text:
Printable version.
Chapter 6
Article 3: Judicial Usurpation
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Christian1 Constitutionalists generally believe the provision for a superior and inferior court system was derived from Jethro's counsel to Moses in Exodus 18:
Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances [statutes] and laws…. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. (Exodus 18:19-22)2
And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH,4 who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)
In order for a court to be just, it must be impartial. For a court to be impartial, its judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh, instead of the state or any one class, gender, or person. Because constitutional government adjudicates on behalf of the state and the people, many rulings are unjust and adverse to Yahweh's morality:
…they have sinned against YHWH, the habitation of justice…. (Jeremiah 50:7)
R.J. Rushdoony described justices who do not represent Yahweh as political hacks:
If the judge does not represent God's Law order, he is ultimately a political hack and hatchet man whose job it is to keep the people in line, protect the establishment, and in the process to feather his own nest….5
…the judge was not to be an impartial referee but a partisan champion of the law of God, actively concerned with bringing God's justice to bear on every situation "by requiting the wicked, by recompensing his way upon his own head; and by justifying the righteous, by giving him according to his righteousness" (II Chron. 6:23).6
Anticipating their prohibition against Christian test oaths in Article 6, the framers could not require judges to fear Yahweh in Article 3. Yahweh's law requires judges to fear Yahweh; the Constitution bans the same qualification. The following decisions are only a small sampling of this rejection of Yahweh and His law and should not surprise anyone:
These court decisions are not the consequence of the courts' departure from the Constitution, but instead the consequence of the constitutional framers establishing a judiciary without specifying that it was to be governed by Yahweh's law. Because nothing requires constitutional judges to rule exclusively according to Yahweh's morality, they have tacit authority to adjudicate according to the immorality of Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Baal, or WE THE PEOPLE. This is especially true because of the polytheistic provision for freedom of religion in Amendment 1. Americans should prepare themselves for courts that rule according to Islamic Sharia and Jewish Beth Din laws, as is already occurring in England:
Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases. The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court….
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years….
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.7
Constitutional judges are required to render verdicts in agreement with the Constitution rather than the Bible anytime the two are in disagreement:
…when they … find it [any law] to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, it is their duty to pronounce it void.
James Wilson, Constitution Signatory and Supreme Court Justice8
James Wilson, Constitution Signatory and Supreme Court Justice8
James McHenry, a signatory of the Constitution and later Secretary of War, took what appears to have been a contrary position:
…the Holy Scriptures … can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments [defenses] around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses.9
Why then did McHenry sign his name to the Constitution? This is a classic case in which someone involved with the writing and ratification of the Constitution said the right things but did otherwise.
The only qualification provided in Article 3 is that judges are to be men and women of good behavior:
Under Article III, Section 1, judges can only continue to hold their office "during good behavior," a broadly defined term that is meant to provide Congress with optimum discretionary authority. Unfortunately, Congress has only invoked this power twice in the last 210 plus years – once for drunkenness and once for disloyalty during the Civil War.10
Of what worth is a condition of good behavior if it is nowhere defined? In Mark 10:18, Jesus11 declared, "No one is good except God alone" (NASB). Good behavior can be defined and understood only from the parameters of Yahweh and His morality. Any standard that leaves "good behavior" to the determination of humans is humanism.
What the framers did was essentially the same as a father who tells his five-year-old son to be a good boy without explaining to him what is required of him to be good. When the son comes up with his own ideas about what qualifies as "good," the father has no grounds to discipline him. No wonder bad judges are so seldom disciplined and so difficult to remove from their benches.
Because all judges are lawyers and because lawyers have dominated every congress since 1789, the lawyers in the legislative branch are unlikely to turn on their fellow lawyers in the judicial branch. The majority of presidents have also been lawyers. So much for the purported separation of powers under the United States Constitutional Republic.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party….
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before-mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.
Alexis de Tocqueville12
Alexis de Tocqueville12
The Supreme Court, composed of one chief justice and eight associate justices, with its power to not only judge the facts of any case but also to interpret, judge, and overrule any "law" passed by Congress (what Gary North described as "retroactive legitimacy to legislation"13 ), makes the Supreme Court the powerhouse or "big god" of this polytheistic system. Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland and one of Maryland's delegates to the Constitutional Convention, pointed out that the Supreme Court ultimately negates the jury system:
…in all cases where the general government has jurisdiction in civil questions … its appellate jurisdiction, absolutely declares the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Should, therefore, a jury be adopted in the inferior court, it would only be a needless expense, since, on an appeal, the determination of that jury, even on questions of fact, however honest and upright, is to be of no possible effect. The Supreme Court is to take up all questions of fact, to examine the evidence relative thereto, to decide upon them in the same manner as if they had never been tried by a jury…. But, Sir, the appellate jurisdiction extends … to cases criminal as well as to civil; and, on the appeal, the court is to decide not only on the law, but on the fact. If, therefore, even in criminal cases, the general government is not satisfied with the verdict of the jury, its officer may remove the prosecution to the Supreme Court, and there the verdict of the jury is to be of no effect, but the judges of this court are to decide upon the fact as well as the law….14
The power of the people of the United States of America and their representatives is subject to the Judicial Branch, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which is essentially immune from any kind of censure. The real power or sovereignty of the United States Constitutional Republic resides in a Biblically unqualified and nearly always Biblically adverse five to four majority. The United States government is ultimately under the control and direction of five lawyers. And why not? In 1787, it was predominately lawyers (thirty-four of the fifty-five delegates were lawyers) who framed the Constitution and gave ultimate power into the hands of their own trade. Concerning public opinion in 1787, Forrest McDonald wrote that "few Americans except lawyers trusted a truly independent judiciary."15
North observes that "political conservatives cry out against the concentration of power in the hands of the Supreme Court."16 But this is only because the Supreme Court's rulings are predisposed toward liberals. If it were otherwise, political conservatives would have no objections against this concentration of power.
In the United States, rights are proclaimed in the Constitution, but they are defined by the Supreme Court, which the Constitution has established to provide a reliable and definitive interpretation of the law.17
Although Article 6 declares the Constitution the supreme law of the land, whoever has the power to interpret that law is the supreme legislator. Chief Justice Warren Burger commented on the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established judicial review under Article 3 of the Constitution:
The cornerstone of our constitutional history and system remains the firm adherence of the Supreme Court to the Marbury principle of judicial review that "someone must decide" what the Constitution means.18
James Madison concurred:
I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the Judiciary.19
Supreme Court Associate Justice Charles Evan Hughes commented upon this inescapable fact:
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." …[But it] is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is…. It follows that the interpretation of the [Constitution] enunciated by this Court … is the supreme law of the land….20
Constitutionalists may protest, but it was inevitable that the Supreme Court would dominate the Constitutional Republic's three branches.
The court does not merely interpret the rules; it expands them, as indeed it must in view of their cryptic incisiveness and the ever-multiplying and changing nature of the confrontations between religion and government which the court must resolve…. On occasion the court must even rewrite the rules.
In short, while the Constitution provides formal methods for its amendment, the Supreme Court can be considered a de facto continuing convention expanding or rewriting the Constitution as the need arises….21
In other words, the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court – at any given time – says it is.
How paradoxical that the first nation to base its political philosophy on the principle that all political authority derives from the people, and that the people express their will through elected representatives, should also be the first to embrace the principle that the ultimate interpretation of the validity of the popular will should be lodged not in the people themselves, or in their representatives, but in one non-elected and, therefore, non-democratic branch of the government.22
Without God's word as our anchor for law, we are ultimately governed by activist judges and their judicial whims. Under that standard, law is manipulated to correspond … to what the judges think it should say rather than what it actually says…. Law becomes whatever a few elitist judges say it is….23
Thomas Jefferson and George Mason were prophetic in their comments about the judiciary:
The constitution … is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.24
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression ... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary ... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little to-morrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped….25
The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the Judiciaries of the several States; thereby rendering Law as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and Justice as unattainable, by a great part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress and ruin the poor.26
Under Yahweh's law, such a judiciary would be considered treasonous. At the very least, any judges involved in such treason would be removed from the bench.
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! (Isaiah 10:1-2)
The United States constitutional juridical system is disposed toward the wealthy and often wrests judgment from the poor. The scales are tipped in favor of the rich simply because the average person cannot afford the same quality and quantity of attorneys as a wealthy man. This, in itself, is a type of unjust weights and measures. Money and attorney gamesmanship – not justice – rule today's courts, and the result, all too often, is the plundering of the innocent:
This is one of the problems inherent in an adversarial system [such as with the United States juridical system], rather than an advocacy system in which there is a concern on the part of all to arrive at truth. Defense attorneys are concerned only with acquittal of their defendants rather than simply ensuring that they get a fair trial. Instead of emphasizing a judgment based on the full disclosure of evidence, an adversarial system focuses on who can best present their case. Elocution triumphs over truth.
Almost everyone can cite a horror story of an acquaintance who has been sued for frivolous reasons, was subsequently acquitted, but ended up with a $10,000 attorney bill. Is this justice? …[J]ustice in the United States is no longer blind, it is cross-eyed.27
Yahweh demands equity in His courts for poor and wealthy alike:
Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause…. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Keep thee far from a false matter…. And thou shalt take no gift [bribe, NASB]: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous. (Exodus 23:3-8)
Attorney fees are often nothing more than bribes to acquit the guilty.
Constitutionalists believe the superiority of the United States juridical system is demonstrated in that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned and made right by either future Supreme Court justices or by constitutional amendment. But history has proven the opposite is more likely. Furthermore, the injustices that often occur in the interim between a bad decision and a better decision would seldom, if ever, occur in a Biblical court.
Nothing demonstrates this fundamental defect better than Roe v. Wade, which constitutionally has provided for an endless number of infants to be murdered. While Christian Constitutionalists wait for the Constitutional Republic's system to (they hope) correct itself, millions more infants are being murdered. Under Yahweh's law, not one infant would have been murdered.
Even when wrong decisions are overturned, they can be overturned again by a later court. Judicial records expose this capricious tendency of the United States juridical system:
…law not founded upon absolutes is very dangerous to society. Consider that without absolutes, the Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 separate times!28
The actual number is more than double this figure:
The Court had reversed itself in 219 cases by 2000. Of this total, all but seven instances came after the Civil War. All but 28 came after 1913. Over 60 percent came after 1941. This process is accelerating.29
Judicial "standards now change as rapidly as the Justices. This causes an uncertainty for society; and, in fact, often establishes a dubious standard which, in effect, is no standard at all."30 Unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not an infallible standard. Returning to a more "pure" constitutionalism is not the answer. The answer is found in returning to Yahweh's perfect law and altogether righteous judgments.
Unlike the Constitutional Republic, Yahweh's court system has no litigant appellate process. In Exodus 18, difficult cases were turned over to higher judges (over fifties, hundreds, and thousands) and finally to Moses by lower courts, not for appeal, but for adjudication. Appellate systems such as provided by Article 3 only delay judgments. Without Yahweh's morality as the standard, higher courts have no better chance of arriving at a just decision than do lower courts.
This chapter would be incomplete without something being said regarding lawyers, who, as pointed out earlier, have predominated all three branches of the Constitutional Republic from the onset and who have only become more entrenched since its ratification:
Whenever lawyers dominate a society – usually during the society's final years – they steadily substitute formal procedure for ethics…. They adopt a theology of salvation by law, or at least continued employment by law. The practice of law replaces the law itself; "law" becomes case laws, precedents, and procedures, but without any thought or hope concerning an integrated law-order that provides meaning to the law in general. Law becomes what men say it is, and men do not agree. Humanism's implicit judicial polytheism then leads to the disintegration of civil law: jammed courts, endless litigation, plea bargaining, and all the other aspects of twentieth-century judicial tyranny that we have become numbed into accepting as normative.
The Bible is concerned with ethics, not formal courtroom procedure…. It is the mark of a culture in the process of disintegration that it substitutes procedure for ethics, the letter of its law for the spirit of its law. Even more important is the bureaucratic machinery that defines the letter of the law…. Techniques of judicial interpretation are considered more fundamental than the substance of the law. Such an attitude invariably transfers authority from the people to a self-certified elite, the interpreters. It creates a secular priesthood.31
The most consequential repercussion of the Constitutional Republic's juridical system was its effect upon the church:
The church … was thrown out into the street by the lawyers of Philadelphia, who decided not to have a Christian country…. [I]n effect, they took all the promises of religion, the pursuit of happiness, safety, security, all kinds of things, and they set up a lawyers' paradise, and the church was disenfranchised totally.32
Consider Jesus' denunciation of lawyers:
Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52)
The key of knowledge is the law of Yahweh, and lawyers, including and especially the Philadelphia thirty-four, have altered that law:
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee … seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God…. (Hosea 4:6)
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Article 3's provision for juries is yet another instance of the framers' deciding they knew better than Yahweh. The Bible offers nothing that resembles a jury system. In an attempt to make the Constitution's jury system appear Biblical, one pastor wrote:
The jury was not invented by human minds but is a system that came from God through His Israel people. Deu 1:22 "And ye came near unto me every one of you, and said, We will send men before us, and they shall search us out the land, and bring us word again by what way we must go up, and into what cities we shall come. 23 And the saying pleased me well: and I took twelve men of you, one of a tribe."33
Deuteronomy 1:22-23 has nothing to do with a jury system. It provides the account of Moses' sending one man from each of the twelve tribes to spy out Canaan. If this is a precedent for a jury system, it is a poor one because ten of the twelve "jurors" came back with the wrong verdict.
In their attempt to make the Constitution Biblical, Mark Beliles and Douglas Anderson maintain "the right of 'trial by jury'" was "set forth in the Bible in Deuteronomy 19:15-19."34 This passage cites priests and judges but says nothing about juries:
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before YHWH, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 19:15-19)
Most Constitutionalists favor the jury system, provided jury nullification (a juror's right to judge a law as unjust, oppressive, or inapplicable to any particular case) is in force. However, even if jury nullification were restored, juries would still render decisions based upon each jury's collective standard of morality or immorality. "A jury drawn from the [Biblically] uninstructed population is no better equipped to administer the just requirements of God's law than a corrupt judge."35 A jury awarded $2.3 million to Stella Liebeck when she burned herself with McDonald's coffee, and a jury found O.J. Simpson innocent on all charges. Although it might be argued that it only takes one juror to dissent and prevent a "railroad job," most people lack the independence and resolution to resist the will of a majority. More often than not, today's jurors reflect the type of people we are warned against in Exodus 23:
Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment. (Exodus 23:2)
Juries produce, at best, erratic justice. Without Yahweh's law as the standard, jury decisions are based upon the capricious morality of its members. Nothing demonstrates this better than Jesus' trial by a jury of His peers with Pontius Pilate presiding. The prevailing immorality of the day demanded Jesus be crucified even though He was clearly innocent.
The character of the courts, judges, and legal system cannot be long maintained if the character of the people is delinquent and degenerate. Courts and judges do not exist in a vacuum: they are part of the faith, culture, and moral standards of the people at large, of the nation of which they are a part.36
And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways…. (Hosea 4:9)
The constitutional right of a trial by a jury of "impartial" peers is regarded by Americans – especially Christian Constitutionalists – as one of the last bulwarks against tyranny. If this is true, Yahweh (who is unquestionably a God of justice and liberty) would have included juries somewhere in His perfect law and righteous judgments. Surely, one of the reasons He did not provide for them is that juries (like elections) place government policy and juridical determinations in the hands of an unpredictable and unequally yoked public, the majority of whom are not Christian (Matthew 7:13).
Although the following passages provide for judges, officers, and magistrates, the Bible nowhere mentions juries:
…thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness…. And let them judge the people at all seasons…. (Exodus 18:20-22)
For all manner of trespass … the cause of both parties shall come before the judges…. (Exodus 22:9)
And I charged your judges … saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. (Deuteronomy 1:16)
Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates … and they shall judge the people with just judgment. (Deuteronomy 16:18)
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. (Deuteronomy 25:1)
And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges … all such as know the laws of thy God…. (Ezra 7:25)
When a judicial system is governed by Biblically qualified judges – whose decisions are based upon Yahweh's commandments, statutes, and judgments – juries are unnecessary. Under such a system, all judicial decisions reflect Yahweh's never-changing morality. In Deuteronomy 25:1, Yahweh admonished judges to "justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked." Where is this most likely to occur – in the courts of sinners or in the courts of the saints? Do not look for it in the courts of the unrighteous:
Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves … they have done violence to the law. (Zephaniah 3:3-4)
Constitutional justices, such as Antonin Scalia, make no apologies for (allegedly) separating their religious beliefs from their judicial decisions, as required in Article 6:
Scalia … said his job is only to determine the intent of the Constitution's framers, not to contort the text to fit his religious beliefs. He said he opposes Roe v. Wade not on theological grounds but because he can find no reference to abortion in the Constitution. "The reality is that the Constitution says nothing about abortion either way and the states are therefore allowed to permit it or to prohibit it," he said.
Scalia frequently referred to himself … as a [Constitution] "textualist," and reminded his mostly Catholic audience that they should not wish for judges who meld religion with their work. "If it's proper for Catholic judges to do that, it's proper for atheistic judges, for secularistic judges, for judges opposed to all Christian and religious beliefs, to do the same thing," Scalia said.37
All judicial decisions are based upon the judge's moral values, which shape his ethics and are, therefore, religious. Today's unbiblical judges create laws based upon their own values, and these rulings become the binding precedents, called case law, that compel juries to render decisions accordingly.
In an article entitled "…And Justice for None," Paul Craig Roberts (former Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Reagan) expounded upon some of the inherent problems in today's juridical system:
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and imprisons 6 to 10 times as many people as any other industrialized country. Between 1990 and 2000, the U.S. population increased 13 percent. The U.S. prison population more than tripled.
There are hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans in prison. They are there because the criminal justice system no longer works to discover the truth of a crime, but to convict at all cost whoever happens to be charged with a crime. And they are there because the United States criminalizes more acts than any other country in the world, including tyrannical police states….
Almost everyone in prison is wrongfully convicted, even the guilty. According to the Department of Justice, 95 percent of criminal convictions result from plea bargains. What is a plea bargain but self-incrimination, conviction without a trial by jury and without a test of the evidence against the defendant?
An uninformed public believes plea bargains to be sweet deals for criminals. Sometimes they are, but more often, pleas result from prosecutors piling on charges until the defendant, innocent or guilty, cries "uncle" and gives up.38
Is it merely coincidence that the United States also has the highest number of lawyers per capita – one in every 265 citizens?
Because the judicial system of first-century Rome was also corrupt, the Apostle Paul admonished Christians to set up their own courts of law:
Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life?... Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (1 Corinthians 6:1-7)
When expounding upon this text, preachers usually emphasize the last verse to the exclusion of everything else. However, verse 7 cannot be properly understood if robbed of its context. Paul is saying that Christians should maintain their own judicial system and, if they cannot find a wise man among themselves to judge between them, it is better to be defrauded than to be judged by infidels. This is essentially the same thing Jesus declared:
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. (Matthew 5:25-26)
Anything less than a Christian court system, governed by Yahweh's commandments, statutes, and judgments and adjudicated by Biblically qualified judges, fails Paul's criteria. The courts Paul described were to begin with Christians judging Christians, with the objective of someday judging the world:
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters [among yourselves]? …How much more things that pertain to this life? (1 Corinthians 6:2-3)
This is referring to this age, here on earth:
And we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (2 Corinthians 10:6, NASB)
This verse is usually interpreted as referring to disobedience in the church. But why would Paul delay punishment of disobedient Christians until they were obedient? Why would he wait to punish their sin until after they had repented? Instead, Paul is referring to a future time when the Christian community would be powerful enough to influence and even control government policy, including the judgment and punishment of the wicked. This is also borne out in Romans 13, in which the Greek word ékdikos (from which "punish" in 2 Corinthians 10:6 is derived) is translated "a revenger":
For rulers [judges, Exodus 18:21-22] are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:3-5)
Like 1 Corinthians 6, Romans 13 describes a Christian body politic that metes out Yahweh's judgments upon the wicked.39 Romans 13 and 2 Corinthians 10 are first and second witnesses to Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 6, charging the Christian community to set up their own judicial system. 1 Timothy 1 offers a third witness:
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law [its judgment] is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
Modern Christianity has ignored these instructions, content to let non-Christians and even antichrists rule and administer unrighteous judgments. In Lamentations 5:14, Jeremiah lamented that "the elders [the judges] have ceased from the gate [where court was convened]." (See Chapter 17 "Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments" for information regarding Christian fear of Yahweh's judgments.) Christianity has become saltless and good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man, which, among other things, means being judged by man's standards in man's courts. This is precisely the opposite of what we find described by Solomon: "The evil bow before the good; and the wicked at the gates [where court was convened] of the righteous." (Proverbs 14:19)
At an earlier time in America, Christendom controlled the body politic and administered Yahweh's judgments. The Colony of New Haven, Connecticut used 1 Corinthians 6:1 and 6:6-7 to justify doing so. Leonard Bacon (1802-1881) wrote the following concerning New Haven's 1639 judicial system:
Notice … how great a change, in respect to the inflicting of capital punishments was made by adopting the Hebrew laws, instead of the laws of England. By the laws of England, more than one hundred and fifty crimes were till quite lately, punishable with death. By the laws which the New England colonists adopted, this bloody catalogue was reduced to eleven [murder, treason, perjury against the life of another, kidnapping, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, blasphemy in the highest degree, idolatry, witchcraft, and rebellion against parents]…. The greatest and boldest improvement which has been made in criminal jurisprudence, by any one act, since the dark ages, was that which was made by our [Colonial] fathers, when they determined, "that the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, and as they are a fence to the moral law … shall be accounted of moral equity, and generally bind all offenders, and be a rule to all the courts."40
If the framers intended the Constitution to represent Yahweh, they would have set up the Judicial Branch to resemble that of the New Haven Colony. The Judicial Branch provided for in Article 3 is not equivalent to that provided for in the Bible. It is the consequence of the framers' rejection of Romans 13:1-7, 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
That the framers were not concerned with treason against Yahweh proves by itself their government was not Biblical. In fact, because treason is a crime against sovereignty, the Constitutional Republic established in 1789 was itself a treasonous act against Yahweh and His government. Two sovereigns cannot coexist. When the framers established the United States government as sovereign, they became guilty of First and Second Commandment treason against Yahweh.
Section 3, Clause 1 requires two witnesses only to the crime of treason. Deuteronomy 19:15 requires two or more witnesses in all criminal cases:
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)
If Deuteronomy 19:15 was the inspiration for the two-witness requirement of Section 3, this is but another instance of the framers compromising Yahweh's law.
Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:
1. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the Biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Jesus and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be requested from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
2. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If you have questions regarding any passage, please study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
3. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
4. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
5. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 613.
6. Ibid., p. 625.
7. Abul Taher, "Revealed: UK's first official sharia courts," TIMESONLINE, 14 September 2008, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece.
8. James Wilson, at the Pennsylvania Ratification Debates on Saturday, December 1, 1787, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., 5 vols. (Washington, DC: Printed for Jonathan Elliot, 1836) vol 2, p. 446.
9. James McHerny, quoted in Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: The Maryland Bible Society, 1921) p. 14.
10. Mark A. Beliles, Douglas S. Anderson, Contending for the Constitution: Recalling the Christian Influence on the Writing of the Constitution and the Biblical Basis of American Law and Liberty (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 2005) p. 149.
11. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior's given Hebrew name, with which He introduced Himself to Paul in Acts 26:14-15. (Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua.) Because many people are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with Yeshua, I have chosen to use the more familiar Jesus in this book in order to remove what might otherwise be a stumbling block. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
12. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and Two Essays on America (London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd., 2003) p. 315.
13. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 502.
14. Luther Martin, "The Genuine Information, Laid Before The Legislature Of Maryland…," Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 80-81.
15. Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1985) p. 85.
16. Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution (Draper, VA: Nicene Council.com, 2004) p. 274.
17. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, "Religious Liberty in the Modern Era," Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, http://uninfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/modern.htm
18. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Introduction, William Swindler, The Constitution and Chief Justice Marshall (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1978) p. xiii.
19. James Madison, June 17, 1789, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834) vol. 1, p. 520.
20. Cooper v. Aaron, 358, U.S. 1 (1958).
21. Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar, and The Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1975) pp. 30-31.
22. Henry Steele Commager, The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and American Realized the Enlightenment (New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1977) p. 229.
23. Beliles, Anderson, pp. 138-39.
24. Thomas Jefferson, H.A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 9 vols. (Washington DC: Taylor & Maury, 1854) vol. 8, p. 134.
25. Thomas Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. (Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1905) vol. 15, pp. 331-32.
26. George Mason, David Wootten ed., The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003) pp. 1-2.
27. Dennis Woods, Discipling the Nations: The Government Upon His Shoulder (Franklin, TN: Legacy Communications, 1996) pp. 83-85.
28. Beliles, Anderson, p. 146.
29. Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia, p. 278.
30. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2005) p. 233.
31. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990, 1997) p. 107.
32. Otto Scott, "Easy Chair" audiotape #165 (March 10, 1988) distributed by Chalcedon Foundation, P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, CA 95251, quoted in Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 675.
33. Everett Ramsey, America Today (Houston, MO: America Today Publishers) October, 1995.
34. Beliles, Anderson, p. 145.
35. Dennis Oliver Woods, A Handbook of Biblical Law (Prepublication, 2010) p. 12.
36. Rushdoony, p. 639.
37. Mary Claire Dale, "Scalia Speaks at Villanova University," 16 October 2007, Associated Press, http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=5710943.
38. Paul Craig Roberts, "…And Justice for None," American Free Press, 16 February 2004.
39. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7 may be ordered from Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*
40. Leonard Bacon, Thirteen Historical Discourses, on the Completion of Two Hundred Years, From the Beginning of the First Church in New Haven, With an Appendix (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck, 1839) p. 32.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 "freely ye have received, freely give." Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.
SEARCH BLvs.USC
Sign Up for
Ministry Updates:
5 Reasons the Constitution is Our Cutting-Edge Issue
Click to listen to our
most recent messages


text:
Learning how to differentiate between popular varieties is a key skill in maintaining an accurate tree inventory and addressing disease issues.
Jefferson American Elm vs. Princeton American Elm
Princeton is perhaps one of the most widely distributed American elm variety in current use, Jefferson is more recent release from the USDA National Arboretum that is gaining a list of supporters due to its superior form and maintenance requirements.
Form & Growth Habit
Both trees have a relatively upright growth habit, however the branch attachment in Princeton is much more acute and results in greater incidence of branch inclusion
|Jefferson American Elm
|Princeton American Elm
Photo © Tom Zetterstrom
Photos © Tom Zetterstrom
Comparison of maturing form in Jefferson (left) and Princeton (right). Photo © Tom Zetterstrom
Leaf Characteristics
Leaf size, texture or color is not enough to differentiate between American elms.
|Jefferson American Elm
|Princeton American Elm
Twigs & Branches – New Growth
The easiest way to tell Princeton from Jefferson is to closely examine the texture of the new growth. Princeton exhibits glabrous (smooth) new growth throughout the canopy while Jefferson has pubescent (fuzzy) new growth in the current and previous year's new growth.
Previous Year's Growth
|Jefferson Two-Year Old Branches (note fuzz)
|Princeton Two-Year Old Branches (no fuzz)
Current Year's New Growth
|Jefferson Current Year's New Growth (note fuzz)
|Princeton Current Year's New Growth (no fuzz)
Bark & Stems
Like the leaves, bark is generally not the best feature to use when trying to differentiate between American elm selections. Nonetheless, maturing bark on Jefferson elm may appear more finely striated than that on Princeton elm, creating a more finely dissected appearance. Maturing Jefferson bark may also appear more grey/green while Princeton may appear more red/brown.
|Jefferson Bark
|Princeton Bark
Maturing Bark
Juvenile Bark
Maturing Bark
Juvenile Bark
Photo © Tom Zetterstrom
Coming Soon…
- Valley Forge American Elm vs. Princeton American Elm
- Princeton American Elm vs. New Harmony American Elm
- Valley Forge American Elm vs. New Harmony American Elm
- Accolade Elm vs. Princeton Elm.
- Accolade Elm vs. Triumph Elm

subset: commoncrawl


text: "Steven M. Bellovin" <firstname.lastname@example.com> wrote: > Hmm.... It's not an authentication issue -- I don't run EAP in my > house -- but I see your point. But you raise an interesting > architectural point: how to manage non-static connectivity. On Linux systems, there are scripts which run when an interface goes up or down. e.g. ifup-eth0: start a dhcp client. ifdown-eth0: kill the dhcp client. >. .. I'd love to be able to do something similar on NetBSD, >including caching authentication credentials if possible and >necessary. I don't think it's hard to do, it's just that I don't know if it's been done yet in NetBSD. Alan DeKok.


text:
Share your recipes and get real time responses about your recipes, photos and reviews.
Already have an account? Sign In
It's somewhere between a milkshake, an iced coffee and a slushie, but it's definitely delicious and super refreshing on a summer afternoon.
Your review has been published
Your changes have been saved


text:
Director Oliver Stone told Berlin reporters that Michael Douglas' health is "precarious," which is why he was not accompanying him on the Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps promotion tour in Europe.
Douglas, who reprises his role as Gordon Gekko in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, was supposed to join Stone in the promotion tour but needed treatments for his throat cancer in the U.S.
Academy award winner Douglas, 66, announced in August he was battling throat cancer, however, he said he had an 80-percent chance of recovery and his doctors were "optimistic."
His publicist recently reported that he finished chemotherapy treatments last week and is now going through a six-to-eight-week period of recuperation. "Doctors were very pleased and have scheduled no more treatments," said publicist Allen Burry.
"If Mr. Stone in Berlin knows something different, well, what can I say," Burry said. "Douglas was in the middle of those treatments when he walked the red carpet three weeks ago for the New York premiere of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps."
Douglas does look more frail and thin, however, he has been undergoing grueling chemotherapy treatments. Now that those are complete, we are hoping for a full recovery for the actor. Rest up, Michael!
Michael Douglas finished cancer treatments
Michael Douglas keeping the faith about his recovery from cancer
Michael Douglas in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
And you'll see personalized content just for you whenever you click the My Feed .
SheKnows is making some changes!
b e h e a r d !
Welcome to the new SheKnows Community,
where you can share your stories, ideas
and CONNECT with millions of women.Get Started


text:
The Justice Department today announced the indictment of five Chinese military hackers for online spying against U.S. steel, nuclear power, and solar companies, marking the first charges of this kind by the U.S. against another state.
The U.S. charges that the five conspired to break into the computers of major U.S. companies, including Alcoa, and steal trade secrets that provided competitive advantage to Chinese state-owned companies, according to an indictment unsealed today in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
"For too long, the Chinese government has blatantly sought to use cyber espionage to obtain economic advantage for its state-owned industries," said FBI Director James B. Comey in a press release. "The indictment announced today is an important step. But there are many more victims, and there is much more to be done."
Video:- http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-19/u-dot-s-dot-said-to-charge-chinese-officers-with-spying
Starting in 2006 and continuing until last month, the spies—with memorable online handles such as UglyGorilla and KandyGoo—stole proprietary information and internal communications from Westinghouse Electric, U.S. Steel (X), Allegheny Technologies (ATI), Alcoa (AA), and subsidiaries of SolarWorld (SWV:GR), according to the indictment.
The U.S. government and private security researchers have been tracking the depredations of Chinese hackers on U.S. companies for years, including the online footprints of Ugly Gorilla, the alias of one of the indicted hackers, Wang Dong. Ugly Gorilla has been identified with the campaigns of Comment group, one of the best-known teams that has been linked to intrusions at hundreds of organizations in the past decade.
Mandiant (FEYE) released a public report in February 2013 detailing hacking linked to a Shanghai-based unit of the People's Liberation Army, and last May the Pentagon for the first time directly accused China of a cyber-espionage campaign against the U.S. government. Last June, President Barack Obama held talks on cybersecurity with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Sunnyland estate in Rancho Mirage, Calif. At the time, Xi rejected charges that China is responsible for anti-U.S. cyber assaults.
Video:- http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-19/jay-carney-on-russia-troops-chinese-cyber-hackers
Then the Edward Snowden leaks hit, and most of the world's attention has since been focused on U.S. spying by the National Security Agency. The U.S. government has sought to draw a distinction between its own activity and China's targeting of corporate secrets to give its own companies an economic advantage. Reports that the NSA has spied on the Chinese company Huawei Technologies (002502:CH) have undercut those distinctions, and today's indictment is going to be seen in both China and the rest of the world as hypocritical, says, Adam Segal, a specialist in cybersecurity and China at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
The legal action against Chinese hackers, rich as it may be in symbolism, won't do much to solve the actual problems the U.S. faces, he adds.
"I just don't know how it plays out really—they can't get their hands on them, and what do the Chinese do in response?" said Segal. "Symbolically, yes, important. Calling out the Chinese is important. Not going to change very much on the ground."
Video:- http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-05-19/holder-chinese-military-officials-hacked-companies


text:
Do you want some Genghis grill coupons?
Get $5 when you buy $25 in Gift Cards from Genghis Grill.
Expired 1 January 2015.
Sign up to Genghis Grill. You get:
Birthday surprise (free bowl coupon).
Many offers. New deals in April 2017.
Kids eat for FREE every Tuesday. No coupon required!
For a limited amount of time! Only one free kids meal per adult purchase (children must be 11 or under). Also, this deal is for dine in only! Haven't seen such Halloween deals yet! Maybe?!
Get Free Appetizer printable coupon for Genghis Grill.
Expired 30 November 2014. Might be expired.
Only with Facebook like. You might also get a free bowl.
Find a restaurant near you, take your printable coupon and be happy.
Be back soon! We'll update with more coupons later today.
Printable coupons:


text:
|Advisory Opinion No. 98-1:
|Application of the two year bar to a former employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles who wishes to apply to his former agency for the licenses he needs to open a driving school.
The following advisory opinion is issued in response to a request from [ ], a former employee of the Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"), who wishes to apply to his former agency for the licenses necessary to operate a driving school.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") by Executive Law §94(15), the Commission hereby renders its opinion that the two year post-employment restrictions of Public Officers Law §73(8)(a)(i) prohibit [the requesting individual] from applying to his former agency for the necessary licenses.
[The requesting individual] was a Motor Vehicles License Examiner ("MVLE") at Grade SG-12 with the Testing and Investigating Unit of the [ ] District Office of DMV for approximately [ ] years. This unit has [ ] employees. [The requesting individual] retired on [ ] under the State's early retirement incentive program.
Upon retiring, [the requesting individual] sought to open and operate a driving school. He obtained a vehicle, an office, insurance, and audiovisual equipment, and he filed a certificate of doing business under an assumed name. When he submitted an application, along with a $50 fee, to DMV for a license to operate the school, he was apparently advised by the agency that the post-employment restrictions of the Public Officers Law prohibited his application. [The requesting individual] then sought an informal advisory opinion from the Commission.
On June 4, 1997, the Commission issued the requested opinion in which it held that the two year post-employment restrictions prohibited [the requesting individual] from applying to his former agency for the necessary licenses. The informal opinion stated that the Commissioner of DMV is granted discretion with regard to the issuance of such licenses, and that [the requesting individual's] applications would constitute his appearing before his former agency, which is prohibited by the two year bar.
[The requesting individual] has now requested a formal opinion of the Commission.
Public Officers Law §73(8)(a)(i) provides:
No person who has served as a state officer or employee shall within a period of two years after the termination of such service or employment appear or practice before such state agency or receive compensation for any services rendered by such former officer or employee on behalf of any person, firm, corporation or association in relation to any case, proceeding or application or other matter before such agency.
This subdivision, part of what are generally referred to as the "revolving door" provisions, sets the ground rules for what individuals may do with the knowledge, experience, and contacts gained from public service after they terminate their employment with the State. It contains an absolute two year bar which prohibits a former State employee from appearing before his or her former agency, or working for compensation on a matter before the former agency, for a period of two years after termination from State service.
Vehicle and Traffic Law §394(2) provides that no person shall engage in the business of conducting a drivers' school without being the holder of a license for such purpose issued by the Commissioner of DMV. The Commissioner may deny an application for such a license if, in his or her discretion, the Commissioner determines that, among other things, the applicant has failed to furnish satisfactory evidence of good character, reputation and fitness (Vehicle and Traffic Law §394[4][d]; 15 NYCRR part 76.2[b]). In order to be granted a license, the applicant, or an instructor hired by the applicant, must possess certain qualifications, including a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel instruction; if the applicant does not possess the minimum number of hours, he or she may apply to the Commissioner for a waiver (15 NYCRR part 76.2[i]). [The requesting individual] has informed the Commission that he would need to apply for such a waiver. He believes that it would be granted based on his DMV experience as an MVLE, since, for the past twelve years, the road tests which he gave were "instructional" in nature.
An application for a license to operate a driving school is submitted to the driving school unit at DMV's central office in Albany. Upon receipt of an application, the central office assigns the district office to conduct a site visit of the applicant's proposed office and instructional space.
The licensee must maintain specified records for a period of three years and keep them open for inspection upon request of the Commissioner or his or her representative (15 NYCRR part 76.8). Staff of the district office conducts such inspections on a periodic basis. Hearings are conducted for violations of DMV's regulations on record keeping. DMV also has regulations regarding the advertisements of driving schools. The Commissioner may seek to suspend or revoke a license when a licensee has violated DMV regulations or for other specified reasons -- such as the conviction of the licensee of a felony or any crime involving violence, dishonesty or moral turpitude -- and may assess a civil penalty for each violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law §394[5]).
In his submission to the Commission, [the requesting individual] indicated that his driving school would be a one person operation. This would require that, in addition to a license to operate the driving school, he would need to apply to DMV for an instructor's certificate (Vehicle and Traffic Law §394[8]; 15 NYCRR Part 76.15). The Vehicle and Traffic Law provides that such a certificate shall be issued only to a person of good reputation and moral character, whose driving record, as determined by the Commissioner, qualifies him or her as an instructor (Vehicle and Traffic Law §394[8]). The Commissioner's regulations provide that an instructor must, among other things, be of sound mind and good moral character (15 NYCRR Part 76.15). To obtain an instructor's certificate, an applicant must pass an eye test, a written test, a road sign test and a road test in which he or she demonstrates the ability to instruct (15 NYCRR Part 76.15[d]). An application for an instructor's certificate must identify the driving school or schools for which the applicant is to act as an instructor, and the certificate is limited to use in connection with those schools (Vehicle and Traffic Law §394[8]). While an application for an instructor's certificate is submitted to DMV's central office in Albany, the tests are administered by DMV's district offices.
Should [the requesting individual] open a school, he would obtain forms from DMV which he would sign for each student, certifying that the student has completed a required driving course. This certificate would be submitted to DMV at the time of the road test. In addition, [the requesting individual] would make appointments with DMV and drive his students to the testing site, where the test would be given by a former member of his unit.
Turning to the application of the revolving door restrictions, the Commission, in Advisory Opinion No. 94-2, held that, despite the language of Public Officers Law §73(8)(a)(i), a former employee may apply to his or her former agency for the renewal of a license previously issued. It noted that a "renewal application consists largely of updating information [the applicant's] former agency has already reviewed and approved, at the time of the original application." In [the requesting individual's] case, the applications would be initial applications. The questions that must be addressed are whether the holding in Advisory Opinion No. 94-2 can be extended to an application for an initial license or certificate, and, if it can be so extended, under what circumstance.
At first glance, [the requesting individual] makes a good case for extending the Commission's holding with respect to license renewals to certain initial license applications. He was not a high level employee; he is making the application on his own behalf rather than as representative of a third party; the discretion of the agency in granting or denying the license is limited; and the agency does not actively regulate the licensed activity, although it does have oversight responsibilities. Considering these factors, the Commission's inclination would be to permit [the requesting individual] to proceed with his application. However, there are considerations here that are not obvious at the outset which cause the Commission to determine that this is not a good case for extending the principle first set forth in Advisory Opinion No. 94-2.
First, although [the requesting individual's] application to operate a school would be submitted to DMV's central office in Albany, that office would require the district office to conduct an on-site inspection of the premises. Since [the requesting individual], prior to his retirement, worked in the district office, this inspection would be conducted by his former colleagues. Thus, [the requesting individual's] application would be considered not only by his former agency, but by the particular unit of the agency located in the same office in which he worked. The same problem arises with respect to his road test to obtain his instructor's certificate; he would be judged by individuals with whom he directly worked while he was a State employee.
These difficulties would continue even after [the requesting individual] was licensed. Oversight of his operation would be by the same district office. This would include inspection of his books and records periodically, as well as receiving complaints about his operation. DMV has informed the Commission that complaints about the advertising of driving schools is common. Finally, [the requesting individual] would be making road test appointments for his students with his former colleagues and accompanying his students to the test sites. Competitors could well perceive that [the requesting individual] and his students were receiving special treatment based upon his prior association with those in DMV with whom he had worked most closely during his years at the agency.
The Commission recognizes that this determination places [the requesting individual] in a difficult position, but it is bound to uphold the law. It cannot ignore the fact that [the requesting individual], in applying for and operating a driving school, would be dealing with the same individuals with whom he most closely worked while serving at DMV.
Given these facts, the Commission determines that [the requesting individual's] applications would be in violation of the two year bar.
The Commission concludes, based upon the specific facts set forth herein, that the two year post-employment restrictions of Public Officers Law §73(8)(a)(i) prohibit [the requesting individual] from applying to his former agency for the initial licenses he needs to operate a driving school.
This opinion, until and unless amended or revoked, is binding on the Commission in any subsequent proceeding concerning the person who requested it and who acted in good faith, unless material facts were omitted or misstated by the person in the request for opinion or related supporting documentation.
All concur:
Evans V. Brewster
Henry G. Gossel
Paul L. Shechtman
O. Peter Sherwood, Members
Dated: February 4, 1998


text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3180769218519169349.post3748317336138997349..comments2012-06-22T14:45:02.593-07:00Comments on Genealogy, Technology And A Whole Lot More: Holiday OutDawn Bushmanhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-3180769218519169349.post-20811219631903570942009-12-06T14:42:18.115-08:002009-12-06T14:42:18.115-08:00I agree, I'm sure everyone would love to meet ...I agree, I'm sure everyone would love to meet the real Barry. I'm not sure Barry's up to it. :o) My reasons just might be a little different than anyone else's.

Yes, the grieving process is different for everyone. We'll see what happens, there are a lot of other things (non Barry things) that I'd also like to do, so maybe 2010 will be the year I start on those and focus less on Barry.Dawn Bushmanhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-3180769218519169349.post-36277073865524362422009-12-06T08:45:11.189-08:002009-12-06T08:45:11.189-08:00Sorry you had such a traumatic experience. But goo...Sorry you had such a traumatic experience. But good for you for venturing out on your own. Everyone has their own grieving timetable and perhaps the next trip you can just go to a concert and enjoy the show and the fans. I sure hope so.

I think we would all like to meet the person, and not the celebrity. It's too bad he can't relax again like he did in the old days and just be himself (minus the makeup and hoopla).texas_fanhttps://email@example.com


text:
Oke, as the title says, Partition Magic doesn't work for me on Windows 7. Tried several compatibility modes but it just wont start
What im trying to do here is to make my C partition 50gb larger. Always worked fine on older OS's with partition magic.
Also tried the diskmanager thingie of Windows 7, also no success. The idea was to remove the 50gb from my D partition (C+D are on disk of course) and make the C one a bit bigger.
Any one got any good suggestions to solve this problem? Would be very thankfull


text:
You have chosen to publish your review anonymously. If You click 'OK' your review will be published under the pseudonym 'SloaneWagner1' which has been randomly generated by us. If you would prefer your review to be published as 'Guest' please select this option.Publish as 'Guest'
Item Name: Roger L. Welton DVM, Canine and Feline 101
Category: Pet and Animal Books


text:
As I said, I have to rely on other sets of eyes to figure out what's going on down here in the Legislature, and one of those sets belongs to Jim King.
King pays close attention to the parts of the budget that affect state parks and recreation, so I'll defer to his analysis right now, and until I have a chance to more closely examine that part of the budget myself.
What follows is what I have just sent to the grassroots supporters of our State Parks and outdoor recreation programs. Wanted to share my thoughts with ya'll. I'll be swallowing hard and trying to help make the opt-out car tabs work. The context in the Senate makes that a little bit easier- a bit of sugar with the medicine.
I'm going to be away from the laptop for Senate Ways and Means, but will otherwise be available if needed.
Yesterday, when the Senate proposed operating budget was released, there was cause for elation. The release of the House proposed operating budget today was a more sobering event.
Both Senate and House will claim that their budgets keep all parks open. The definition of "open" is important, as are all of the many other considerations that must be weighed in evaluating a budget.
The Senate budget provides for a 5.8% increase in funding for State Parks, if all revenues materialize. All state parks are kept open, on the same basis as they are today. Equipment needs are funded. The costs of operating completed construction projects are funded. This is based upon an anticipated revenue of $28 million from the opt-out car tabs, but lead senators on the budget have indicated a strong commitment to keeping parks open even if this revenue fails to fully materialize in the coming months.
The House budget provides for a 3.4% decrease in funding for State Parks, and cuts general fund support by over 40% ($40,268,000) compared to trhe 28% cut in the Senate budget ($28,394,000). While it is claimed that the House budget keeps all parks open, the House still requires seasonal closures of parks, does not fund equipment needs, and mandates cuts in staffing. The House also relies on $28 million from opt-out car tabs.
In addition, the House budget moves $3 million from the Parkland Acquisition Account (these are funds from the sale of park-owned lands that are supposed to be used for purchase of replacement lands), $9.8 million from the Recreation Resource Account (these are funds from the boaters' unrefunded gas taxes), and $9.6 million from the NOVA Program Account (these are funds from trail-users gas taxes and ORV permits) into the state general fund for use on non-recreation programs. In addition to those funds, $6.8 million from the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account and $2 million from the Wildlife Fund are also moved into the general fund.
These fund transfers will have a very negative impact on recreation.
It would appear that the Senate has done a much better job of taking care of our State Parks and outdoor recreation programs. In addition to the above- and of great interest to boaters- the Senate also fully funded the boaters' number one priority- 2SSB 5691 (improving boating programs).
The legislative hotline is 1-800-562-6000. It is open from 8am to 8pm, Monday through Friday, and from 9am to 1pm on Saturdays. It is time to call and thank your senators, and urge your representatives and Governor Gregoire to "please support the Senate budget chair's position on State Parks, boating, trails, and outdoor recreation."
It is vitally important that the hotline calls start immediately.
Citizens for Parks and Recreation
James L. King, Jr., Coordinator


text:
Ta da - here it is one year after starting , a tiny tea leaves cardigan - and it fits
Not sewing but counts towards the kids clothes week challenge - ie making clothes for your kids. I'm happy with the size and fit. I read a few raverly reviews that said the neck was a bit wide so I made sure that I cast on really tight and its great. Sits low enough so over the shirt under it and not itchy. I'm tempted to make a short sleeved version as an think it would look cute like that too.


text:
Lake Success (Nov. 4)
A four-man working group consisting of the United States, the Soviet Union, Guatemala and Canada was set up today to reconcile the differences between the Russian and American proposals for implementing a U.N. decision for the partition of Palestine. The group is expected to report back within two days to the partition sub-committee of the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine.
In accepting participation in the group, Soviet delegate Semyon Tsarapkin made it clear that he does not consider it an official working body with power of committee, and that he was merely joining it for the purpose of exchanging information. The representative of Canada was included as a result of an announcement he made earlier that his delegation is preparing specific proposals with regard to implementation which will be presented at a later session. Meanwhile, he read a preliminary statement in which he analyzed the American and Soviet proposals and pointed out the infects of each.
The American delegation this afternoon held a special conference with representatives of public organizations at which Ambassador Herschel Johnson and Maj. Gen. John A. Hilldring reported on the American strategy with regard to the UNSCOP partition proposal and its implementation. Present at the conference were leaders of mater American Jewish groups who posed questions which the members of the American deletation answered freely. The officials said that they were doing their utmost to secure adoption of the partition proposal by the General Assembly.
The American delegation is inclined to accept the compromise offered unofficially by the Jewish Agency to bridge the differences between the implementation proposals presented by the U.S. and Russia, it was learned today by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Soviet delegation, which was also approached by Agency representatives, has not yet committed itself in any way.
Under the Agency compromise, the United Nations Commission to implement the decision on partition would be appointed by the General Assembly from member states not necessarily members of the Security Council. However, the commission would be responsible to the Security Council. The effect of such a move would be that while Russia might not be represented on the implementation commission, she would still participate in supervising it through the Security Council. This would jibe with the American strategy of preventing Russia from being directly represented on the United Nations Commission, at the same time that it met the Russian desire to have a voice in the implementation procedure.
There are some Jewish leaders here who find the Soviet proposal more practical ## the American plan, since a Security Council implementation commission would virtually guarantee that there would be no violence in Palestine during the transition period, However, members of the American delegation are not certain that the partition plan would receive the necessary two-thirds vote at the Assembly if Russia has its way.
Since it is not likely that the Russian proposal will get a majority even in the Ad Hoc Committee, United Nations circles believe that Russia may be willing eventually to accept a compromise along the lines suggested by the Jewish Agency. The compromise will be discussed at the informal working group.
The Canadian proposals with regard to implementation were awaited with utmost interest at today's sub-committee session, since it was assumed that they would indicate the mood prevailing among members of the British Empire concerning the differences between the American and the Russian implementation plans. However, the proposals were withheld at the last minute following instructions from Ottawa, where members of the Canadian Cabinet apparently disagreed on the text prepared by the Canadian delegation here. This left Canadian delegate Lester B. Pearson with nothing to do but read a preliminary statement merely analyzing the American and Russian proposals, without advancing any of his own.
Like the American delegation, the Canadian delegate emphasized the fact that the margin of difference between the American and Russian proposals was not wide. However, he called for a clear definition of measures to be taken during the transition period between the date of the Assembly decision on partition and the date of the withdrawal of the mandatory.
Canada, he said, agrees with the U.S. view that there should be no further transitional period following the withdrawal of the mandatory. At the same time, however, it realizes that a transitional period of some kind is unavoidable. "It does not seem to us the problem of this period can be dismissed as easily as has been done the representative of the United States," Pearson said.
Such a transitional period, no matter how small, would create a legal vacuum in Palestine, the Canadian delegate said. He also urged the delegates to take into confideration the possibility that the settlement of the Palestine problem may not work {SPAN}##t{/SPAN} peaceably in the manner contemplated by the United Nations and that steps should be taken in advance to meet such an eventuality. Since the powers of the General Assembly are limited to recommendations only, it would be logical to entrust the implementation of the decision on Palestine either to the U.N. trusteeship system or to the Security Council, Pearson continued.
The Canadian delegate then went on to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of placing the Palestine issue under the supervision of either of these U.N. organs. He expressed the view that the Security Council would be most competent to take charge ##ing the transition period, but, at the same time, emphasized that "some practical difficulties" would result from use of the Security Council at this stage in the solution of the Palestine problem.
"The Security Council," he said, "could not take effective action unless there are agreement among the permanent members that the present situation constitutes an ##sting threat to the peace. It would be necessary also that the permanent members ## as to the means of implementation. Before we make recommendations to the Security Council we should therefore make quite sure that there is general agreement among the permanent members in principle and to some extent also is detail on these two points."
The fact that the United States and Russia at least got together today in a working body to seek unity on implementation of the UNSCOP partition plan was greeted in United Nations circles as an encouraging indication of the sincere desire of both major powers to secure the necessary two-thirds vote at the General Assembly. Although Soviet delegate Tsarapkin joined the body with certain reservations, a feeling of optimism prevailed that a unanimous implementation proposal may emerge from that body.
Meanwhile, the sub-committee dealing with coordination of Arab proposals today announced the approval of a proposed constitution for a unitary Arab state with a Jewish minority. The Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee of the General Assembly today began consideration of a joint proposal by Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon "on international cooperation to prevent immigration that is likely to disturb friendly relations between nations," The resolution requests:
1. Member states of the United Nations should cease to accord aid and protection to individuals and organizations which, under humanitarian disguises, are aiming at promoting and encouraging immigration likely to disturb friendly relations between nations.
2. The Economic and Social Council to call immediately an international conference for the purpose of expediting the solution of the problem of refugees and displaced persons through the agency of the International Refugee Organization.
The working body on implementation started its deliberations this afternoon immedately after it was named, with Mr. Johnson representing the U.S. delegation. Si?tansously, it was announced by Chairman Ksawery Pruszynski of the sub-committee on partition that the working group on boundaries had completed its work and had submitted a report to him which will be distributed this evening to members of the sub-committee for consideration.
A general discussion on the boundaries, as well as on implementation, will be resumed by the sub-committee after the working group on implementation completes its deliberations. Mr. Pruszynski disclosed that the report on boundaries does not contain unanimous recommendations with regard to the requested revision of the Western ##les line.
The sub-committee unanimously adopted a clause empowering the joint economic ### to recommend fair and equal access of Palestine exports to the world markets. Commenting on this provision Dr. Jorge G. Granados of Guatemala said it was designed to discourage boycotts by one state against another, although he admitted that such boycotts in any case would be contrary to the spirit of the U.N. Charter.
The sub-committee adopted several amendments to the clauses relating to mutual freedom of transit and visit in the two states and in Jerusalem. The sub-committee ##ined the questions of: 1. A customs union; 2. A common currency; 3. Operations in the common interests of railways, interstate highways, postal, telephone and telegraph services and the ports of Haifa and Jaffa; 4. Joint economic development, especially ## irrigation, land reclamation and soil conservation; 5. A joint economic board.


text:
Being the owner of a Jack Russell terrier, with whom I have a complex but generally affectionate relationship, I was horrified to read that a 10-week-old Jack Russell puppy called Sandy had been kicked to death last week in a park in Cambridgeshire, when it ran gaily across the grass to greet a group of hooded teenagers. According to press reports, the teenagers ran off, chortling with delight.
My Jack Russell, Polly, still looks and thinks like a puppy, but is in fact about six years old. Still, she has something in common with the poor departed Sandy, and this is a hopeless lack of judgment about human beings. When sweet old ladies bend down to stroke her, Polly snarls and growls; but when confronted by a male of thuggish appearance, she leaps about joyfully and tries to lick him.
But more interesting than the daftness of Jack Russells is the evidence that this country of alleged dog-lovers is actually one of the least dog-loving nations of all. As with most myths about the British character – that we never get angry and enjoy standing quietly in queues, for example – the idea that we are especially kind to dogs doesn't bear examination.
I don't mean that many of us like kicking puppies; only that dogs are now generally far less welcome in Britain than they are in other reputedly more callous nations, such as France or Italy. There are fewer and fewer pubs and restaurants that admit them, and dogs are even banned from many parks and beaches around Britain by councils invoking the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. It soon may be difficult to know where to take a dog for a walk.
Unwelcome kisses
I've been reading in a learned scientific journal that kissing is not a universally popular activity. Apparently, about 10% of mankind never kiss anybody at all; and it is said that many Chinese people consider mouth-to-mouth kissing as revolting as some people find cannibalism. But luckily we still have Jimmy Carter, who continues to kiss people at the drop of a hat.
He not only tried to kiss Jacqueline Kennedy at the dedication of the John F Kennedy Library in Boston in 1979, when, according to one witness, "she recoiled elaborately, shudderingly, as if from an unexpectedly proffered herring"; he even, in the same year, kissed the spectacularly unattractive Leonid Brezhnev after the signing of the Salt II treaty in Vienna.
Even so, I find it hard to believe the late Queen Mother's claim, as reported by William Shawcross in his recent biography of her, that Carter once shocked and disgusted her by kissing her "full on the lips". This kiss, if it happened, must have taken place on 7 May 1977, when Carter, only three and a half months into his presidency, met the Queen Mother at Buckingham Palace during a visit to London for an economic conference, for I can find no reference to any other meeting between them. And it would be odd for any 53-year-old man to kiss any 77-year-old woman on first acquaintance, let alone a queen, at a formal occasion, and "full on the lips".
Although it is true that Carter once confessed in a Playboy interview to having "looked on a lot of women with lust", the Queen Mother, according to Shawcross, said he kissed her not out of lust but because she reminded him of his mother. But even that is implausible because "Miss Lillian" was then not only very much alive but also quite unlike the Queen Mother. Perhaps Shawcross can throw more light on the matter.
Doomed union
Forty years ago, when I was a correspondent in Rome, I was a friend of an English Vatican official called Monsignor William Purdy, who was a key figure on the Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission that was charged with working towards union between the two churches. Painstakingly, at snail's pace, the commission took one doctrinal difference after another, and every few years produced a document in impenetrable language that was supposed to have ironed it out. Bill Purdy was fairly sceptical about union ever being achieved, but remained committed to the ecumenical cause until his death.
Progress had already been miserably slow when in 2003 Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, became an Anglican bishop in the US and Pope John Paul II suspended the commission's work. The ecumenical cause was further damaged by the Anglican ordination of women, which was described by a senior Vatican official as "a further obstacle to reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Church of England".
Now, with his offer of easy mass conversions for Anglicans sympathetic to Rome, letting them keep their own liturgy and allowing even married Anglican priests to continue their ministry within the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI has effectively brought the ecumenical movement to an end. Whatever gloss one cares to put on it, we are back to where we were before ecumenism got going, to a position of rivalry between the two churches. If the Pope's initiative succeeds, the Church of England will be further weakened and plunged into even greater disarray. But it's also hard to see how the Catholic Church will benefit by the creation of a new second-class priesthood within its ranks.
Charlie Brooker is away


text:
New Sex Law Has Loophole Victim, Offender in Same School
Appelbaum, Binyamin, The Florida Times Union
Byline: Binyamin Appelbaum, Times-Union staff writer
ORANGE PARK -- A gray area in a state law requiring schools to keep youth sex offenders away from their victims has left the Clay County school system scrambling for legal grounds to separate two students at a Keystone Heights school.
The year-old law mandates the removal of students convicted of sex crimes from the schools and buses used by their victims. It does not apply, however, to student offenders placed in a pretrial rehabilitation program, state officials confirmed this week.
The implications of that distinction apparently had gone unnoticed until the mother of a 13-year-old student at Keystone Heights Junior/Senior High School learned last week that an 18-year-old man would be permitted to return to her daughter's school this fall despite acknowledging he had sex with the girl in the spring. Neither the girl nor her mother is being identified to protect the girl's identity.
The man, 17 at the time, was charged with lewd and lascivious battery because those under age 16 cannot consent to sex under Florida law. He is not being identified because he was charged as a juvenile.
The victim's mother allowed the teen to be placed in a pretrial diversionary program that seeks to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The state won't discuss the terms of the agreement because it involved a juvenile, but the program generally requires participants to meet a list of requirements over a period anywhere from six months to two years. If the teen meets the terms of the program, he will not face charges.
Because the teen was never tried or convicted of the charge and made no formal admission of guilt, he is not barred by law from attending the same school as his victim, the State Attorney's Office confirmed Wednesday.
That has left the mother of the victim furious with what she said was an insufficient explanation of the consequences of allowing the teen to enter the diversionary program.
"She was willing to allow him to have something where his future would not be ruined," said Daniel Glassman, a lawyer retained by the victim's family. "Obviously, this was something she had never contemplated."
Assistant State Attorney Maryanne Yeomans, the prosecutor responsible for the case, acknowledged the mother was not informed the teen could return to school if he was placed in the diversionary program. Yeomans said she was unaware of that possible consequence and that the State Attorney's Office is not responsible for the implementation or enforcement of this law.
Because the teen has already signed an agreement, Yeomans said the victim's family can no longer retract its consent for his participation.
The law was proposed by state Rep. Dick Kravitz, R-Jacksonville, after he read a November 2000 story in the Times-Union about a Clay County teen who had to ride the school bus with her rapist and of another who saw her attacker in the school lunchroom. …


text:
|Reviews for Legacy of 911
| JTF2-Commando chapter 1 . 5/31/2003
Yeah, another piece of shit, I'm glad your newspaper didn't put this in. And I don't know why you oppose the Israelites so much. They do no worse than what the Arabs do to them.
| brianhalo3 chapter 1 . 4/24/2003
I know that there is reports that some people in the stock trade of new that something was going to happen. I don't think the US government knew it was going to happen but I think they immediately appropriated, and in something I want to write later I'm going to argue, that act of appropriating and turning it towards its own ends, in a way, participates in it. They used it afterwards, but I think it goes too far to say that they knew about it before
| Sirius Padriac chapter 1 . 3/31/2003
First I would like to say that the inference that you make about Bush knowingly allowing terrorist to slaughter three thousand Americans borders on the absolute stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.
And your support for John Walker Lihd. The man you denouced America, tried to kill Amreicans, then wanted his Amreican rights! I cannot decide if I hope you or him are the first ones to get hit by a bus.
| Professor Bob chapter 1 . 2/20/2003
I never worried about the prisioners, or Iraq, but I absolutely hate supporting Isreal.
| Younger Farla chapter 1 . 2/18/2003
While I understand having misgivings about the government, I think this is a little too harsh. Most of the Muslim complaints about Israel have no basis, and that area was where Jews traditionally lived. Besides, after the second world war people felt that Jewish people needed a homeland. People in Afghanistan were being badly oppressed and many of them wanted a change in government. And I really doubt anyone would go so far as to ignore known terrorists, especially considering Bush had only just become president and wouldn't have had time to cause such a major change. Finally, I feel it's rather sad you said you respect them, because they're an intensely fanatical branch of a religion and many of them believe that the western world is the root of all evil. They have killed protesters, oppressed women and ignored basic human rights.
| Nemo chapter 1 . 2/18/2003
You are a very courageous person to have come out and said this; I too was horrified by the War Against Terrorism, and demonstrated against it, and it was incredibly lonely to oppose it. You say a lot with few words which is very difficult. You just have to keep in mind that you are not alone; I have seen tens of thousands assembled to oppose the war against terrorism, and over a million to oppose the war against Iraq. Perhaps with my being in Europe it is easier for me to look objectively at this, for an American to have opposed the attack on Afghanistan must have taken a massive ammount of courage when 9/11 hurt the US so much. Well done.


text:
New Roma goalkeeper Morgan De Sanctis reveals he could've joined Inter instead. "I paid out of my own pocket for Napoli."
The shot-stopper completed his transfer to Roma this week, replaced at the Stadio San Paolo by Pepe Reina of Liverpool.
"It's true that Inter wanted me, but it didn't go the way I expected. Never mind," the 36-year-old told Il Mattino newspaper.
"I chose Roma because they had already tried to sign me in January."
The move was delayed for a few days amid reports of disagreements with Napoli over a golden handshake payment.
"I will always have a fantastic memory of my years in the Napoli jersey. I paid out of my own pocket for Napoli twice – when I arrived and when I left."
See the latest Serie A predictions and betting tips with Eurotips.co.uk