News You Can Use: Stories We Found in Our Travels

The Great Corporate Tax Heist

Want to learn how to make $50 million and not pay taxes? More than a quarter of large U.S. corporations do it every year.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/

94985/the_great_corporate_tax_heist/

***

Was Bush Falling-Down Drunk at the Olympics?

http://wonkette.com/401833/was-bush-

falling-down-drunk-at-olympics

Doncha just love Laura's “I'm-not-looking ... la-la-la-la-la” facial expression?

***

Catching the Wrong John:

When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?

If John Edwards' infidelity is news, and he's not a candidate for anything, why isn't John McCain's?

http://www.alternet.org/election08/94851/

catching_the_wrong_john%3A_when_are_

the_media_going_to_talk_about_john_

mccain%27s_infidelity/

Ah, I can smell the Republican hypocrisy from here ....

***

Don't forget Katrina ... and, while you're at it, don't forget 9/11 either

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/

hard_evidence_letter.pdf

Ever wonder what happened to Building 7? Well, so do these guys. And they're smart dudes -- architects and structural engineers. Experts, you might say.

*****

Farewell to a Dedicated American Scientist

Bruce Ivins was born in Lebanon, Ohio to Thomas Randall Ivins and Mary Johnson Knight, as the youngest of three sons. Avidly interested in science, Ivins was an active participant in extracurricular activities in high school, including National Honor Society, science fairs, the current events club, and the scholarship team all four years. He ran on the track and cross-country teams, worked on the yearbook and school newspaper and was in the school choir and junior and senior class plays.

He was married to Diane Ivins for 33 years, and they adopted two children. Diane Ivins was a stay-at-home mom who ran a day-care center out of the family's home.

Ivins graduated with honors from the University of Cincinnati with a B.S. degree in 1968, an M.S. degree in 1971, and a Ph.D. degree in 1976, all in microbiology. His dissertation focused on different aspects of toxicity in disease-causing bacteria.

Ivins was a scientist for 36 years and senior bio-defense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland, for 18 years. After conducting research on Legionella and cholera, in 1979, Ivins turned his attention to anthrax after the anthrax outbreak in a Soviet city, which killed at least 64 after an accidental release at a military facility.

Ivins had published at least 44 scientific papers dating back to May 18, 1969. His earliest known published work pertained to the response of peritoneal macrophages, a type of white blood cell, to infection by Chlamydia psittaci -- an infectious bacterium that can be transmitted from animals to humans. He was the co-author of numerous anthrax studies, including one on a treatment for inhalational anthrax published in the July 7, 2008, issue of the journal Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. He often cited the 2001 Anthrax attacks in his papers to bolster the significance of his research in years subsequent to the attacks. In a 2006 paper published in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he wrote with his co-authors, “Shortening the duration of antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis in a bioterrorism event.”

Time will tell that Ivins was a conservative pawn, enlisted by nut-case neocons bent on ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. The anthrax was likely prepared by Ivins and sent to make it look like agents of the Iraqi government did it, to invent a case for invading Iraq. The timing was amazingly bad though, because in between the time the anthrax was mailed and arrived at its intended victims, the 9/11 attacks occurred. But rather than suggest the possibility that Saddam’s government might have sent the anthrax, which many would have certainly believed, the Bush administration played down the anthrax attacks and used other flimsy evidence in its rush to war. Why? Because the anthrax attacks were a clumsy attempt by nut-case neocons from Maryland trying to play patriot and give the Bush administration the justification it wanted to invade Iraq. Any serious investigation would have quickly unraveled this cheap black bag job. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), who represents Ivins's district, knows more than he has said and should be questioned in this matter. Will he? Not by this administration. They got what they needed: a scapegoat. So what if a dedicated scientist had to pay with his life? It certainly cut down on the expense of prosecuting Ivins, didn’t it?

*****

14 Signs of a Country Slipping into Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, is always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity are common themes in expressing this nationalism. It is usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often border on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves view human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population is brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse is egregious, the tactic is to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes is the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—are usually effective. Often the regimes incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes are inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identify closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supports it. A disproportionate share of national resources is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs are acute. The military is seen as an expression of nationalism and is used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture are male-dominated, these regimes inevitably view women as second-class citizens. They are adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes are usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoy strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some regimes, the mass media is under strict direct control and can be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercise more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods include the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media are often politically compatible with the power elite. The result is usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus is under direct control of the ruling elite. It is usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions are rationalized under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities is portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and pro-fascist regimes are never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attach themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior is incompatible with the precepts of the religion is generally swept under the rug. Propaganda keeps up the illusion that the ruling elites are defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception is manufactured that opposing the power elite is tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens is under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom is not compromised. The ruling elite see the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states) but as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite are often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor is seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it is inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor form an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor is considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them are anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom are considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities are tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they have no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintain Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police are often glorified and have almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime is often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” are often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often use their position to enrich themselves. This corruption works both ways: the power elite receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite are in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption is largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls are usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates are held, they are usually perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods include maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historically-based comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics, right? Maybe, maybe not.

*****

The Shock Doctrine:

A Review of Naomi Klein's Latest Book

by Powells.com Staff

You wouldn't expect the author of the searing bestseller No Logo to pull any punches — and in this riveting examination of how the "free market" came to dominate the world, Naomi Klein hurls one bone-crunching blow after another. This is a book that will anger you, yes, but in the best, most passionate way — by arousing the kind of anger that might provoke you into action. This is one book that could actually make a difference in society.

These are the stories about our country you don't want to know. Naomi Klein has cast a spotlight on the dark secrets lurking beneath the surface of the American dream. The Shock Doctrine makes it hard to ignore the tragedy that results from the ruthless logic of maximizing profit at the expense of the people.

In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America's "free market" policies have come to dominate the world — through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.

At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq's civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country's vast oil reserves. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the "War on Terror" to Halliburton and Blackwater. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts. New Orleans's residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened. These events are examples of "the shock doctrine": using the public's disorientation following massive collective shocks — wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters — to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don't succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism — the rapid-fire corporate re-engineering of societies still reeling from shock — did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, "shock and awe" warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas though our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theaters for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet's coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

What irony life brings us: Anti-American Empire, non-interventionism in foreign policy, desperately trying to pierce the blackout of the "official" line in the "official" press.

My research has led me to believe that my country, the United States, is probably the leading killer of foreign civilians in the history of the world. So much for American exceptionalism. Communist regimes are great at killing their own people--Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot surpass even Abraham Lincoln at this task of ideological cleansing. But when it comes to killing foreign civilians, Hitler and Stalin tried valiantly for the gold, but we are the world's nuclear terrorist regime. And of course we killed more Japanese civilians (and European civilians) with firebombing than with nuclear bombs. Modern conservative "hero" Churchill (not Hitler) started the policy of killing civilians as war strategy, which of course then sounded like a good idea to Hitler, but it was FDR who, uh, refined the process.

"Conservatives" who defend Hiroshima can't depend on conservative hero General MacArthur or RINO hero General Eisenhower. They have to fall back on the word of politicians like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the founder of American fascism.

"Christians" who defend Hiroshima have to ignore the fact that our bombing destroyed the Christian population of Japan, centered in underground Hiroshima. But that's easy. They ignore what El Duce Dubya has done to the Christian population of Iraq. They follow the policies of our fascist Presidents, certainly not Christ.

It all started with Hiroshima. Well, not really. There's the matter of the native Americans....

A personal anecdote: about 10 years ago, before the Air & Space Museum's huge facility at Dulles Airport was built, they stored their airplanes at a warehouse in suburban Maryland--there was no space for these at the museum on the Mall, and at any rate these were mostly aircraft being reconstructed. They had an open house for the public once a year, and I went one year. All of a sudden I found myself face-to-face with the Enola Gay, the bomber that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. This was a historical moment for me--no ideological misgivings. I immediately crawled in with the enthusiasm of an anthropologist who has discovered the Seven Cities of Cibola. Well, the first thing I noticed was how cramped and small it was. It was like crawling around in an old WWII submarine. How did they ever get through the war this way? Then, halfway to the front of the plane, it hit me HARD. The feeling of pure Evil. My skin crawled with pure revulsion, there was no longer any historical experience to savor. I got out of there as fast as I could. I had come face-to-face with pure Evil.

*****

This is Horseshit
by Cindy Sheehan

If it's not proper for a Congressional candidate to say: "horseshit," I don't care. If it is not a good "tactic" to get kicked out of a Congressional non-impeachment hearing that was just a bunch of horseshit anyway, I don’t care. And if I get accused of being too "extreme" for bucking the (cyst)em by doing everything from camping in a ditch in Crawford, Tx to non-violent civil disobedience to, lately, running for Congress as (oh no!) an independent, I really don’t care.

If people can't see how this nation is teetering on the precipice of financial ruin and dragging the rest of this planet down with us as we destroy our ecology, too…and if people don't realize how desperate our situation is, then I must say, that's horseshit!

I am angry. No, I am incensed that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, dying, wounded, displaced from their homes or being imprisoned and tortured by the sadists that reside or work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the approval of their accomplices down the road in Congress. I am furious that I buried my oldest son when he was 24 years old for the unrepentant lies and the unpunished crimes of the Bush mob. Are you incensed? If not, maybe you should ask yourself: "Why?" Hypothetically: "Why am I not enraged that my country has killed or hurt so many people for absolutely no noble cause in my name and with my tacit approval?" I am steamed that the working class has to, once again, pay for the excesses of the capitalist criminals that feeds its rapacious appetite with the flesh and blood of our children and won't rest until it owns every penny in this world and has all the power.

You may say, "But Cindy, it is not polite to be angry or to use such strong language in public." Horseshit! In my opinion, every citizen in this country should rise up in anger and DEMAND that George Bush and Dick Cheney not only be impeached and removed from office, but be tried and convicted for murder and crimes against peace and humanity!

We should all walk off of our jobs and refuse to work and refuse to be cogs in the wheels of psychotic consumerism until our troops, military contractors and permanent bases are removed from Iraq and Afghanistan. We should, but most of us won't. We won't because it may mean that we would lose something of "value." Material possessions are so transitory, as are our lives. We can leave a lasting impression by our courageous activism and moral sacrifice, or we can leave a pile of rusting metal or rotting wood. I choose the former for myself.

We should come out of our comas of too much TV news and not enough non-biased information to push for alternatives to fossil fuels that are clean and renewable and protest nuclear facilities and off-shore oil drilling like we used to in the olden days when people actually cared enough about not poisoning our world to get off of their couches or (today) out from behind their computer screens to do something constructive instead of complacently shelling out hundreds of dollars a week for gasoline and food.

I get so pissed off when one of my supporters has a tooth ache and can't afford to go see a dentist to fix it or when my sister has had a cough for almost two years and doesn't have the health insurance she needs to get fully well. And when I think that almost 50 million people in this country are non-insured or under-insured, I see red. Why, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, do some have the "privilege" of being fully insured and healthy, when health care is a basic human right, not a privilege for the elitists? My heart hurts every night when the men who sleep propped up against my campaign office, huddled under their blankets against the San Francisco chill, wish me a "good night" and I can't choke the same words back to them, or do much of anything but give them coffee to keep warm and books to read to help pass the time. My campaign office is being visited on a daily basis by Iraq war vets who can't access the help they need to get physically or mentally healthy---and I am "extreme" because I actually want things to really change and choose to act on this desire and not sit around passively pretending that this horseshit doesn't exist?

Since Casey died, even though every day I am filled with pain and longing, I have tried to be the poster-mom for this pain telling my neighbors and fellow Americans how it feels to be profoundly hurt by the Military Industrial Complex and that it wouldn't be too long before the cancer of BushCo would strike every American home and now that this prediction is awfully coming true, I see more and more apathy and less and less action.

Three years ago today, I first sat in a ditch in Crawford, Texas and three years later, we are in dire straits, my friends, and the prognosis is not good, unless we all make a conscious effort to sacrifice some of today's comfort for the sake of our children and grand-children's futures.

Sixty-three years ago today, the monsters of the US war machine dropped a WMD on hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children and since then, this nation has just descended into a further spiral of war and profiting from war and preparing for war and more profiting from war; which is destroying every aspect of our society and we MUST reclaim our very souls from the Military Industrial Complex before it is too late. Please don't wait for November or January or for the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius because every second we allow this demented pattern to continue, is one second too long!

Get moving!”

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/

*****

What Is Voter Intimidation?

Is it one thing in Ohio and another in South Dakota?

by Josh Levin

Updated Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2004, at 9:11 PM ET--In response to a lawsuit by Sen. Tom Daschle, a U.S. District Judge ruled this morning that Republican poll watchers in South Dakota were intimidating Native American voters by following them out of polling places and taking down their license plate numbers. But in another decision today, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that GOP poll watchers weren't intimidating Ohio voters by checking their names against a list of registered voters. So, what exactly do the courts consider voter intimidation?

Courts consistently rule that physical violence or threats constitute voter intimidation, but, as today's conflicting rulings show, there is no judicial consensus on which nonviolent acts are legally considered intimidating. State and federal laws that ban intimidation don't offer much guidance on how courts should define it. The Ohio law, for instance, says that "no person shall … attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means" to keep someone from voting. The most significant federal law banning intimidation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which states in Section 11(b) that "No person … shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce … any person for voting or attempting to vote."

The Voting Rights Act was written in the days of Jim Crow, when African-American voters were often kept from casting their ballots by threats of physical violence or actual physical violence. As electioneering tactics have grown more subtle, however, courts have had to decide what constitutes voter intimidation on a case-by-case basis. The suit alleging intimidation by poll watchers in Ohio cited a New Jersey consent decree from 1982 in which the Republican National Committee, without admitting to any unlawful behavior, agreed to stop using so-called "ballot security squads" to check voters' credentials in predominantly black and Latino precincts. In his dissent in the Ohio case, 6th Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. cited 1992's Burson v. Freeman, in which the Supreme Court found that Tennessee's ban on "the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials" within 100 feet of polling places served the state's "compelling interests in preventing voter intimidation and election fraud." The court, though, did not indicate what kind of intimidation such a buffer zone would protect voters from.

Both of the above cases as well as the Ohio and South Dakota rulings deal with intimidation at a polling place. The case law about voter intimidation that takes place elsewhere is even more sparse. In 1992, the DOJ asserted that you can intimidate voters by mail. It filed suit after North Carolina Republicans and the Jesse Helms campaign sent postcards to black voters with warnings about the penalties for voter fraud. The case was settled with a consent decree that banned "ballot security" programs "directed at qualified voters in which the racial minority status of some or all of the voters is one of the factors in the decision to target those voters."

*****

News You Won’t Find on CNN

The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fp.

jsp?plat=i&p=f&m=iqnuv6bab

By John Pilger

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

On the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, John Pilger describes the 'progression of lies' from the dust of that detonated city, to the wars of today - and the threatened attack on Iran.

When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.

He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short,” after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukemia.

In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague." For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared – and vindicated.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war,” whose "ethical bath," as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard.”

Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength.” He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb.” His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip." General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment.”

Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times. In waging their bogus "war on terror,” the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current "threat.” But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK -- just as the lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington.

The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical. That America's Defense Intelligence Estimate says "with high confidence" that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media "fact" that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again.

This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media. There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel. The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads. In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.

In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country's political and military establishment, threatened "an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland.” This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out.

The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that "we did not know"? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called "a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen with positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence"? Catching war criminals is fashionable again. Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer.

*****

Attention, Wal-Mart Shoppers!

by Nathan L. Gonzales

If indeed Wal-Mart is mobilizing its employees to vote against Democrats, is it sending a mixed message with its political action committee donations?

Wal-Mart is on pace to give more money to House Democrats this cycle than House Republicans for the first time ever. And as Wal-Mart’s contributions reach further and deeper into the Democratic Caucus, it is becoming more difficult for the company’s critics to demonize the corporate giant.

Through June 30, 54 percent of contributions to House candidates delivered by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC for Responsible Government this cycle have gone to Democrats. Last cycle, Wal-Mart contributed 67 percent of its House candidate money to Republicans. And in 2004, Republicans received 80 percent of the contributions.

Wal-Mart has been behaving like a lot of companies since Democrats gained majorities in both houses, Center for Responsive Politics Communications Director Massie Ritsch said.

But Wal-Mart isn’t just another company; it is America’s largest corporation.

Wal-Mart PAC was moderately active during the 1998 and 2000 election cycles dishing out $894,000 over four years but ramped up its political giving in 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site. The corporation gave $1.4 million that cycle, and boosted its contributions to more than $2.7 million in both the 2004 and 2006 cycles.

In an age where taking money is synonymous with doing someone’s bidding, more and more Democrats, including party leadership, are cashing Wal-Mart PAC checks. Apparently Wal-Mart is not the devil it once was.

Through June, Wal-Mart’s PAC had contributed to 86 House Democrats this cycle, amounting to just more than one-third of the Caucus. That’s more than the 77 House Democrats Wal-Mart supported in 2006 and the 62 that received PAC money in 2004.

Since 2004, Wal-Mart has given $27,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), $22,500 to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (S.C.),$12,000 to Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), and $20,500 to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.).

If Friday’s story in the Wall Street Journal, which claimed that Wal-Mart human resources managers were warning employees that an Obama White House would lead to unionization and ultimately hurt them and the company’s gains traction, then it could impact how future Wal-Mart political contributions are received.

Democrats who have received Wal-Mart money should strongly consider giving it back, Change to Win Executive Director Chris Chafe said. Because at its work site, Wal-Mart is telling its employees to vote against Democrats and working families and that is not something the Democratic Party should be affiliated with.

We aren’t done yet, a Wal-Mart Regional Media Director E.R. Anderson explained. Decisions are still being made as we seek to partner with Members and candidates who are interested in solutions on health care, economic opportunity, and the environment.

Ironically, many of those Members also oppose the company on some important legislation, specifically the Employee Free Choice Act.

EFCA is a really bad bill, Anderson said. But there are so many important issues. We can’t limit our outreach or relationship building.

If Wal-Mart maintains its giving pace from the past two cycles, it still has approximately $800,000 to dole out, but the contributions would have to be overwhelmingly Republican to bring the PAC back to its traditional
pattern.

Fifty-two percent of Wal-Mart’s total candidate giving this cycle has gone to Republican candidates, because the Senate giving is still heavily Republican. It’s still a marked change from 2006, when it was 68 percent Republican and 2004 and 2002 when Republicans received 78 percent of Wal-Mart candidate contributions.

The contributions reflect Wal-Mart scrambling to keep up with the political reality of the day, said Meghan Scott, a spokeswoman for a group called Wake Up Wal-Mart. Backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers, Wake Up Wal-Mart is one of two high-profile groups organized in 2005 to force Wal-Mart to change its business practices.

Through a well-orchestrated public relations campaign and political partnerships, Wal-Mart is trying to blur the partisan lines.

In recent months, Wal-Mart has touted its $4 price tag for certain prescription drugs and efforts to become more environmentally friendly (including becoming the largest seller of more efficient light bulbs). The company also unveiled a new, softer logo earlier this summer, after 16 years of the old one.

In February 2007, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott Jr. and Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern jointly called for universal health care coverage by 2012. Even though they disagree on the details, the moment was symbolic.

As the company makes changes, it becomes harder to be critical, Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar told the New York Times in June. Because our critique has to become more nuanced.

During the Democratic presidential primary, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) during a debate for previously serving on Wal-Marts board. Then in June, Obama hired a known Wal-Mart defender, Jason Furman, to be his economic policy director despite plenty of criticism from labor unions. The anti-Wal-Mart attack line also seems to have fallen by the wayside as Obama tries to appeal to red-state voters, many of whom consider Wal-Mart to be a part of their everyday lives.

In analyzing Wal-Mart contributions, a couple of distinct Democratic groups stand out. Wal-Mart has a formal relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus, including the Strive for Excellence Scholarship Program and Emerging
Leaders internship program, and has a history of hiring high-profile African-American lobbyists.

In 2004, Wal-Marts PAC contributed $69,500 to the CBC, its members and its members PACs. Two years later, the PAC’s total CBC contributions reached $108,050. This cycle, it already reached $100,500, with more money left to be handed out.

The Blue Dogs PAC, its members and their PACs have cashed $203,500 worth of Wal-Mart PAC checks this cycle, exceeding their 2006 total ($185,000) with four months left. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have received $64,500 in Wal-Mart money this cycle, matching their 2006 take.

In a few cases, it is clear that Wal-Mart values incumbency rather than a political party. For example, in Texas’ 23rd district, Wal-Mart gave then-Rep. Henry Bonilla (R) contributions in 2004 ($7,500) and 2006 ($15,000), but this cycle gave $10,000 to the man who defeated him, Democratic Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

In Florida’s 22nd district, then-Rep. Clay Shaw (R) received Wal-Mart PAC money in 2004 ($5,000) and 2006 ($10,000), but the company gave $10,000 this cycle to Rep. Ron Klein (D), who defeated Wal-Mart’s candidate in 2006. Similar giving patterns can be seen in Pennsylvania’s 4th district, Indiana’s 2nd, Georgia’s 12th, North Carolina’s 11th and Indiana’s 9th.

In New York’s 24th district, Wal-Mart PAC contributed $5,000 for then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert’s 2004 re-election and $10,000 to Ray Meier, the Republican who ran unsuccessfully to replace him in 2006. But this cycle, Wal-Mart has maxed out ($10,000) to Rep. Michael Arcuri (D), whom it once opposed.

Wal-Mart’s Senate spending is traditionally smaller ... and very Republican. Since 1998, Wal-Mart has contributed at least 69 percent of its Senate money to Republicans. That trend continues this cycle with Republicans receiving 83 percent of the PAC Senate candidate contributions through June 30. But even still, more than a third of the current Democratic Senators have taken money from Wal-Mart over the last three cycles.

Similar to the House races, Wal-Mart appeared to be hedging its bets in a few states. In 2004, Wal-Mart contributed $6,000 to then-incumbent Sen. Tom Daschle (D) and $4,500 to former Rep. John Thune (R) in their South Dakota battle. Wal-Mart also contributed to both the Republican and Democratic Senate candidates in Colorado, Georgia and Louisiana that cycle. In the Tennessee open seat race in 2006, Wal-Mart gave $10,000 each to Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D) and former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R).

Wal-Mart is still a Republican company at the grass roots. When contributions from individual employees and their families are added to the PAC contributions, Wal-Mart’s total giving this cycle shifts to about 56 percent Republican, according to CRP. Less than 1 percent of the contributions to Wal-Mart PAC comes from donations over $200. In comparison, 4.5 percent of Target PAC (Target Citizens Political Forum) money and 74 percent of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. PAC receipts come from donations over $200.

Wal-Mart has also consistently given to all three Republican campaign committees over the last three cycles, including $30,000 each to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as well as $15,000 to the Republican National Committee.

In 2004, Wal-Mart gave $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It has never contributed to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, but it did give $2,500 last cycle to then-DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel’s (Ill.) PAC. We look forward to working with the committees of both parties, both houses and we will continue to work with elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, to bring about solutions for all Americans, Wal-Mart’s Anderson said.

But is Wal-Mart Good for the Country?

In Circleville, Ohio, population 13,000, the local RCA television-manufacturing plant was once a source of good jobs with good pay and benefits. But in late 2003, RCA's owner, Thomson Consumer Electronics, lost a sizable portion of its production orders and six months later shut the plant down, throwing 1,000 people out of work.

Thomson's jobs have moved to China, where cheap labor manufactures what the American consumer desires -- from clothing to electronics -- and can buy at "everyday low prices" at the local Wal-Mart.

FRONTLINE explores the relationship between U.S. job losses and the American consumer's insatiable desire for bargains in "Is Wal-Mart Good for America?" Through interviews with retail executives, product manufacturers, economists, and trade experts, correspondent Hedrick Smith examines the growing controversy over the Wal-Mart way of doing business and asks whether a single retail giant has changed the American economy.

"Wal-Mart's power and influence are awesome," Smith says. "By figuring out how to exploit two powerful forces that converged in the 1990s -- the rise of information technology and the explosion of the global economy – Wal-Mart has dramatically changed the balance of power in the world of business. Retailers are now more powerful than manufacturers, and they are forcing the decision to move production offshore."

"Wal-Mart has reversed a hundred-year history that had the retailer dependent on the manufacturer," explains Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Now the retailer is the center, the power, and the manufacturer becomes the serf, the vassal, the underling who has to do the bidding of the retailer. That's a new thing."

To understand the secret of Wal-Mart's success, Smith travels from the company's headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to their global procurement center in Shenzhen, China, where several hundred employees work to keep the company's import pipeline running smoothly. Of Wal-Mart's 6,000 global suppliers, experts estimate that as many as 80 percent are based in China.

"Wal-Mart has a very close relationship with China," says Duke University Professor Gary Gereffi. "China is the largest exporter to the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories. Wal-Mart is the leading retailer in the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories. Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture."

When trade agreements were signed between the U.S. and China in the 1990s, bringing China into the World Trade Organization, American political and business leaders embraced the idea. China's 1.2 billion people were viewed as an enormous untapped market for American-made goods. The reality, experts say, is the opposite. China's exports to the U.S. have skyrocketed.

Update: Since this program first aired in 2004, Wal-Mart's sales have increased 30%, approaching $325 billion for 2006. And the U.S. trade deficit with China has nearly doubled, expected to hit $230 billion in 2006.

At a salary of only 50 cents an hour or $100 a month, Chinese labor is an unbeatable bargain for international business. And the Chinese government is doing everything it can to be sure the country's infrastructure supports the export business. Ten years ago Shenzhen's main port did not exist. Today it's on the verge of becoming the third busiest port in the world.

Wal-Mart estimates it imports $15 billion of Chinese goods every year and concedes that the figure could be higher -- some estimates range as high as $20 or $30 billion. Company executives are quick to point out they have always scoured the globe for low cost suppliers to benefit the American consumer.

"We do depend on products from around the globe to draw our consumers into the stores," says Ray Bracy, Wal-Mart's vice president for federal and international public affairs. "We feel they need to have the best product, the best value, at the best price we can achieve."

Some experts contend Wal-Mart's "everyday low prices" are causing a clash between the interests of Americans as workers and the desires of Americans as consumers.

"If people were only consumers, buying things at lower prices would be just good. But people also are workers who need to earn a decent standard of living," says economist Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute. "The dynamics that create lower prices at Wal-Mart and other places are also undercutting the ability of many, many workers to earn decent wages and benefits and have a stable life."

Economist Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute sees it another way. "I think Wal- Mart is good for America," he says. "Wal-Mart is doing what the American economy is all about, which is producing things consumers want to buy … offering consumers a wide range of goods at rock-bottom prices. It is meeting the market test."

This is little consolation to the unemployed workers back in Circleville, Ohio. Steve Ratcliff, a long-time worker at the Thomson plant puts it simply: "If you want these low prices, then you go buy your products from Wal-Mart. But what does that actually do for this country? It's putting people out of work. And it's lowering our standard of living. That's the bottom line."

Ironically, for Ratcliff and his former colleagues, there are new jobs coming to town. In a patch of farmland right next to the vacant Thomson plant, Wal-Mart has broken ground on one of its new Super Centers. But the Wal-Mart jobs will represent a steep cut in pay from the $15 to $16 an hour workers made at Thomson, and a far cry from the pension, health care, and job security benefits that have long been the norm in manufacturing.

******

The Federalist Papers

Federalist No. 14

From the New York Packet

Friday, November 30, 1787

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution. The following one is attributed to James Madison. It is titled “Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered.”

To the People of the State of New York:

WE HAVE seen the necessity of the Union, as our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as the only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the Old World, and as the proper antidote for the diseases of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments, and of which alarming symptoms have been betrayed by our own. All that remains, within this branch of our inquiries, is to take notice of an objection that may be drawn from the great extent of country which the Union embraces. A few observations on this subject will be the more proper, as it is perceived that the adversaries of the new Constitution are availing themselves of the prevailing prejudice with regard to the practicable sphere of republican administration, in order to supply, by imaginary difficulties, the want of those solid objections which they endeavor in vain to find.

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

Such a fallacy may have been the less perceived, as most of the popular governments of antiquity were of the democratic species; and even in modern Europe, to which we owe the great principle of representation, no example is seen of a government wholly popular, and founded, at the same time, wholly on that principle. If Europe has the merit of discovering this great mechanical power in government, by the simple agency of which the will of the largest political body may be concentred, and its force directed to any object which the public good requires, America can claim the merit of making the discovery the basis of unmixed and extensive republics. It is only to be lamented that any of her citizens should wish to deprive her of the additional merit of displaying its full efficacy in the establishment of the comprehensive system now under her consideration.

As the natural limit of a democracy is that distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions; so the natural limit of a republic is that distance from the centre which will barely allow the representatives to meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public affairs. Can it be said that the limits of the United States exceed this distance? It will not be said by those who recollect that the Atlantic coast is the longest side of the Union, that during the term of thirteen years, the representatives of the States have been almost continually assembled, and that the members from the most distant States are not chargeable with greater intermissions of attendance than those from the States in the neighborhood of Congress.

That we may form a juster estimate with regard to this interesting subject, let us resort to the actual dimensions of the Union. The limits, as fixed by the treaty of peace, are: on the east the Atlantic, on the south the latitude of thirty-one degrees, on the west the Mississippi, and on the north an irregular line running in some instances beyond the forty-fifth degree, in others falling as low as the forty-second. The southern shore of Lake Erie lies below that latitude. Computing the distance between the thirty-first and forty-fifth degrees, it amounts to nine hundred and seventy-three common miles; computing it from thirty-one to forty-two degrees, to seven hundred and sixty-four miles and a half. Taking the mean for the distance, the amount will be eight hundred and sixty-eight miles and three-fourths. The mean distance from the Atlantic to the Mississippi does not probably exceed seven hundred and fifty miles. On a comparison of this extent with that of several countries in Europe, the practicability of rendering our system commensurate to it appears to be demonstrable. It is not a great deal larger than Germany, where a diet representing the whole empire is continually assembled; or than Poland before the late dismemberment, where another national diet was the depositary of the supreme power. Passing by France and Spain, we find that in Great Britain, inferior as it may be in size, the representatives of the northern extremity of the island have as far to travel to the national council as will be required of those of the most remote parts of the Union.

Favorable as this view of the subject may be, some observations remain which will place it in a light still more satisfactory.

In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction.

A second observation to be made is that the immediate object of the federal Constitution is to secure the union of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practicable; and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own bosoms, or in their neighborhoods, which we cannot doubt to be equally practicable. The arrangements that may be necessary for those angles and fractions of our territory which lie on our northwestern frontier, must be left to those whom further discoveries and experience will render more equal to the task.

Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the intercourse throughout the Union will be facilitated by new improvements. Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order; accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or nearly throughout, the whole extent of the thirteen States. The communication between the Western and Atlantic districts, and between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult to connect and complete.

A fourth and still more important consideration is, that as almost every State will, on one side or other, be a frontier, and will thus find, in regard to its safety, an inducement to make some sacrifices for the sake of the general protection; so the States which lie at the greatest distance from the heart of the Union, and which, of course, may partake least of the ordinary circulation of its benefits, will be at the same time immediately contiguous to foreign nations, and will consequently stand, on particular occasions, in greatest need of its strength and resources. It may be inconvenient for Georgia, or the States forming our western or northeastern borders, to send their representatives to the seat of government; but they would find it more so to struggle alone against an invading enemy, or even to support alone the whole expense of those precautions which may be dictated by the neighborhood of continual danger. If they should derive less benefit, therefore, from the Union in some respects than the less distant States, they will derive greater benefit from it in other respects, and thus the proper equilibrium will be maintained throughout.

I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations, in full confidence that the good sense which has so often marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys; the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me, the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rendering us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties and promote our happiness. But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? Is it not the glory of the people of America, that, whilst they have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience? To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind. Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great Confederacy, which it is incumbent on their successors to improve and perpetuate. If their works betray imperfections, we wonder at the fewness of them. If they erred most in the structure of the Union, this was the work most difficult to be executed; this is the work which has been new modeled by the act of your convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide.

PUBLIUS.