Back by Popular Demand Yet Again!


Honestly, I just can't get enough of this picture of George W. Bush making an ass of himself in public. Quite an accurate representation of Baby Bush's years in the White House, doncha think?

And don't forget Bush wearing a wire in his desperate-but-failed attempts to sound less like the moron he is from having fried his brain cells on alcohol and cocaine (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge/index.html):


*****
Can America really afford another Bush term
--or worse?
Please read this article to the bottom and decide for yourself. We must understand how destructive it is to us ordinary Americans and to our democracy and its rule of law to keep letting these privileged, right-wing-extreme, misogynist elitists into the Oval Office! There seems to be something about being born into privilege that skews these people's sense of reality to our detriment ....

JOHN McCAIN:
THE MOST FLAWED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY
by Roland C. Eyears

It is now clear that what is left of the Republicon Party, after being fatally poisoned by the Bush administration, intents to commit suicide by nominating Senator John McCain (R-Hanoi) for the presidency. Where do I start?

THE EARLY YEARS

McCain spent his boyhood in exclusive boarding schools where staffers were paid to put up with his tirades. We all did some immature things before we matured. But with McCain, the tirades continue today.

Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is scant chance he would have been admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy. Given his behavior patterns and academics, had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, there is little doubt he would have been thrown out. Instead, in 1958 he managed to graduate 894 out of 899. Had he not been the son and grandson of admirals, he is no chance he would have been accepted into the prestigious naval flight training program over far better qualified officers. On his way to becoming a North Vietnamese ace, the aviator lost 3 expensive aircraft on routine, non-combat flights. Little was made of all that, because he was, you know, the son and grandson of admirals.

McCain’s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk’s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany.

As a rising naval officer, McCain was surrounded by rumors of numerous adulterous affairs, such as used to be called “conduct unbecoming an officer.” Author and biographer Robert Timberg has detailed several of McCain’s sexual relationships with subordinates when serving as a Squadron Leader and an Executive Officer. I think we all know such behavior is a clear violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in other words, a crime.

When McCain’s application to the National War College was rejected, according to noted author and researcher Joel Skousen, he whined to daddy who pulled strings with the Secretary of the Navy.

PRISONER OR HONORED GUEST?

McCain’s 5½-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain’s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison’s loud speakers.

On October 26, 1967, McCain’s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn’t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.

Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States McLamb, “He was never tortured…The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that’s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades.

The Glavnoje Razvedyvatel’noje Upravlenije is the Soviet’s military intelligence division. Numerous sources confirm that during the Nam Era, the English-speaking Vietnamese who conducted interrogations of American prisoners were always overseen by Russian GRU officers. The ranking GRU officer at the Hanoi Hilton had a multilingual teenage son who was tasked with translating all interrogation reports into Russian. He would become known only as T.

According to T who interpreted all interrogations and notes pertaining to McCain during the latter’s stay from December, 1969, to March, 1973, when a well-fed looking McCain’s was released, privileges were extended. These included time at a furnished apartment in Hanoi – furnished with 2 prostitutes. McCain would attribute such absences to solitary confinement.

It has been widely reported that following his father’s appointment as CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater of operations, McCain was offered an immediate parole. McCain insists that he refused such a preference. Others insist that his father refused to allow such a preference. In any event, such an offer would have required the approval of the Soviet masters, and T would have seen documentation. He has no recollection of such an offer.

In 1991 the Soviet Union was in a state of collapse. People and things were up for grabs. During that thaw, a mass document swap took place between the KGB and CIA. All T’s translations were included. If these dots are really connected, it is small wonder that McCain had fought consistently to keep all files sealed, block any attempts to retrieve POWs, and establish the friendliest of relations with his former tormentors.

Imagine the possibilities. A Clintonian leak during the presidential campaign. Or, in the unlikely event of a McCain victory, blackmail of the Manchurian Candidate.

It is public record that Admiral McCain was on hand to greet his son upon return. According to Major Mark A. Smith (USA Retired), a Green Beret and former POW, a trusted friend of his accompanied the Admiral that day. Later, when the friend referred to that meeting, McCain became enraged, volunteered that he had received “no special treatment,” and then denied that his father was there.

In 1989 legislation known as The Truth Bill was introduced in the U.S. House. It required the Department of Defense to publish the names and information on all unaccounted for POWs, MIAs, and KIAs in WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It languished and was resurrected 2 years later. Then came the McCain Bill, promptly enacted, that blocked such information. The DoD does not even have to acknowledge confirmed sightings of live Americans.

TEMPER AND TEMPERMENT

The senator’s temper and temperament remain in question. His biographer quotes him: “At the smallest provocation I would go off into a mad frenzy, and then suddenly crash to the floor unconscious.” Has he moderated over time? Apparently. Somewhat. Senators who have had McCain scream hyphenated obscenities at them nose-to-nose include Rick Santorum, Richard Shelby, Thad Cochran, and James Inhofe. Most colleagues decline comment. The man has been called psychologically unstable.

BIRDS OF A FEATHER?

Four years ago McCain loudly defended the glorious hero of the Vietnam War, John Kerry. That would be the young naval officer who hid out in an office until he took command of a river patrol boat for a few weeks. He put in for a purple heart every time he got a scratch or bruise. With 3 of those, he rotated out with the intention of running for public office as a war hero. When Kerry saw the level of anti-war sentiment, he quickly morphed into an anti-war hero running for public office and later married the widow of an extremely wealthy, conservative senator who died under highly suspicious circumstances. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have not died. Their affiliate is Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, headed by former Sergeant Ted Sampley, who also serves as vice-president of the half-million member Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally.

Sampley has spent years working toward the return of Vietnam era MIAs and POWs abandoned by our government (which is invariably the case at a war’s end). McCann has thwarted him at every turn, dismissing 1,600 credible first hand sightings, 14,000 second hand sightings, and countless radio intercepts that supported the observations.

In 1991 a Senate Select Committee held hearings on the subject of Vietnam POWs. Tracy Usry, honored Vietnam veteran and former chief investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, testified that American POWs were routinely interrogated by Soviet intelligence officers. Several times, an enraged McCain interrupted, shouting that, “…none of the returned U.S. POWs released by Vietnam was ever interrogated by the Soviets.” He knew better. So apparently did Bui Tin, former Senior Colonel, NVA, who testified that he had been privy to all Soviet documents pertaining to American prisoners. He supported Usry, refuted McCain, and offered his personal records as added proof.

In short order, Usry and all participating staff members were fired. Jack Wheeler, Republicon insider and master strategist, attributed that to McCain’s behind-the-scenes pressuring.

Add to that McCain’s despicable treatment of families of POWs. Is that based on guilt or is the man simply despicable?

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

In the 1920s, the Bronfman family of Montreal rose to power and wealth based particularly on its Seagrams liquor business, which had as its Prohibition Era partner Meyer Lansky, American Mafia boss. Bootlegging profits were enormous. The family branched into many areas, including media. In recent years, Bronfman acquired a major chunk of Time-Warner.

Michael Collins Piper is the author of several books including FINAL JUDGMENT and THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR. According to his research, Jack Ruby, Texas nightclub manager and silencer of JFK’s alleged assassin, was a Bronfman asset. Piper identifies Ruby as “a key player” in the smuggling of arms stolen from U.S. military bases to Israel.

In the years prior to World War II, the move into Arizona was made. In 1941, Gus Greenbaum of Phoenix started a national wire service for bookies. When he shifted to Las Vegas in 1946 to oversee Meyer Lansky’s casino interests and subsequently replace the infamous, violent Bugsy Siegel, Kemper Marley was appointed crime syndicate boss of Arizona. According to sources within the Marley group, it was Bronfman who put him in the liquor business and enabled him to build a statewide monopoly. In 1948, the feds sent 52 employees to prison for liquor violations. Rumor has it that Marley remained untouched because one of his lieutenants, James Hensley, took the fall and did a dime. Piper reports that Hensley’s attorney and dealmaker was William Rehnquist. Yes, that would be the Chief Justice who later pulled his former girlfriend onto the high court and spent his last decade on the bench hallucinating on drugs. Upon release, Marley gave Hensley one of the biggest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the country – certainly the biggest in Arizona. Thank you for your faithful service.

Then one day in 1981, an obscure, newly retired naval officer rode into the land of sun, cacti, and retirees. After his first wife, who had raised his children and waited for him became crippled in an accident, John McCain had dumped her overboard and married his mistress – Cindy, daughter of James Hensley. The next year the “straight talker” was installed in the U.S. House of Lords. Four years later he moved to the senate.

So who owns honest John McCain? The mob that runs Arizona? The big Vegas money that continues to contribute heavily? The Israeli connection? You be the judge.

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS – WHO NEEDS IT?

Not long ago, McCain stated to a journalist that, “Economics isn’t my strong suit.” But, he added, he is reading Greenspan. That would be Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan who, during his tenure, expanded the money supply more than in all the years since 1913. The Greenspan who kept the printing presses running at warp speed, turning out little pieces of paper called money and backed by the promises of politicians. Alan the Inflator fueled the dotcom bubble, the stock market bubble, and more recently the real estate bubble. It is no wonder that the LONDON ECONOMIST recently pegged 2007 true U.S. inflation at 17%. Just what we need – another president who is an economic illiterate. It’s small consolation that McCain admits it, because if elected, he’d appoint the wrong advisors.

MCCAIN VERSUS THE CONSTITUTION

McCain, also known as senator hyphen around D.C., frequently partners with members of the far left. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was an obvious, full-frontal attack on the First Amendment – perhaps the most blatant since the Sedition Act 200 years previous. Specifically, it outlawed the most protected of free speech, political descent. This alone should be a deal breaker. Anyone voting for the bill should have been impeached and removed from office. George Bush, when he broke another of his pledges and signed the odious legislation, said he had problems with it but that the Supreme Court might very possibly strike down parts. Apparently, his thinking was (1) this is bad law, but why should I worry, and (2) I don’t need to do my job because somebody down the line might do it for me.

Accordingly, it is entirely logical that radio talk show hosts are in strong opposition to McCain. They understand how much he hates free speech, and they don’t want to see a return to the deceptively named Fairness Doctrine that used to force broadcasters to devote matching time to the promotion of liberal views to balance conservative. At the core is the liberals’ fear of exposure to the marketplace of ideas and free discourse. To them, it is not enough that you have a dial and an opposed thumb. If we’re going to have a Fairness Doctrine, let’s carry it all the way out. For every 80 anti-gun news stories, I want to see 80 (easy to find) pro-gun stories. Not 1. For every male bashing commercial, mandate one female bashing. Let’s limit the number of black players on college and NBA teams to 12½ percent, reflective of the population. Et cetera.

McCain also works to destroy the Second Amendment. John McCain does not trust you with a firearm, regardless of the plain words of the Constitution. He would bar you from defending yourself from marauders and certainly from an out-of-control government. The Gun Owners of America rates McCain F minus. Although the National Rifle Association is far softer in defending gun rights, its president has termed McCain the “worst Second Amendment candidate.” Example: McCain sponsored an amendment to S. 1805 that would destroy gun shows by outlawing private gun sales at such events, although they have been proven to not be a significant source of criminals’ weapons. A next step would be the outlawing of private transfers. A father would be unable to pass down a family treasure without government blessing. The unconstitutionality of all this is of no importance to the senator and his ilk. Check his record. This alone should be another deal breaker.

Just about everybody loves a maverick, right? Spirit of America and all that. We often impute a certain sense of integrity to someone who turns on his own. Is the senator from Hanoi really a maverick? Sure, but from what? Honor? Duty? The Constitution he works so hard to make irrelevant? But as a career politician and long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, McCain is also a one- worlder and a senior insider.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

I’m sure the sponsor of the so-called Campaign Finance Reform Bill wouldn’t mind if we took a cursory look at his donors. They include the sinister international currency manipulator George Soros, JP Morgan Chase & Company, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers. In other words, McCain is backed by most of the usual suspects who back “the competition.”

According to WorldNetDaily, since 2001, this candidate has receiving funding via the Reform Institute of Alexandria, Virginia, founded to launder money from George Soro’s Open Society Institute and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s Tides Foundation. Let’s just know who owns whom. All this only makes sense. The senator is a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a one-worlder, an ultimate insider.

Funding scandals? Sure. We have them too. Does anybody remember the Keating Five debacle from 1987 that cost depositors and taxpayers $160 million? Charles Keating owned American Continental Corporation and its subsidiary Lincoln Savings & Loan. Facing multiple federal indictments, he called on the recipients of his largesse – Senators Alan Cranston, John Glenn, Don Riegle, and from the great State of Arizona Dennis DeConsini and John McCain. Strings were pulled, but, in the end, Keating was convicted. In 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee (I know, such an oxymoron) ruled that McCain hadn’t quite done anything illegal. But by his own standards he was corrupt.

D.C. FOLLIES

Recently, the New York Times ran a piece suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman that went back 8 years. Ms. Iseman is a partner in Alcalde & Fay, who represent Carnival Lines, several broadcasters, and municipalities. The Times, along with Drudge and the Washington Post, had been sitting on the story for some weeks. The allegations are unproven, and, the senator has exhibited extraordinary self-control when denying them. I can only say that he has a history of this type of Clintonian behavior, both in the military and, admittedly, during his first marriage. Apparently it is acceptable anymore. In any case, I question whether the Times should have run with this.

Influence peddling? Sure, McCain rode Lowell Paxson’s jet several times. It would be asking a lot of a high-profile senator to walk through a crowded airport and climb on a commercial flight. Maybe he wrote Paxson checks at the commercial fare rate. He did accept $100,000 donation from Alcalde & Fay. And he did write 2 letters recommending that the FCC approve Paxson’s purchase of a Pittsburgh TV station. Only two? Lobbyists lobby. I don’t have any finger to point here.

THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE

Taking a page from Bill Clinton’s Attorney General, McCain has called Christian leaders “agents of intolerance.”

McCain often crosses the aisle to block the confirmation of conservative judges with strict construction leanings. His record on taxes is clear; he likes them. Senator hyphen has co-sponsored ill conceived legislation that would boost gasoline prices by more than half a dollar a gallon. And he supports radical global warming measures that would significantly disadvantage the U.S.

COME ON UP. HERE’S A CHECK.

Teaming again with Teddy Kennedy, at al, the senator from Hanoi sponsored an amnesty bill for illegal aliens. A top aide, Juan Hernandez previously held a cabinet level position with ex-president of Mexico Vincente Fox. This dual citizen is on record as favoring “Mexico First.” McCain supports open borders. Well, until he caught sight of the prize. These days he’s auto-phoning into Ohio, promising that “first I’ll close the borders.” He’d still like to see Social Security money paid to the sneak-ins. Another deal breaker?

DISCLAIMERS AND CONCLUSIONS

The presidential frontrunners have a curious commonality. Not one has any significant administrative history. None has headed a company, none has managed an organization, and none has ever had to meet a payroll. Their experience has been totally devoted to throwing other people’s money at problems they created (often for that very purpose), and they’ve run nothing but their mouths. Seriously, if you owned a large business enterprise, is there any chance that you would pick one of the candidates to manage it?

As for the illegal, immoral war in which we are engaged, Obama is clean, Hillary is implicated, and McCain says he’s fine with another hundred years.

Personalities aside, I’m not certain how much difference it makes. McCain has essentially endorsed Hillary. According to him, “She has integrity,” and “I have no doubt that she would be a good president.” He likes, really likes the woman, and says, “I think she’s a very good person.” Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama’s policies differ not one whit from Hillary’s. So that’s a popularity contest.

Then there is the matter of the label. In his way, George Bush has done to the Republicon Party what Bill Clinton did to the Democrat Party in his way. In the last congressional race, the Rs did poorly; yet their D replacements have fixed nothing. The congress’s approval rating is 22 percent. As the legatee of Bush, what does baggage does McCain bear? Here are just a few bags: unrestrained spending, huge trade deficits, illegal wars of aggression, empire building beyond our capacity, abandonment of our fallen veterans, war crimes, the elimination of civil liberties with war as a pretext, the death of habeas corpus, favoring Israel over the U.S., the stock bubble, the real estate bubble, collapsing home values, permanent core job losses, true 10 percent inflation, debasement of the currency (They won’t even publish M3 numbers anymore.), torture of prisoners (On October 6, 2006, McCain voted to exempt the CIA from restrictions.), prisoner rendition, deconstruction of the Constitution, opening our borders to everybody and anybody, violations of separation of powers, corruption, and incredible incompetence. I could go on. My question: Is the Republicon nomination worth more than 15 cents? Even if McCain puts nominal Democrat Joe Lieberman on his ticket to demonstrate bi-partisanship and pull in Dems and Independents?

Are you a genuine social conservative? Do you believe in our wonderful Constitution? Are you opposed the Iraq War and its precursor strategies that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents? Are you fiscally responsible? Do you truly understand the principles of republicanism? Do you believe in marital fidelity? Are you a supporter of free speech? I submit that if your answer to any of these questions is yes, you cannot vote for John McCain and retain your integrity. The lesser of 2 or 3 evils is still evil. In this case, not by a measurable amount.

The party of Ronald Reagan left me years ago. America’s bright beacon of hope, so loved by much of the world for over 200 years, is being reduced to a faint glow in the eyes of the true believers.

We have had some incredibly unqualified and inept people run for and sometimes win the top job. But John McCain must be the most flawed and compromised candidate in our nation’s history.

Editor's note: and we thought that George W. Bush was an ignorant, sadistic, fascist shill. It is chilling to think that John McCain could make Bush look like Abraham Lincoln!

*************************************************************

"When President Chirac
gave President Bush
a souvenir statue of the Eiffel Tower,
Bush said,
'This is great! A little oil rig!'"

--Jay Leno

*************************************************************

Dot Calm promises: ACORN is ALRIGHT

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities.

Since 1970, ACORN has grown to more than 350,000 member families, organized in 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the U.S. and in cities in Argentina, Peru, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Canada.

ACORN's accomplishments include successful campaigns for better housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions, and more.

ACORN members participate in local meetings and actively work on campaigns, elect leadership from the neighborhood level up, and pay the organization's core expenses through membership dues and grassroots fundraisers.

ACORN has constantly challenged the traditional notions of what a community organization is, and its family of organizations includes two radio stations, a voter registration network, a housing corporation, and several publications.

*************************************************************

"If it weren't for electricity,
we'd all be watching television
by candlelight."

-- George Gobel

*************************************************************

Dot Calm says, "Educate yourself!"
Since we, the hapless taxpayers, are being made to bail out the poor widdle banks for their indiscretion in lending, I thought you might like to know exactly what you “bought” and why you bought it.

Crashing the Subprime Party:
How the feds stopped the states from averting the lending mess
by Nicholas Bagley

As the federal government scurries to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis from sending the economy into a deep recession, many of us are asking why it waited so long to intervene. As it turns out, the government wasn't exactly sitting on its hands. Instead, for reasons that now appear hopelessly shortsighted, an obscure federal agency torpedoed legislation from a handful of states that would have made institutional investors far charier of buying mortgage loans that were likely to go belly-up. If the legislation had been permitted to go into effect, the crisis we now face would probably look a lot less grim. The right question, then, is not why the feds did so little. It's why they did so much.

Historically, few lenders would make subprime loans—that is, mortgage loans to borrowers with poor credit. The risk of default was simply too great. For a variety of reasons during the 1990s, however, major institutional players became more willing to purchase subprime loans as investments. Those loans would be pooled with similar subprime loans, and slices of that pool would be bought and sold as mortgage-backed securities. With the rise of this new secondary market, a lender could issue a subprime loan and immediately sell its interest in that loan for a lump sum. The ready flow of capital from the secondary mortgage market led, predictably, to an explosion in subprime lending. Unscrupulous lenders could reap the greatest profits by issuing subprime loans packed with unfavorable terms and subject to exorbitant interest rates, and only then selling them for cold, hard cash. A rash of borrowers found themselves saddled with predatory loans they had no hope of paying off.

To combat this surge in predatory lending, several state legislatures decided to stanch the flow of easy credit to subprime lenders. In 2002, Georgia became the first state to tell players in the secondary mortgage market that they might be on the hook if they purchased loans deemed "predatory" under state law. This worked a dramatic change. Before, downstream owners of mortgage-backed securities might see the value of their investments drop, but that was generally the worst that could happen. Under the Georgia Fair Lending Act, however, players in the secondary mortgage market could face serious liability if they so much as touched a predatory loan. The AARP, which drafted the model legislation that formed the basis for the Georgia law, explained that imposing liability on downstream owners would "reduce significantly the amount of credit that is available to lenders who are not willing to ensure that the loans they finance are made in accordance with the law."

The secondary market has an extraordinarily difficult time, however, distinguishing predatory loans (bad) from appropriately priced subprime loans (good). Even if the line could be drawn with confidence, the market lacked the resources to gather the necessary information. As the General Accounting Office noted in its comprehensive review of predatory-lending legislation, "even the most stringent efforts cannot uncover some predatory loans."

Inevitably, then, the secondary mortgage market in Georgia's subprime loans ground to a halt. And that was the point: If buyers couldn't satisfy themselves that the loans they bought weren't predatory, they should take their money elsewhere. Georgia understood that impeding the capital flow to subprime loans might raise the cost of borrowing for some state residents—those who, for one reason or another, had poor credit but could and would repay high-priced loans. But Georgia judged that this was more than balanced by protection for its most vulnerable from the scourge of predatory lending and the wrenching costs associated with overpayment and eventual foreclosure. New York, New Jersey, and New Mexico made the same judgment and within two years had enacted their own versions of laws exposing downstream owners of loans to fines if they bought predatory loans.

*************************************************************

"It doesn't make a difference
what temperature a room is:
it's always room temperature."

--Steven Wright

*************************************************************

Keating 5 ring a bell?
Okay boys and girls, time for a history lesson. Follow along and see if any of it sounds suspiciously like today’s “melt down.”

McCain's past collides with the present Wall Street debacle.
by Rosa Brooks

Sept. 25, 2008. Once upon a time, a politician took campaign contributions and favors from a friendly constituent who happened to run a savings and loan association. The contributions were generous: They came to about $200,000 in today's dollars, and on top of that there were several free vacations for the politician and his family, along with private jet trips and other perks. The politician voted repeatedly against congressional efforts to tighten regulation of S&Ls, and in 1987, when he learned that his constituent's S&L was the target of a federal investigation, he met with regulators in an effort to get them to back off.

That politician was John McCain, and his generous friend was Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings & Loan. While he was courting McCain and other senators and urging them to oppose tougher regulation of S&Ls, Keating was also investing his depositors' federally insured savings in risky ventures. When those lost money, Keating tried to hide the losses from regulators by inducing his customers to switch from insured accounts to uninsured (and worthless) bonds issued by Lincoln's near-bankrupt parent company. In 1989, it went belly up -- and more than 20,000 Lincoln customers saw their savings vanish.

Keating went to prison, and McCain's Senate career almost ended. Together with the rest of the so-called Keating Five -- Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio), Don Riegle (D-Mich.) and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), all of whom had also accepted large donations from Keating and intervened on his behalf -- McCain was investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee and ultimately reprimanded for "poor judgment."

But the savings and loan crisis mushroomed. Eventually, the government spent about $125 billion in taxpayer dollars to bail out hundreds of failed S&Ls that, like Keating's, fell victim to a combination of private-sector greed and the "poor judgment" of politicians like McCain.

The $125 billion seems like small change compared to the $700-billion price tag for the Bush administration's proposed Wall Street bailout. But the root causes of both crises are the same: a lethal mix of deregulation and greed.

Today's meltdown began when unscrupulous mortgage lenders pushed naive borrowers to sign up for loans they couldn't afford to pay back. The original lenders didn't care: They pocketed the upfront fees and quickly sold the loans to others, who sold them to others still. With the government MIA, soon mortgage-backed securities were zipping around the globe. But by the time many ordinary people began to struggle to make their mortgage payments, the numerous "good" loans (held by borrowers able to pay) had gotten hopelessly mixed up with the bad loans. Investors and banks started to panic about being left with the hot potato -- securities backed mainly by worthless loans. And so began the downward spiral of a credit crunch, short-selling, stock sell-offs and bankruptcies.

Could all this have been prevented? Sure. It's not rocket science: A sensible package of regulatory reforms -- like those Barack Obama has been pushing since well before the current meltdown began -- could have kept this most recent crisis from escalating, just as maintaining reasonable regulatory regimes for S&Ls in the '80s could have prevented that crisis (McCain learned this the hard way).

But, despite his political near-death experience as a member of the Keating Five, McCain continued to champion deregulation, voting in 2000, for instance, against federal regulation of the kind of financial derivatives at the heart of today's crisis.

Shades of the Keating Five scandal don't end there. This week, for instance, news broke that until August, the lobbying firm owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis was paid $15,000 a month by Freddie Mac, one of the mortgage giants implicated in the current crisis (now taken over by the government and under investigation by the FBI). Apparently, Freddie Mac's plan was to gain influence with McCain's campaign in hopes that he would help shield it from pesky government regulations. And until very recently, Freddie Mac executives probably figured money paid to Davis' firm was money well spent. "I'm always in favor of less regulation," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in March.

These days, McCain is singing a different tune.

"There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last week, explaining the sudden mass conversion of so many onetime free marketeers into champions of robust government intervention. Fair enough. But as you try to figure out what and who can get us out of this mess, beware of those who now embrace regulation with the fervor of new converts.

Editor's note: thank you, Rosa Brooks, for reminding us of the bad old days.

*************************************************************

"The Senate is now considering
increasing government subsidies
for corn growers to produce more ethanol.
If we produce enough ethanol,
we can postpone our next invasion
of a Middle Eastern country
for two to three years."

--Jay Leno

*************************************************************

If you read nothing else today, READ THIS!
This directive was put in place, after extensive editing by his henchmen, giving George W. Bush absolute power.

National Security and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions:

(2) In this directive:

(a) "Category" refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) "Continuity of Government," or "COG," means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) "Continuity of Operations," or "COOP," means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) "Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) "Executive Departments and Agencies" means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) "Government Functions" means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) "National Essential Functions," or "NEFs," means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) "Primary Mission Essential Functions," or "PMEFs," means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy:
(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions:

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation's economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government's ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President's lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch's COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary's designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;
(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;
(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 ("National Preparedness"), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation's continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 ("Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations"), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Editor's note: I know the continuity of power article (previous) is a dry and boring read, and I hope we never have to think about it again. On the other hand, we may be glad we reviewed it. For one thing, I keep hearing rumors that Bush threatened to invoke this new law against Congress if they didn't approve his Wall Street bail-out--the excuse was "ecomonic upheaval." For another thing, I’m not convinced this crowd of evil-doers is going to leave office in January. Why do I say that? I don’t know...it’s a gut feeling I’ve had for this past year and I can’t shake it. There is nothing to base it on; I’ll call it intuition.

*************************************************************

Experience hath shown that,
even under the best forms of government,
those entrusted with power have,
in time and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.

--Thomas Jefferson

*************************************************************

Don't let the door smack you in the butt
on the way out, George!
So, Mr. Bush, now that your presidency is coming to a merciful end, and there is nothing left to do but count the bodies, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

Do you think it was a good thing social security wasn't privatized? Remember when you first took office, your seat hardly warm, you began your attack on it? You lusted after our social security fund from the moment you finished taking your oath, didn’t you? Hmmm, where would we be today had you succeeded, you creep.

You were so proud of the fact that you didn’t do much reading. As the years ground by so painfully slowly, you finally read a book. Remember that? In your excitement, you shared its title with us. Too bad you weren’t reading Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Too bad you probably have no idea how to compare and contrast. You might have realized that Shock Doctrine is being applied in our country today and that your own children may live to suffer from it.

Do you realize you have been used as a shill for the past eight years by an inner party? Perhaps PNAC?

Will you ever understand the harm you have brought to our country by squandering its reputation and resources?

Or regret sending over 4,000 young American soldiers to their death? Soldiers who trusted you as their commander-in-chief?

Do you ever think about the thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children whose blood is on your hands?

Does Katrina haunt you? Or have you already blown off those gentle victims who lost their lives as a result of your negligence?

Are you haunted by the images of dead bodies floating down the flooded streets of New Orleans like just so many logs headed to the mill?

Would it be unreasonable to expect you to include keeping your fellow Americans in their homes as the bail-out scheme is hatched? Or to restore banking regulations?

Do you regret lining the pockets of your cronies with the riches of our country's treasury?

Will you consider imposing a surtax on the top 1-1/2% wealthiest Americans (or, like you say, your base) to rectify the most recent financial debacle?

Or is it unreasonable for taxpayers to expect to receive shares in the companies or banks which they are bailing out?

Do you think it time to review the Sherman Anti-trust Act? Do you know what the Sherman Anti-trust Act is?

Or do you think it's prudent to entrust Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who arguably caused this mess with his reckless and irresponsible policies, as point man with the unprecedented $700-850 billion price tag for the bailout?

How do you sleep at night--how do you look yourself in the eye the mirror--after all the harm you've done?

*****
News you can use
Please take the time to click these links and read the articles and watch the videos in their entirety.

Skull and Bones:
more evil than you can possibly imagine
These people were most likely responsible for the deaths of John F. Kennedy and his son! This video is over an hour long; just watch it a few minutes at a time if you don't have time to watch it in one sitting. You need to know what anti-democratic evil these people, including the Bush crime family, are capable of!
http://bushstole04.com/bushfascism/
bush_nixon_jfk.htm

From the "Oh, shit!!!" department:
a short article well worth reading
9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collapsed
http://bushstole04.com/911/wtc7_security.htm

McCain's hypocritical robocalls
Even as he loudly pretends that he is not running a negative campaign, studies show that 100% of his campaign ads are smears, including the robocalls that erroneously claim that Obama is a "terrorist."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/
massive-rnc-robocall-may_n_135348.html

All brainwashing, all the time!
Learn how we are all constantly being brainwashed from this humorously-written two-page article
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-
brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-
you-right-now.html

The End of America: a talk given by Naomi Wolf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

Read the Buzzflash review of Naomi Wolf's
call to patriots
The Founders understood that democracies are fragile and easy to overthrow. Ours has already been overthrown, and we need every thinking American who loves this country to fight to take it back!
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/077

Our so-called free market: read all about it!
Here's an excellent place to learn all you wanted to know about the market and how/why it is in the mess it is in today. Very interesting. It takes about an hour to watch or listen to. Be sure not to miss the last portion of the presentation: the last page is very enlightening. Y'know, I just like knowing how I'm being scrooed. Luckily, this explains it.
http://www.businessjive.com/

Markets Plunge, Crisis Spreads After Bailout
Even the Rethuglicans knew that the bail-out was nothing more than the largest transfer of wealth from poor to rich this nation has ever seen. Even they knew that it would not fix the financial crisis. But both parties' politicos couldn't bear to see their own lucrative stocks plunge in value, so they emptied our wallets to save themselves and their rich cronies. Despicable. And sick.
http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/
e/er.aspx?s=785&lid=10681&elq=7DDCBF0B
390F48138E03A5AE1E436F54

*****
Federalist Paper No. 15

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 Alexander Hamilton. It is titled, "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union For the Independent Journal."

(The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to
Preserve the Union)--continued

To the People of the State of New York:

THE tendency of the principle of legislation for States, or communities, in their political capacities, as it has been exemplified by the experiment we have made of it, is equally attested by the events which have befallen all other governments of the confederate kind, of which we have any account, in exact proportion to its prevalence in those systems. The confirmations of this fact will be worthy of a distinct and particular examination. I shall content myself with barely observing here, that of all the confederacies of antiquity, which history has handed down to us, the Lycian and Achaean leagues, as far as there remain vestiges of them, appear to have been most free from the fetters of that mistaken principle, and were accordingly those which have best deserved, and have most liberally received, the applauding suffrages of political writers.

This exceptionable principle may, as truly as emphatically, be styled the parent of anarchy: It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.

It remains to inquire how far so odious an engine of government, in its application to us, would even be capable of answering its end. If there should not be a large army constantly at the disposal of the national government it would either not be able to employ force at all, or, when this could be done, it would amount to a war between parts of the Confederacy concerning the infractions of a league, in which the strongest combination would be most likely to prevail, whether it consisted of those who supported or of those who resisted the general authority. It would rarely happen that the delinquency to be redressed would be confined to a single member, and if there were more than one who had neglected their duty, similarity of situation would induce them to unite for common defense. Independent of this motive of sympathy, if a large and influential State should happen to be the aggressing member, it would commonly have weight enough with its neighbors to win over some of them as associates to its cause. Specious arguments of danger to the common liberty could easily be contrived; plausible excuses for the deficiencies of the party could, without difficulty, be invented to alarm the apprehensions, inflame the passions, and conciliate the good-will, even of those States which were not chargeable with any violation or omission of duty. This would be the more likely to take place, as the delinquencies of the larger members might be expected sometimes to proceed from an ambitious premeditation in their rulers, with a view to getting rid of all external control upon their designs of personal aggrandizement; the better to effect which it is presumable they would tamper beforehand with leading individuals in the adjacent States. If associates could not be found at home, recourse would be had to the aid of foreign powers, who would seldom be disinclined to encouraging the dissensions of a Confederacy, from the firm union of which they had so much to fear. When the sword is once drawn, the passions of men observe no bounds of moderation. The suggestions of wounded pride, the instigations of irritated resentment, would be apt to carry the States against which the arms of the Union were exerted, to any extremes necessary to avenge the affront or to avoid the disgrace of submission. The first war of this kind would probably terminate in a dissolution of the Union.

This may be considered as the violent death of the Confederacy. Its more natural death is what we now seem to be on the point of experiencing, if the federal system be not speedily renovated in a more substantial form. It is not probable, considering the genius of this country, that the complying States would often be inclined to support the authority of the Union by engaging in a war against the non-complying States. They would always be more ready to pursue the milder course of putting themselves upon an equal footing with the delinquent members by an imitation of their example. And the guilt of all would thus become the security of all. Our past experience has exhibited the operation of this spirit in its full light. There would, in fact, be an insuperable difficulty in ascertaining when force could with propriety be employed. In the article of pecuniary contribution, which would be the most usual source of delinquency, it would often be impossible to decide whether it had proceeded from disinclination or inability. The pretense of the latter would always be at hand. And the case must be very flagrant in which its fallacy could be detected with sufficient certainty to justify the harsh expedient of compulsion. It is easy to see that this problem alone, as often as it should occur, would open a wide field for the exercise of factious views, of partiality, and of oppression, in the majority that happened to prevail in the national council.

It seems to require no pains to prove that the States ought not to prefer a national Constitution which could only be kept in motion by the instrumentality of a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of the government. And yet this is the plain alternative involved by those who wish to deny it the power of extending its operations to individuals. Such a scheme, if practicable at all, would instantly degenerate into a military despotism; but it will be found in every light impracticable. The resources of the Union would not be equal to the maintenance of an army considerable enough to confine the larger States within the limits of their duty; nor would the means ever be furnished of forming such an army in the first instance. Whoever considers the populousness and strength of several of these States singly at the present juncture, and looks forward to what they will become, even at the distance of half a century, will at once dismiss as idle and visionary any scheme which aims at regulating their movements by laws to operate upon them in their collective capacities, and to be executed by a coercion applicable to them in the same capacities. A project of this kind is little less romantic than the monster-taming spirit which is attributed to the fabulous heroes and demi-gods of antiquity.

Even in those confederacies which have been composed of members smaller than many of our counties, the principle of legislation for sovereign States, supported by military coercion, has never been found effectual. It has rarely been attempted to be employed, but against the weaker members; and in most instances attempts to coerce the refractory and disobedient have been the signals of bloody wars, in which one half of the confederacy has displayed its banners against the other half.

The result of these observations to an intelligent mind must be clearly this, that if it be possible at any rate to construct a federal government capable of regulating the common concerns and preserving the general tranquillity, it must be founded, as to the objects committed to its care, upon the reverse of the principle contended for by the opponents of the proposed Constitution. It must carry its agency to the persons of the citizens. It must stand in need of no intermediate legislations; but must itself be empowered to employ the arm of the ordinary magistrate to execute its own resolutions. The majesty of the national authority must be manifested through the medium of the courts of justice. The government of the Union, like that of each State, must be able to address itself immediately to the hopes and fears of individuals; and to attract to its support those passions which have the strongest influence upon the human heart. It must, in short, possess all the means, and have aright to resort to all the methods, of executing the powers with which it is intrusted, that are possessed and exercised by the government of the particular States. To this reasoning it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.

The plausibility of this objection will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.

But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights. An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, unless in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.

If opposition to the national government should arise from the disorderly conduct of refractory or seditious individuals, it could be overcome by the same means which are daily employed against the same evil under the State governments. The magistracy, being equally the ministers of the law of the land, from whatever source it might emanate, would doubtless be as ready to guard the national as the local regulations from the inroads of private licentiousness. As to those partial commotions and insurrections, which sometimes disquiet society, from the intrigues of an inconsiderable faction, or from sudden or occasional illhumors that do not infect the great body of the community the general government could command more extensive resources for the suppression of disturbances of that kind than would be in the power of any single member. And as to those mortal feuds which, in certain conjunctures, spread a conflagration through a whole nation, or through a very large proportion of it, proceeding either from weighty causes of discontent given by the government or from the contagion of some violent popular paroxysm, they do not fall within any ordinary rules of calculation. When they happen, they commonly amount to revolutions and dismemberments of empire. No form of government can always either avoid or control them. It is in vain to hope to guard against events too mighty for human foresight or precaution, and it would be idle to object to a government because it could not perform impossibilities.

PUBLIUS.