer understanding of why you got that message?
I think so. Because my impression at that time was … well I was totally naive. I knew I had some core values and principles that I thought would make me effective as a representative and legislator. But I had no experience. I would say that in May 1994, when I made the decision to run, the conclusion I had reached was, well, it must be that I'm supposed to do this to go change Washington and now in hindsight I can say that that was not the reason at all. It was that God would change me. And that's what has happened. I have learned a lot about myself. I've learned a lot about people. I have matured and grown, personally and professionally, in ways that I never would have if not for this experience.
Why do you think you were given that direction, toward what end? Not just personal edification certainly.
Well, I have always heard it said that God is more concerned about your character than your comfort, and this has not been a comfortable job. This has been very hard, personally going back and forth every week from Tulsa to Washington, D.C., but for my family as well. My wife has experienced being a single mother for most of every year. For more than half of the year, she's a single mother at home alone dealing with four kids, and three of them are teenagers. So that is a very difficult thing.
All I can say is that God has not only transformed my character but my wife's and my children's as well—not through tremendous blessing but through tremendous hardship. And that's why I say I don't know if I can do this forever. What I'm saying is I came with this idea that I was Don Quixote and I would slay the windmills in Washington, D.C. and I've found out that what has actually taken place is that God has transformed my heart. If you're asking me where I take this from here, I haven't a clue. I have no political aspirations. I didn't have any when I ran for office.
Have you found that the American political system today is essentially a "Godless" system?
I think I came into the political system thinking that, but what I found is that the American political system is a very human business. It is about people, it's not about institutions. And all of the greatest qualities of people and the worst attributes of people are glaringly obvious in the political arena. So all the worst aspects of human nature are very evident, but so are the greatest—like sacrifice and humility, those things appear as well in the people who work here.
Do you think that the division between Church and state, which is very pronounced in the American system, has become more exaggerated than it should be?
I don't think that we currently have a balanced view of the separation between Church and state. You know they always say that the pendulum is never in the middle except when it swings from one extreme to the other? Well, we have swung to an extreme in trying to eradicate every semblance of God in our public institutions. We are ripping down the Ten Commandments from courthouse walls while we protect pornography on the Internet. Something's wrong with that picture, and so I think what we need to do is to return to a more balanced view, the view of the founding fathers of this country.
You can not deny the spiritual roots and foundation that our country is built upon. You walk over to the House chamber and you see "In God We Trust" above the speaker's chair. You've got the face of Moses looking down upon the House floor. We say the Pledge of Allegiance and we pray before every session of Congress. Things you can't do in the schoolhouse we do in the Congress. So there is a great misappropriation of the term "separation of Church and state".
Is prayer in the school a political issue any more?
Yes, I think it is. I think all the religious issues—the Religious Freedom amendment—the whole issue is still a political issue. I just believe that when it says in 2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my presence and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and revive their land."
And I think when we are living in a country where we have the plague of the AIDS virus, we have 20 some million women who have experienced abortion, there is a lot of pain and hurt and guilt that we need to heal. The way you do that, according to 2 Chronicles 7:14, is to pray. And I really don't see how the circumstances within schoolhouse walls are exacerbated in the wrong direction by praying. How can it get worse than putting up metal detectors, students beating teachers, teachers sexually abusing students, nobody learning anything, SAT scores down, truancy up, drug use and violence up. How will that be worsened by allowing students to pray?
Are there any new faith-based political issues, or issues of particular interest to religious people, that you see on the radar for this Congress or the next?
To me, all the issues related to and surrounding the abortion issue—while that's not the root problem—symbolize a deeper spiritual problem in our country. To me it is a vital test of this Congress and a litmus test of where we go from here as a nation and as a culture. How we deal with that. It is not an issue on which we can merely sit back and wink and nod and give a few lines for applause at a rally and then do nothing about. We have the partial birth abortion debate coming up again. I think we should do it every week and continue to pound on it.
Well, because it's the right thing to do. That's the only reason we should continue to do it. I think parental notification on Title X funding is the right thing to do. Those are like incremental steps in the right direction, but again the underlying problem is a moral meltdown in the country and there are no laws that we can pass to address that.
Are you worried that the public response to the current White House crisis represents a certain weak morality on the part of the American public?
I don't know how to interpret that, but I am still confident that the country has a very moral fabric woven into it, and that people with deep-seated beliefs and values are out there. They may be quiet but I sense a real restlessness in the spirit of this country. You know the landscape is really ripe for revival, which is what I think we need.
What kind of revival?
A spiritual revival, not a political revolution.
Do you see that spirit stirring more in Oklahoma than in Washington?
I see it here in Washington, too, absolutely. As I come in contact with members of Congress from around the country, I see their response to the spiritual vacuum and they too are seeking the deeper things in life on a personal level.
Do you see this revival as occurring across religious denominations, or mostly within Protestant Churches.
I think, absolutely, across religious differences. You know the idea that most people don't reject Jesus, they reject a caricature of Jesus, and I think a lot of our religious institutions are responsible for erecting most of the caricatures of who Jesus is. So if we can just break down the caricatures, erase those, and really lift the person of Jesus up, not Church dogma or doctrine or a particular theology, just lift Jesus up, we'll be able to get beyond all the differences. As St. Francis of Assisi said, "Unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and love over all." That's the goal.
—Eleanor Kennelly
- Keywords:
- April 05-11, 1998


text:
- This event has passed.
Serving at God's Love
January 27 @ 4:15 pm - 5:00 pm
|Recurring Event (See all)
An event every week that begins at 4:15 pm on Monday, repeating indefinitely
Serve at God's Love on Mondays – Our Redeemer's is committed to serving meals every Monday evening at 4:15pm. Located at 533 North Main Street in Helena, God's Love is a ministry that reaches out to serve those in need. Engage your faith…you will be blessed. A sign-up sheet is located at the main office of the church. Please contact the church office, with questions.


text:
I think it was late last year or early this year that I wrote my forecast for year 2017! One of the forecast is that calamity will happen this 3rd quarter or 4th quarter of 2017. If it happens on the 4th quarter of 2017 it will certainly start or be precipitated this 3rd quarter.
As we all know there is this calamity in Houston, Texas in USA. Hurricane Harvey brought massive rain that rivers overflowed so much that it is now officially been confirmed that it was the worst tragedy to happen in Houston in more than a century! Worst calamity in more than a 100 years! Add to that natural disaster is the disaster that it was said that the Trump US government was not ready for this calamity because of the fact that the two agencies involved in this kind of situation is at the present still unoccupied. To add to that tragedy, Joel Osteen, the Christian preacher and author of several books who has a house worth US$ 10.5 Million and has a large stadium that can fit thousand and thousands of people refuses to open its door for those who were displaced. This for me is worse than any natural disaster, for one person able to help somebody but refuses to do so.
Before Harvey, Typhoon Hato devastated Hong Kong and Macau, thousands were also displaced, this was one of the worst typhoon Hong Kong and Macau has seen in 50 years!
Isn't it ironic that two natural calamities occurred in a span of two days at two different continents and they're both 'record breaker' in terms of the devastation that they brought? And these things happened both during the Hungry Ghost Month which was preceded by the total solar eclipse!
But for me the biggest tragedy is still about to happen but it has already started when North Korea fired that missile that arced over Hokkaido even it eventually fell of the ocean. It was a clear provocation against Japan and the US who is currently having a joint training. It was not clear why neither Japan and the US didn't intercept the said missile, but speculations say they avoided being embarrassed which means that they might be ready to intercept such a close encounter. Today, (time of writing is usually not the time of posting) North Korea has announced that the Japan missile is just a prelude to a Guam missile. While this incident doesn't seem so tragic now, political analysts are already bracing themselves for an even bigger tragedy of worldwide consequence. It is pretty obvious that with Trump at the helm of things in America, he will not like to be bullied, much less by an Asian, and for somebody like him who seems to have strong racist tendencies, he will have taken as a direct provocation. Japan will definitely have to act on this also. We just hope that cooler heads prevail coupled with wisdom and humility and that the leaders doesn't turn this into an arm – wrestle to determine who is more macho.
Several readers has contacted me asking whether these things are the 'catastrophe' that I have written about in my forecast for the year, and whether these things were aggravated by the Total Solar Eclipse on the eve of the Hungry Ghost Month.
I think these tragedies are what I said about the 'catastrophe' that will happen or start to happen on the 3rd quarter of the year. But what I'm afraid of is that there is more. I am not trying to be a prophet of doom, but modesty aside I have quite a high rate of accuracy when it comes to forecast. For example, I was the only Feng Shui writer who clearly indicated that there is going to be tragedy in Visayas that will cause famine when Typhoon Haiyan / Typhoon Yolanda happened, to the earthquake in Nepal, to the financial crisis. As early as middle of last year I Have forecasted that the US dollar would hit to more than 50 Philippine pesos. I said it might stabilize at 52 Philippine pesos but may hit as high as 54 Philippine pesos.
I'm saying these not to brag because my high rate of accuracy is not because I'm psychic but because it is of the accuracy in the interpretation of the 'stars' for the year, but that we should take these seriously. In the Philippines, we should also expect something to happen which is brewing already. This might 'blow on our face' either towards the end of the year or early next year.
And we are talking about this and saying we must take this seriously so that we can all be prepared, and we should all start praying. I believe and know that prayer works and so it is important to pray for our country and for this world.
In the meantime, on a personal level, the effect of the total solar eclipse on the eve of the Hungry Ghost Month could be some personal financial difficulty or illness. When this happens, it can continue until the end of the year. It is best to protect oneself with prayers or with powerful amulets like the Vajrapani Ruel or a gold Kalachakra pendant. My Guru Lama foreseeing this concern, has also recently released the Vaisravana – Dzambhala Wealth Amulet that is suppose to address this concern. The Vaisravana – Dzambhala Wealth Amulet is a powerful wealth amulet.
For questions, comments, and suggestions please email firstname.lastname@example.com