| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Harry" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 12:21:01 PM |
| Object: |
Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
Terri, Dear, Jews Want Peace
They want the peace Jesus teaches and promises us. They want
the peace now. They want the Christian to bestow the peace
upon them. Jews want peace. Jews want everything. They want
riches bestowed upon them. They want and take our wealth, and
return it with paper dollars. They want our labours. They want
our children for their wars of pillage, porn and death, thus hate
against Father (God), and His Son, the Saviour of Man, Jesus.
They want our food fed to them on a silver platter. They want our
farmers. Jews want peace. Jews want all Christianity has to
offer. Jews still think all Christians should act as Jesus, the
lamb. They donot know we are the sheep, not the lamb- nor do
we, because we follow. We are led by the lamb, not to bestow
our all upon the Jew, but to stampede across the face of
Father's Earth with life, truth, love, forgiveness and prosperity.
We have lost our identity and purpose in the wants of the Jew.
We have been usurped by the carnal desires of the Jew, the
children of Satan, as spoken by Jesus in John 8:44. We can
awaken unto our calling, just as Jeb Bush can awaken to his
power, but will we all? We and Jeb Bush have the power. Here
is the power described for Jeb Bush:
Http://paminifarm.com
America is a Christian nation:
http://paminifarm9.tripod.com/Christnation.html
How Jew-Talmud-Law Government works:
http://paminifarm9.tripod.com/palestine/palpics.html
LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW
Why Jeb Bush has the power to act now
Posted: March 24, 2005
9:00 a.m. Eastern
At this moment, former Reagan administration official and
Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes is in
Florida's capital trying to persuade Gov. Jeb Bush to
intervene to save Terri Schiavo's life. In this in-depth essay,
Keyes explains why "Terri Schiavo's survival depends on
Gov. Bush's faithful execution of [his] responsibility, and
the survival of American self-government on the
willingness of all those in a like position to faithfully
execute the duties of their high office."
=A9 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Despite action by the Congress to create an opportunity for
the federal courts to review and correct the violation of
Terri Schiavo's most basic rights, the latest effort to prevent
her judicially sanctioned murder by starvation appears to
be headed for failure.
This is just the latest, and the most poignantly tragic
instance of judicial abuse tending to corrupt and destroy
the moral fabric of the nation.
Despite the outward appearance of deliberation, what we
witness now as an ongoing feature of the conduct of the
judiciary at every level amounts to a judicial riot, in which
judges and justices take it upon themselves to disregard the
prerogatives of the other branches in order to assert an
exclusive and tyrannical control of public standards and
conduct.
Why is this happening?
The root of the problem is the abuse of the power of
judicial review. This played a role in the Schiavo case,
when the Florida state Supreme Court declared
unconstitutional the Florida legislature's attempt to
authorize protection for Terri Schiavo's continued access to
nutrition.
But in a constitutional system based on checks and
balances, one branch can run riot only if some other branch
fails to exert the power necessary to constrain its actions
within constitutional bounds.
This means that the rise of judicial tyranny represents a
failure elsewhere in the government. Now we know that in
the Schiavo case, both the Florida and the national
legislatures exerted themselves in an effort to secure her
basic right to life. They failed because the judiciary has the
power to invalidate their actions, either in application or
through the power of judicial review.
In the end, the constraint of judicial abuse is especially the
responsibility of the executive branch of government, since
the executive has both the opportunity and the obligation to
act without the interference of the judiciary, provided that
in doing so he consults the political will of the legislative
power.
Until and unless the people elected to wield executive
power in our national and state governments recognize and
act upon this responsibility, the judiciary will go
unchecked, destroying the balance of power among the
branches and with it our system of free, representative
self-government.
The essay that follows reviews the thinking behind the
separation of powers argument that substantiates this
understanding of the current crisis of judicial abuse.
Though it focuses on the Schiavo case as an critical and
currently urgent instance of this crisis, it has a bearing as
well on the judicial assault on marriage in Massachusetts,
and the general judicial assault on public piety taking place
through the nation.
The implication of the argument is clear: We cannot pin
our hopes on new judges to end this long era of judicial
usurpation. We need chief executives with the
understanding, articulateness and courage to assert the
executive prerogative that will remind the judges that
under our constitutional principles neither the judges, nor
the legislatures nor the executives may claim permanent
supremacy -- rather it is the constitutional power of the
people that is superior to them all.
The meaning of separation
These days the term separation of powers is used as if it
refers to a merely administrative division of decision
making responsibility. This ignores the fact that the
founders, and the philosophers such as Montesquieu from
whom they drew inspiration, presented separation as a
substantive requirement of free government.
As Madison wrote in Federalist 47, "The accumulation of
all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same
hands, whether of one, a few or many, and where
hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
No one of the branches of government can have supreme
and exclusive decision-making authority because no one
branch can, by itself, safely be allowed to exercise the
whole power of government in any circumstance. The
legislature makes the laws, but is powerless to execute
them. The judiciary can decide cases in light of the law, but
has no authority either to execute decisions once taken, or
control the content of the law. The executive has the
exclusive power of direct action, but no lawful authority to
act apart from the provisions of the laws and the
constitution, or the specific judgments of the judiciary.
In order to be separate, the branches must be independent.
Obviously this does not mean that in any case a branch can
simply act on its own authority, but it does mean that in
every case each branch must act on the bases of its own
will and judgment.
The branches are subject to the laws and the constitution,
but they are not directly subject to either of the other
branches. The legislature, for example, cannot simply
dictate to the courts the outcome of any particular case.
Neither, however can the courts dictate to the legislature
the content of any law. The legislature can establish
programs and mandates for executive action, but cannot
simply dictate to the executive the particular action to be
taken in pursuance of its legislation.
Because each branch substantively controls the power
vested in it, the other branches cannot simply dictate the
use of that power.
In the division of the whole power of government
established by the Constitution, each branch has some
ability to prevent or interfere with the actions of the others.
This is an inherent consequence of the division of
government power.
The laws passed by the legislature will be of no reliable
effect if the executive refuses to enforce them or the courts
refuse to apply their provisions to the particular cases that
arise from them. Similarly, the executive may decide to act,
but cannot sustain the cooperation and support of the
citizenry (including those who comprise the enforcing arms
of executive power) if the legislature refuses legal sanction
to its action.
The court may judge, but must do so without effect once
the people realize that its actions have no basis in law,
and/or the executive offers its opposition or simply
withholds its cooperation.
Isn't this a recipe for paralysis? Why isn't the government
hamstrung by the mutual negation of the branches? In the
U=2ES. Constitution, provision is made against this paralysis
by giving each branch a role in the superintendence of the
others.
A president, for example, who acts in simple disregard of
the laws passed by the legislature, is subject to
impeachment and removal by the Congress, but the trial of
impeachment requires the active involvement and
cooperation of the federal judiciary, in the person of the
chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Without the cooperation of the chief justice, a trial of
impeachment cannot go forward. Should the move for
impeachment result from some transient passion in the
legislature, the opposition of the court would check its
initial fury.
Of course, if the legislature is determined to act, it might
remove the obstacle by impeachment and removal of the
opposing justice, but since the president must appoint his
successor, such action would shift but not resolve the
impasse.
After some thought, it becomes clear that none of the
branches can effectively operate without the acquiescence
or cooperation of at least one of the others. Differently
construed, we could say that no one of the branches can
sustain its authority when faced with the united opposition
of the remaining branches. This fact provides a practical
incentive for each of the branches to secure, in any given
instance, at least the passive acquiescence of one of its
coequals.
There is of course no guarantee that even with this
incentive, paralysis and inaction will be avoided, but some
degree of constraint upon government action must be the
intended purpose of a frame of government whose ultimate
aim is to forestall tyranny and protect the freedom of the
people, which is to say the right of the people to govern
their own affairs.
When situations arise in which no effective cooperation
can be achieved between the branches, the determination
of power shifts into the hands of the people as a whole,
who by their election of different persons to the legislature
or the executive can determine the balance of power one
way or another, if they please.
If the people are not sufficiently united in their views,
government action is precluded -- which in effect
represents a decision by the people to leave matters to the
determination of the people in their respective private
capacities.
These reflections clearly imply that the separation of
powers is not a passive delineation of decision-making
responsibility. It is instead the constitutional consequence
of the overall objective of free government -- to prevent the
permanent consolidation of government power under the
control of one concerted will and judgment; i.e., to prevent
tyranny.
Separation is therefore not simply a doctrine established by
constitutional fiat, but a goal to be achieved, one that must
be respected if the people are to remain free. The
attainment of this goal requires that each branch of
government actively assert and sustain its independent will
and judgment, while at the same time showing a prudent
regard for the mutual interdependence and cooperation
required for effective government action.
It also requires that the people, whom Hamilton calls the
"natural guardians of the Constitution" (Federalist 16), hold
their representatives accountable for the performance of
their duty in this regard, since persistent failure in this duty
represents the destruction of self-government.
The power of constitutional review
As a matter of logic and fact, the founders assumed that the
judicial branch would be the most vulnerable participant in
the dynamic interaction that establishes the substantive
separation of powers. In Federalist 78, Hamilton writes:
''Whoever attentively considers the different departments
of power must perceive, that, in a government in which
they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the
nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous
to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be
least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive
not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the
community. The legislature not only commands the purse,
but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of
every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the
contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the
purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of
the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It
may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely
judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the
executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.''
This argument is clear and on the face of it quite logical,
but only on the assumption that the decisions of the
judiciary do not absolutely override the other branches.
Obviously, if the decision of the judge automatically binds
the executive and legislative branches, it would make no
sense to say that the judiciary has no influence over ''either
the sword or the purse.''
Its decisions would necessarily determine the disposition of
the one and the other. The assumption that the judiciary has
neither force nor will, must be premised on the notion that
neither is simply subject to the dictates of the judiciary,
that is, that the other branches may check the judgment of
the courts when it comes to the disposition of that power of
government constitutionally allocated to their control.
This clear logic meets with resistance in our day because of
the general acceptance of judicial review, what Hamilton in
the same paper refers to as ''the rights of the courts to
pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the
constitution ... .''
Though unquestioned today, this notion met with
objections during the debates over the constitution, as
Hamilton acknowledges, ''from an imagination that the
doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the
legislative power.'' (Federalist 78)
In the paragraph that follows this acknowledgment,
Hamilton argues, ''There is no position which depends on
clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated
authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under
which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore,
contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this,
would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his
principal; that the servant is above his master; that the
representatives of the people are superior to the people
themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do
not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they
forbid.''
In light of this reasoning, Hamilton quite logically
maintains that when the judges compare the provisions of
any law to the Constitution, ''If there should happen to be
an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has
the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be
preferred; or in other words, the Constitution ought to be
preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the
intention of their agents.''
He continues ''nor does this conclusion by any means
suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative
power. It only supposes that the power of the people is
superior to both ... .''
It is clear that in the exercise of its powers, the judicial
branch cannot avoid the situation Hamilton describes, any
more than it can avoid, as he later points out, the need to
choose between contradictory laws, or contradictory
elements of a particular law. In order to pass judgment in a
particular case, the judges must decide which law will
govern, and Hamilton's argument as to the primacy of the
Constitution makes sense on the face of it.
What is often missed, however, is the fact that his
argument from logic and principle applies with equal force
to the other branches of government in the exercise of the
powers allocated to them.
If, for example, the chief executive confronts a decision
from the bench that conflicts with Constitutional provisions
as to his powers and prerogatives, or those of the
legislature, or those of the people, he must give primacy to
the Constitution, as the legislature must in a similar
situation of conflict.
Each branch must conduct its affairs in light of its
responsibility to the Constitution, and indeed those persons
who comprise the branches are all of them sworn to do so.
Thus, while Hamilton's argument establishes the rationale
for judicial review of legislative and executive actions, it
also establishes the rationale for executive and legislative
review of judicial decisions when those decisions affect
legislative and executive responsibilities to and for the
integrity of the Constitution.
But doesn't the possibility of executive and legislative
review of judicial actions fly in the face of the fact, noted
by Hamilton in Federalist 78 that ''the interpretation of the
laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.'' If
disagreement arises between the branches as to the import
of the Constitution or the laws, doesn't the judicial branch
have the prerogative of deciding what shall be the
authoritative interpretation?
In the ordinary course of affairs, this must be and is taken
for granted, as Hamilton recognizes when he notes that ''to
avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is
indispensable that they should be bound down by strict
rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out
their duty in every particular case.'' This implies that,
though abuses are possible, the judiciary, by means of rules
and precedents, acts as the watchdog of its own discretion.
If we accept this as proof of the ultimately supremacy of
judicial discretion in every circumstance, however, the
consequence must be the utter subversion of the
independence of the other branches of government.
Every properly human action involves the faculty of
judgment. Laws cannot be made, except the legislators
make judgments about what aims are proper and attainable,
what means are suitable and proportionate to the desired
ends and so forth. Similarly, no executive action can be
taken without regard to the circumstances of action,
whether the times, the available resources, the legally
established priorities and the actual details of a given
situation allow for effective action.
In this sense, though the judicial power of government may
be vested in a single branch, the exercise of judgment is
inseparable from the operation of all the branches. If in the
exercise of executive power, the judicial branch may
without constraint substitute its judgment for that of the
executive, it subsumes the executive power, and so to with
respect to the legislature and the legislative power.
Unchecked by potential opposition from the other
branches, judicial power necessarily becomes judicial
tyranny. Since this substantively defeats the whole aim and
purpose of the separation of powers, we must reject any
understanding of separation that leads to this result.
It follows from these considerations that, just as we must
distinguish between substantive and procedural due
process, so we must observe the distinction between
substantive and administrative separation of powers. As a
matter of administrative structure, the judicial power is
vested in the judicial branch. As a matter of substantive
constitutional integrity, each branch must retain and
exercise an independent faculty of judgment with respect to
its own Constitutional rights and responsibilities.
What must be obvious on the face of it, moreover, is that
matters of substantive separation are not justiciable,
meaning to say they cannot ultimately be decided by the
courts.
As Hamilton observes in Federalist 80, ''No man ought
certainly to be a judge in his own case, or in any cause in
respect to which he has the least interest or bias.''
We must assume that the judiciary will be biased in favor
of its own power, and its own judgment concerning the
nature and extent of that power. This does not of course
mean that the courts may have no opinion on this subject.
In fact, when unchallenged by another branch of
government their opinion will in any case prevail.
It does mean that the other branches must retain the right to
challenge and reject the opinion of the judiciary when it
conflicts with their own considered judgment respecting
their branch's constitutional rights, responsibilities and
obligations.
The executive's role
Given the importance to liberty of the fundamental
constitutional principle that is at stake, and the potentially
grave consequences of carelessness or neglect in its regard,
we ought to proceed with great care in our application of
the foregoing reasoning and conclusions.
Yet we must urgently forge ahead, as these days we
encounter practically at every turn some new evidence that
the failure to appreciate them has already allowed
developments that represent the tyrannical consolidation of
governmental powers the founders rightly feared and
rejected.
Contrary to their expectation, however, the greatest threat
to constitutional liberty, and indeed to the very fabric of
free society as a whole, has come from the judiciary, the
branch of government Hamilton regarded as the weakest
and the least likely to achieve tyrannical control.
From education to prayer to critical decisions affecting the
most fundamental rights of life and public conscience, our
courts at every level now claim the right to impose their
views, as law, not only on individual citizens, but on both
the other branches of government.
They have taken over school systems, dismantled public
monuments, and threatened to subvert the substance of
institutions such as marriage, whose character has until
now been unquestionably determined by the legislative, not
the judicial power.
We must bear in mind, that our constitutions, at both the
federal and the state level, are all based on republican
principles, which is to say, on the idea that laws are
properly made by legislatures comprised of the elected
representatives of the people, and that act as such only by
vote of a constitutionally prescribed majority.
If and when the opinions of judges, without proper basis in
our laws or constitutions, may claim to become law, the
republican principle has been subverted, and with it the
right of the people to representative self-government.
It is also clear that, unless the people mean to abdicate their
role as the ultimate source of authority for our
constitutional arrangements, they cannot accept the notion
that judges may indulge in any constitutional fancies they
please, without regard to reason, common sense, or the
moral sense and conscience of the people.
When a substantial majority of the people regards a judicial
determination as an unlawful abuse or usurpation of power,
they are not obliged to acquiesce out of respect for the
mere form of legal judgment.
As we have seen the legitimate argument for judicial
review does not ''suppose a superiority of the judicial to the
legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the
people is superior to both ... .'' The question is, when faced
with judicial abuse and usurpation, how can the people, by
lawful and constitutional means, assert their superiority?
In Federalist 79, Hamilton observes that ''the precautions
for this [judicial] responsibility are comprised in the article
respecting impeachments.''
It would make sense to suppose that consistent abuse of the
judicial power in a way that subverts the integrity of
constitutional self-government would rouse public feeling
and lead to action on the part of the representatives of the
people.
When he discusses impeachment in Federalist 65,
Hamilton says of the court required for this purpose that
''the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which
proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other
words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be
denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries
done immediately to the society itself.''
It is hard to conceive of a more weighty public trust than
the power to review the application, in particular cases, of
the laws, and to void acts of the legislature deemed
inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental law as
embodied in our constitutions.
Impeachment offers itself as the natural remedy against
judges who insist on assaulting the liberty of the people by
unjustifiably usurping the prerogatives of their
representative law making bodies, or ignoring
constitutional provisions intended to secure the rights of
the people.
Unfortunately, in the present day, common sense has fallen
prey to the self-serving arguments of the legal profession to
the effect that impeachment is intended to remedy only
statutory, not constitutional, violations.
We are told that judges cannot be called to account for the
destructive constitutional effect of their decisions, only for
their petty criminal conduct.
Crimes of limited effect may therefore be acted upon, but
those political crimes that tend to destroy free society as a
whole must not only be ignored, but treated with the
respect due to the law. This pernicious illogic may appeal
to the instincts of would-be Machiavellians, but it's hard to
see how it makes sense for a free people intent on
remaining free.
Still, until more politicians rediscover the clear common
sense of Hamilton's understanding of impeachment, it will
continue to be an ineffective, indeed a non-existent
recourse against practitioners of judicial tyranny. Is there
no other?
We may see the answer most clearly in the context of a
well known situation in which the issue of judicial
prerogative and the separation of powers has played a
critical role.
In the state of Florida a state superior court Judge decided,
despite a challenge from her parents, that Terri Schiavo's
husband should be permitted to remove the tube through
which she has been receiving nutrition after brain damage
left her in a helpless condition.
The decision to starve her to death aroused a firestorm of
protest in Florida and around the nation, leading the Florida
Legislature to pass a law specifically intended to prevent
implementation of the judge's decision.
The Legislature acted in support of Gov. Jeb Bush, who felt
that the decision to starve Terri Schiavo to death
constituted a violation of her basic right to life, a right
specifically protected under the Florida state constitution
(Article I, Section 2).
Thus, both the legislature and the chief executive agreed in
the view that the judiciary's action violated the Florida
constitution. The Florida judiciary disagreed.
Eventually, the Florida state Supreme Court declared the
Legislature's act invalid, mainly on the grounds that it
violated the principle of the separation of powers by
encroaching upon the decision making prerogatives of the
judicial branch.
If the actions of the Florida Legislature and the state's duly
elected chief executive are representative of the people
(and as a matter of constitutional principle they must be so
regarded), a constitutional majority of the people agreed in
the view that the Florida judiciary acted in violation of the
state's Constitution.
If, as Hamilton maintains, the argument for judicial review
rests ultimately on the superiority of the people's
constitutional will over that of subordinate delegated
authorities, can the Florida judiciary invoke the power of
judicial review to thwart the effort of the their
representatives to assert and safeguard their understanding
of the constitution?
In all fairness, however, that is not exactly what the Florida
Supreme Court did. It simply regarded the Legislature's
action as an attempt to overturn the judgment of the court
in a particular case.
But it is the prerogative of the judiciary to decide particular
cases. If the legislature can, after the fact, overturn
particular judgments by law, the legislative power would
absorb the judicial power, destroying the separation of
powers required by our constitutional principles.
Any legislative action that reverses judicial judgment in a
particular case is on the face of it unconstitutional.
But the Florida chief executive shared the Legislature's
view. As governor, Jeb Bush represents a separate
government power, a distinct and independent
governmental authority. As the state's chief executive, he is
sworn to uphold the Florida state constitution, an obligation
that necessarily includes taking such actions as are
necessary to preserve, protect and defend the integrity of its
provisions.
If by some circumstance, he becomes aware of a situation
in which that integrity is being damaged, he is bound by his
oath to act in its defense.
If, for example, he were notified that a court sanctioned,
racially motivated lynching was taking place across the
street from the state House, he would be oath bound as
chief executive to intervene to prevent the violation of
constitutional right and integrity.
Even if a racist judge had ordered the hanging, as chief
executive he would have a responsibility to the Florida
constitution making it impossible for him to respect the
judge's order, however well-decked-out in formal judicial
garb.
In such a circumstance, if Jeb Bush ignored the
constitutional violation and later pleaded that he was
respecting the court order, his plea would have no more
validity than the plea of Nazi generals that they were only
obeying orders.
Indeed, his claim would be more precarious, since the
separate and independent status of the executive branch of
government is a well known and widely acknowledged
element of American constitutional principle.
As Hamilton made clear, judicial review invokes the
superiority of the Constitution, as it embodies the
permanent will of the people, not the superiority of the
judges or the judicial power. Where the exercise of judicial
power conflicts with the Constitution's requirements, the
Constitution must take precedence.
Of course, some may contend that the executive must be
bound by the judiciary's understanding of what is consistent
with the Constitution, but this cannot be accepted in a case
where the judiciary's opinion conflicts with the executive's
deliberate and conscientious view of his own constitutional
obligations.
As we have seen above, there can be no separation of
power where the judgment of one branch as to its own
responsibilities is simply subordinate to the judgment of
another. The executive's oath would not in that case fix
responsibility for the use or abuse of executive power.
Just as the separation of powers principle precludes
legislative efforts to decide particular cases before the
judiciary, so it precludes any judicial claim to decide
conclusively for the executive how he fulfills the duty to
defend the integrity of constitutional self government,
including of course the rights of individual citizens.
Jeb Bush's obligation
If, as chief executive of Florida, Jeb Bush believes that
starving Terri Schiavo to death is a violation of her right to
life, then to defend her life, as recognized in the Florida
constitution (Article I, Section 2), he has the same
obligation to defend constitutional right as he would in the
lynching example.
Unlike the Legislature, he would not act in order to
overturn or reverse the action of the judiciary, but in order
positively to fulfill his obligation as chief executive, by
preventing the destruction of a citizen's most basic
constitutional right.
Just as the courts have the initiative when it comes to
deciding particular cases, the executive has the initiative
when it comes to the actual defense of the constitution and
the constitutional rights of the citizens.
However, when the initiative lies with the executive, the
people, through their representatives in the legislature,
have a clear and direct safeguard against executive abuses.
If the Legislature agrees with the judiciary, it can charge
the executive with the violation of law, and act to curtail
his power or even impeach and remove him for his actions,
with no imputation of damage to the separation of powers.
If on the other hand, it agrees with him, as the Florida
Legislature has in the Terri Schiavo case, it can offer
legislative support in his defense against any maneuvers the
judiciary may employ to impose its will. In that case, the
Legislature will be acting to support the executive's defense
of the integrity of the constitution, not interfering after the
fact with the judiciary's adjudication of a particular case.
Despite his protestations of interest and conscience with
respect to the assault on Terri Schiavo's constitutional
rights, Jeb Bush has consistently failed to act on his clear
and direct responsibility to defend the integrity of Florida's
constitution.
Whether from timidity or political calculation, he has
pretended that legislative action is required to authorize his
action, even in the face of consistent proof that the
legislature is powerless against a determined and ruthless
application of judicial prerogative.
The law's delay must cost Terri Schiavo her life, which is
precisely the reason executive power in America is
entrusted to single executives, rather than to plural
deliberative bodies.
When time is of the essence, necessity authorizes the
executive to safeguard the security of the constitution
before citizens and the polity suffer irreversible damage.
Terri Schiavo's survival depends on Gov. Bush's faithful
execution of this responsibility, and the survival of
American self-government on the willingness of all those
in a like position to faithfully execute the duties of their
high office.
In times like these, calculating politicians are not good
enough. Enlightened statesmen are needed at the helm.
God help us if we do not soon choose to find them there.
Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications
PALESTINE LIVES (pictures):
http://paminifarm9.tripod.com/palestine/palpics.html
Jew bar code begins with 729
Jesus' - uh - hope for Jews- John 8:44
Jesus said- Donot Feed the Trolls: Math.7:6
Divest From Israel Campaign
http://www.divest-from-israel-campaign.org/
"God forbid that I should lose the life eternal,
for this carnal and short life." Mrs. Priest
http://paminifarm.com
.
|
|
| User: "sinister" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 04:31:33 PM |
|
|
"Harry" <paminifarm3@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1112034061.386647.16480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Please quit cross-posting this ignorant, anti-Semitic crap to sci.econ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 06:10:20 PM |
|
|
sinister wrote:
"Harry" <paminifarm3@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1112034061.386647.16480@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
Please quit cross-posting this ignorant, anti-Semitic crap to sci.econ.
I doubt it will stop, it's like a harmonic vibration...just on the wrong
key. Too many others in tune with it.
Pity.
bp
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 02:01:22 PM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
Terri, Dear, Jews Want Peace
They want the peace Jesus teaches and promises us.
[snip crap]
Idiot. Peace is 100% enemy dead. Anything less is war again -
physical, economic, social. The problem cannot be fixed; it must be
expunged. The halfing ***** god-on-a-stick is all about death.
Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo "Poenitentiam agite
adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum" omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam
esse voluit. It's all fattened priests, suffering, death, and *****.
The Protestant Reformation gave people a reason to live other than for
making babies and killing others'.
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one is
Marine Corps policy."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Herrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 02:16:36 PM |
|
|
? "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:42486292.23F500DA@hate.spam.net...
[snip]
Idiot. Peace is 100% enemy dead. Anything less is war again -
physical, economic, social. The problem cannot be fixed; it must be
expunged. The halfing ***** god-on-a-stick is all about death.
Dominus et magister noster Iesus Christus dicendo "Poenitentiam agite
adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum" omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam
esse voluit. It's all fattened priests, suffering, death, and *****.
The Protestant Reformation gave people a reason to live other than for
making babies and killing others'.
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one is
Marine Corps policy."
John says, "Uncle Al needs to take a good toke with high quality Dutch grass
and *then* decide about pontificating nonsense, for a change".
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 02:13:31 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
29 Mar 2005 12:25:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:13:31 -0500, robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
Bob Kolker
Israeli poetry.
--
"folAni shAkhesh shekast!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 06:23:10 PM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one
is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
How many times must history afford you tutorings before you learn?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 07:08:45 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
How many times must history afford you tutorings before you learn?
Learn what? That strength, determination and preparidness are winners?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
28 Mar 2005 07:50:39 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one
is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
How many times must history afford you tutorings before you learn?
Bob Kolker
There is no case in all of recorded history where indigenous peoples
who were not wholly exterminated did not eventually rise up against
their betters - because they had nothing to lose. Canada and
Nunavut. Russia and Chechnya. Mexico and Indios. Protestant England
civilizing Catholic Ireland. Abos are bleeding Australia, niggers are
bleeding America, importation of Mexican agricultural slaves will have
its quid pro quo.
The Japanese received the infinitely precious tutorials of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The Japanese were cooperative thereafter. Nuking the
fuckers furnished a metric by which lasting conquest could be
measured.
HOO-rah! or be damned. The lesson is never learned. Do you want an
American exit strategy from Muslim wastes?
One one MX/Peacekeeper MIRV launch deploys 10 W87 nuclear warheads of
300 kilotons each. (Hiroshima was about 13 kt). Uncle Al proposes
thermonuclear ablation of the Kaaba in Mecca. If you want to reason
with a mule you begin by getting its attention. The the other nine
warheads target the remaining nine largest cities in Arabia.
Cairo, Egypt 7,764,700
Tehran, Iran 7,722,900
Baghdad, Iraq 4,948,300
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3,627,700
Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 2,674,000
Mashhad, Iran 2,040,700
Aleppo (Halab), Syria 1,891,900
Damascus, Syria 1,803,700
Sana'a, Yemen 1,653,300
================================
Wake up call 34,127,200
There will be extra credit for crunching nearby urban areas. Cairo is
big, but urban Cairo is much bigger: 15,546,100. Diplomacy will
proceed at its usual sluggish pace after the rules of engagement are
thereby established.
If Rome bothers you, you overthrow it. Fighting Roman armies is
insane. Our enemies are smart enough to know that, so why aren't we?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maleki" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
29 Mar 2005 12:31:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 17:50:39 -0800, Uncle Al wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither one
is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
How many times must history afford you tutorings before you learn?
Bob Kolker
There is no case in all of recorded history where indigenous peoples
who were not wholly exterminated did not eventually rise up against
their betters - because they had nothing to lose. Canada and
Nunavut. Russia and Chechnya. Mexico and Indios. Protestant England
civilizing Catholic Ireland. Abos are bleeding Australia, niggers are
bleeding America, importation of Mexican agricultural slaves will have
its quid pro quo.
The Japanese received the infinitely precious tutorials of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The Japanese were cooperative thereafter. Nuking the
fuckers furnished a metric by which lasting conquest could be
measured.
HOO-rah! or be damned. The lesson is never learned. Do you want an
American exit strategy from Muslim wastes?
One one MX/Peacekeeper MIRV launch deploys 10 W87 nuclear warheads of
300 kilotons each. (Hiroshima was about 13 kt). Uncle Al proposes
thermonuclear ablation of the Kaaba in Mecca. If you want to reason
with a mule you begin by getting its attention. The the other nine
warheads target the remaining nine largest cities in Arabia.
Cairo, Egypt 7,764,700
Tehran, Iran 7,722,900
Baghdad, Iraq 4,948,300
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3,627,700
Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 2,674,000
Mashhad, Iran 2,040,700
Aleppo (Halab), Syria 1,891,900
Damascus, Syria 1,803,700
Sana'a, Yemen 1,653,300
================================
Wake up call 34,127,200
There will be extra credit for crunching nearby urban areas. Cairo is
big, but urban Cairo is much bigger: 15,546,100. Diplomacy will
proceed at its usual sluggish pace after the rules of engagement are
thereby established.
Hahhah :) Israeli poetry.
If Rome bothers you, you overthrow it. Fighting Roman armies is
insane. Our enemies are smart enough to know that, so why aren't we?
Because you are the one that has got no choices left, not
your enemy. You overdid yourselves.
--
"jahd rA besyAr kon omr andakist
kAr rA niku gozin forsat yekist
kArdAnAn chon rofu Amukhtand
pArehAye vaght bar ham dukhtand
gar che andar dideho del nur nist
tA nafas bAghist tan ma'zur nist"
- Parvin E'tesami
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Jews Want Peace LET THE STAMPEDE BEGIN NOW |
29 Mar 2005 01:17:59 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:
robert j. kolker wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Uncle Al says, "To err is human, to forgive, divine. Neither
one
is
Marine Corps policy."
HOO-rah!
How many times must history afford you tutorings before you learn?
Bob Kolker
There is no case in all of recorded history where indigenous peoples
who were not wholly exterminated did not eventually rise up against
their betters - because they had nothing to lose. Canada and
Nunavut. Russia and Chechnya. Mexico and Indios. Protestant
England
civilizing Catholic Ireland. Abos are bleeding Australia, niggers
are
bleeding America, importation of Mexican agricultural slaves will
have
its quid pro quo.
The Japanese received the infinitely precious tutorials of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. The Japanese were cooperative thereafter. Nuking the
fuckers furnished a metric by which lasting conquest could be
measured.
HOO-rah! or be damned. The lesson is never learned. Do you want an
American exit strategy from Muslim wastes?
One one MX/Peacekeeper MIRV launch deploys 10 W87 nuclear warheads of
300 kilotons each. (Hiroshima was about 13 kt). Uncle Al proposes
thermonuclear ablation of the Kaaba in Mecca. If you want to reason
with a mule you begin by getting its attention. The the other nine
warheads target the remaining nine largest cities in Arabia.
Cairo, Egypt 7,764,700
Tehran, Iran 7,722,900
Baghdad, Iraq 4,948,300
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 3,627,700
Jiddah, Saudi Arabia 2,674,000
Mashhad, Iran 2,040,700
Aleppo (Halab), Syria 1,891,900
Damascus, Syria 1,803,700
Sana'a, Yemen 1,653,300
================================
Wake up call 34,127,200
There will be extra credit for crunching nearby urban areas. Cairo
is
big, but urban Cairo is much bigger: 15,546,100. Diplomacy will
proceed at its usual sluggish pace after the rules of engagement are
thereby established.
If Rome bothers you, you overthrow it. Fighting Roman armies is
insane. Our enemies are smart enough to know that, so why aren't we?
I sense much fear.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
