-By Gary Krasner
David Gregory must have thought he would be another Tim Russert when he was preparing to tackle Ted Cruz this morning.
But after the Obama-worshipping Gregory completed the 25 min interview, you can see he felt like a complete failure.
He hit Cruz with every Democrat nonsense talking point, and Cruz aced every question.
This is rare. There has been no true conservative republican who understood the basics or ARGUMENT, let alone could craft an effective argument.
But Cruz clerked for Chief Justice Renquist. That is where you learn the basics of effective argument.
NBC-Obama worshipping Dummy Chris Mathews said following the interview that House republicans are not following “our system of government.”
The Constitution gives the House the power of the purse, PRECISELY in order to defund bad law or bad executive actions.
To: Medea Benjamin
Dear Ms. Benjamin,
I watched you on CSPAN today and decided to write an essay about code pink’s tactics. But first, I would like to get your response to a challenging question.
Before I ask my question, some background:
Like you, I’m also 60. My family was on the left, politically. My Aunt was co-founder of the NAACP Bronx Chapter in the 50s, and mentor to me growing.
But even when I was a radical leftist before 1994, I didnt see the productive purpose in public protests, and certainly not the kind of protests code pink performs.
By that, I mean I was never taught to disrupt other people’s speech. My parents said protest rallies are fine. Especially prior to the internet, when getting your views published and seen by many was costly.
But my parents were old school. And pacifists in their approach regarding tactics. They told me that in a free society, where speech was free and unrestricted, you persuade others by ADDING speech, and not taking away other people’s speech.
I was chosen as a panelist for the Grand Old Podcast, a project from the libertarian site, the League of Ordinary Gentlemen; the podcast focusing on such issues as the future of the Republican Party in the wake of the defeat of Mitt Romney, etc.
For the record, I have always said that I thought we had two very good candidates in play. I think that we came up with the lesser of the two, but that is irrelevant.
I still believe that conservatism has a still has a vital role in our society. The message itself is one of empowerment– either an individual is capable of bettering themselves, regardless of whether they happen to be “behind the 8 ball,” or people will be increasingly and forever dependent on the benevolent paternalism of an increasingly malevolent government.
Although the race for Missouri Attorney General is not one often highlighted, it is in presiding over violations of federal law affecting residents of other states such as this which makes removing Chris Koster from office of necessity for any persons of decency who might wish to pass on to their children a nation in which rights may be enjoyed. And ditto for Eric Holder.
Ed Martin is a good, solid candidate, but he needs your help.
The rest of this is a repost from The Malfeasance of St. Louis County.
[I went back to edit this to add boldface to portions of the excerpts. -- PS.]
Perhaps not as uncommon as one might think.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11 [ie, bankruptcy].
(b) [T]he district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.
-By Gary Krasner
I thought Mitt lost, by my standards. My standards is that if you had points to make and didn’t make them, you lost the debate. Obama made the best use of a miserable record, by being more adept in rebuttal, and having another moderator rescue him occasionally.
Romney has imbeciles as advisors. They didn’t prepare him well. Mitt’s answers were poll-driven, repetitive and uninspiring.
Here is an example of how Mitt should have responded to Obama’s Lilly Ledbetter law, which Obama ALWAYS cites to make Romney look like Don Drapper on Mad Men.
Romney: Mr. President, I believe US presidents should receive the same salary, but not the American people who work for a living. I was fortunate enough to meet Alice Jones, a retired prepress operator in Ohio. Alice was a very proficient computer operator. The managers of her company could measure her performance, as they could the other workers, and see that she worked faster and made few mistakes than most others.
September 28, 2012 | Filed Under Gary Krasner | Comments Off
-By Gary Krasner
The Muslim gang who raped Obama’s wife announced that they raped her as punishment, because she had not covered her head in public, as Islamic law requires.
At a news conference, President Obama announced that while he respects all beliefs, and does not wish to denigrate the opinions of the rapists who say that women must be modestly attired, he also stated that there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless rape of Michelle. None.
The above incident never happened. But thanks to former CNN correspondent Bernard Shaw, we have a precedent for pondering such parallels, when Shaw proffered such a hypothetical scenario when he questioned presidential candidate Michael Dukakis during the debates.
However, Obama’s hypothetical answers may look familiar to you. That’s because he actually uttered those words in his reaction to the invasion of our Libyan embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and the murders of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans there. (The next day we learned that Stevens was raped and tortured to death.)
This is what Obama actually said on September 12, one day after the attacks and after the 911 anniversary:
The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
This was part of Obama’s first statement in response to the first assassination of a US ambassador in over 4 decades. And it was disgraceful. HOW SO? There happens to be a small issue and a larger issue involved here.
September 19, 2012 | Filed Under Gary Krasner | Comments Off
-By Gary Krasner
When Islamists attack the US, they always make sure to have pretexts ready at hand. That’s to ensure that Americans remain divided over solutions, while the Islamists get what they originally wanted.
They understand the danger of a united consensus in the US. Even the Iraq war obtained support among 80 percent of Americans.
That is why organized attacks (portrayed as “spontaneous”) on Americans always accompany a “grievance narrative”, so that the murders do not appear gratuitous.
But in point of fact, they are not. It’s just that Americans cannot conceive of a population willing to “kill the infidel wherever you find them”, as one of its holy commandments.
So islamists, eager to spread Shari’ah law everywhere, generously furnish the gullible media with pretexts that Americans WOULD understand.
-By Gary Krasner
Referring to events in Libya and Egypt today, Obama said there was “no justification” for Muslim mobs violating US sovereign territory and murdering our embassy people and ambassador.
Hilary also said there was “no justification.”
Presidential spokesman Jay Carney said there was “no justification.” That was the administration’s line for the day. It’s an abamination.
Whenever one says that there’s no justification for a particular action, that means there are situations when that action might be deemed justified.
-By Gary Krasner
Obama’s “no one gets rich on their own” rant was to justify policies that soak the rich, and not about the wonders of roads & bridges! But that was how Obamians had tried to spin it, such as here at Huffington Post.
You can read my postscript deconstruction of his Roanoke speech at the end of this article to see how ridiculous that is. Bottom line is that when Obama uttered these two sentences, “If you’ve got a business—-you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”, he was NOT referring to roads and bridges from the prior sentence. It would have been far too obvious for him to have meant that shop keepers do not build the roads and bridges in the towns where they operate. He sure as hell didn’t mean to suggest that their taxes help build them! No, holding to the full context of the speech, he meant that they are not singularly responsible for their success, that would warrant the degree of wealth they reaped.
The original thesis—-the product of liberal linguistics consultant George Lakoff—-is a way to minimize individual success, so as to justify taking from successful people the rewards of their success, through taxes. Liz Warren—-the women who couldn’t get into Harvard on her own without falsely claiming to have one drop of Cherokee blood—-had adopted this simplistic baloney to frame the debate for OWS, if you recall.
I am now an eyewitness in a police shooting death.
There are six police officers and a sheriff’s deputy who will stand trial for violation of civil rights under color of law and battery leading to wrongful death.
The plaintiff seeks $1 million apiece from each defendant.
Here is my testimony:
I am not allowed to speak or to give testimony in this matter.
The State of Missouri [under Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster] has determined that there is no manner of limitation to the extent of crimes of violence [pursuant to 18 USC 924(c)(3)] that persons acting under color of state law are permitted to enact on a witness in a federal matter for the sole purpose of influencing or preventing testimony in a pending federal judicial proceeding.
Actually, it goes even further than that.
-By Gary Krasner
Indeed, why are there so many acts of terrorism by Muslims today? If there can be one central reason, I think it was that Judeo-Christianity was better able to reform and conform to political modernity of secular government and freedom of conscience, based on a less specific code of conduct than that of Islam.
The Catholic Church, for example, does not require Catholics to cite specific tenets to do or not do something. Indeed, the Church itself has stated in doctrine—-which is „tenets‰—-that it doesn’t have to specifically oppose or endorse something in order for a Catholic to oppose or endorse that something—-if it’s based upon his Moral Conscience. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine, for example, for a Catholic to conclude that it‚s wrong to kick a dog or surf the internet. Or he is being a good Christian by kicking a dog or surfing the internet. Either way, no specific doctrine is required.
As instructed in Catholic Doctrine, in Dignitas Humanae, Pope Paul VI wrote in 1965: “It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end.” More recently, Pope John Paul II wrote on October 11, 1992: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church‚s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church‚s Magisterium. I declare it to be A SURE NORM FOR TEACHING THE FAITH, and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” [On matters of conscience, refer to CCC 1776, 1777 & 1782]
-By Gary Krasner
WHAT WAS FAST AND FURIOUS?
A sting operation PURPORTEDLY to identify and arrest gun smugglers who transport guns over the border, and Mexican drug cartel members.
WHAT WAS UNUSUAL ABOUT IT?
The contraband in THIS sting operation was not tracked electronically and there was no surveillance of suspects.
WHAT MADE THAT AN ISSUE OF INCOMPETENCE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE ETC?
Because the most important feature of all sting operations is to track the contraband, otherwise there’s no sting and hence no prosecutions, and the dangerous contraband gets distributed to harm people.
-By Gary Krasner
The Maranis biography identified 3 dozen Obama lies in “Dreams From My Father”, including the libelous claim that Signa Insurance discontinued his mother’s medical payments for her cancer treatments. Not including his claim that he was never a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago.
None include the lies of omission either, such as the denial of historians from gaining access to Obama’s school records from Harvard, Columbia and Occidental. Including the sponsoring letters, which some claim came from Islamists and other unsavory sources. And he has the hutzpah to call Romney “the most secretive executive”?!
Perhaps the greatest lie of omission is one which has succeeded through the silence of many people: The 2003 party in Chicago, where then-Illinois state senator Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi—-former spokesman for master terrorist Yasser Arafat. At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University‚s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
-By Gary Krasner
Again. I posted on his missed opportunities last week. Yesterday was another one.
Romney attracted maximal media coverage for his speech at NAACP. What an opportunity to teach supply side economics to economics-challenged liberals who never vote for republicans.
Instead, he delivers a warmed over campaign speech everyone has heard him utter countless times before. Even the black audience yawned, when they weren’t booing.
I’m convinced more than ever that Romney is not only NOT a supply sider, he knows little about macro economic theory. When does he ever discuss it in any depth?
Anyway, yesterday, it was reported (see below) that San Bernardino is the 3rd city to go bankrupt. No surprise. California state workers have a deals to kill for. They won’t give it up, and cities are paying the price.
July 9, 2012 | Filed Under Gary Krasner | Comments Off
-By Gary Krasner
I like listening to Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett radio shows.
But I also watch and listen to many liberal forums.
After many years of watching and listening to NPR, PBS, CSPAN, and sometimes the lunatics on Pacifica, i’ve noticed a speech affectation or mannerism.
I has increased in prevalence in recent years. Until now, I can always immediately identify a liberal on any panel discussion, or interview.
What is it? The liberal begins his her answer to a question with the word “so.”
It’s the difference between a marshmallow and a Mellow Marsh.
The main Democrat talking point to defend Obama’s debacle — Fast & Furious — is to claim that had begun under Pres. Bush. But in fact, the program they’re referring to that was run during Bush’s administration was called “Wide Receiver”, and it had been discontinued over a year before Obama took office. But more egregious than that is that it’s a facile sound-bite that ignores the stark differences between “Wide Receiver” and “Fast & Furious”, and worse, supposed serious journalists and correspondents do not call Democrats to task for it.
Here are the differences in simplest terms:
- Wide Receiver (WR) was active from 2005 to 2007 (Oct.). Number of guns involved: 400
- Fast & Furious (F&F) was active from Fall 2009 – 2011. Number of guns involved: 2,000
GUN TRACKING METHODS:
WR – RFID trackers installed in guns.
F&F – No electronic tracking.
WR – Actively tracked by airborn surveillance.
F&F – No active surveillance of any kind.
WR – Straw purchases recorded & surveilled.
F&F – No recording or surveillance of straw purchasers
Further Explanation: The local ATF field agents were ordered not to follow the straw purchasers. Federal agents were not allowed to interdict the guns and they even ran interference for the smugglers with local law enforcement on multiple occasions to make sure those guns made it across the border.
by Gary Krasner
Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti held a press conference in Kabul Monday morning.
After using the term “the enemy” several times, one reporter asked him to clarify what he meant by it. You can read his answer here:
When you cannot designate who your enemy is in one sentence or less, then you are looking at a defeated force.
But Scaparrotti’s meandering answer is just the symptom. His boss, President Obama, won’t even call it a “war”. Rather, it’s an “overseas contingency operation”!
by Gary Krasner
I don’t know if any pundits took note of the many news items (like the post below) mentioning that thousands of Syrian children are appealing to Obama’s daughters to intervene via military force in Syria.
The banners and placards read the same message:
Malia and Sasha Obama: Tell your father that we are being assassinated. from Children of Syria
Here’s my commentary about this:
GW wanted the media to lay off his daughters. They deserved a life of privacy as much as that was feasible. So GW never made references to them in any public statements. I also personally believe that GW didn’t want his daughters to become so prominent that they would become media-popular and thereby become targets of jihadist violence.
Here I would like to note that it was the Office of Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that first got me to writing all of this stuff down. His Office has requested a full report with supporting documentation for the purpose of de-funding the illicit 501(c)(3) organization headed by an elected official. For many years, Sen. Blunt has been on the front lines of reducing wasteful spending, and restoring integrity in our government.
I had to come up with a three-minute script to submit to the producer. This is what I have, though it takes 324 seconds for me to read through it. They can edit it how they want for the movie, but my testimony before Congress will likely include all of the following (not blockquoted due to length):
A letter, having been screened by the US Marshall’s Office, arrived at the Charles Evans Whittaker Federal Courthouse. This is the facility which houses the Central Division of the United States District Court of Western Missouri.
On Tuesday, May 8th of 2012, the contents of that letter, previously published right here at Publius’ Forum, were entered into the case docket of the Court by a court clerk on Wednesday the 9th.
You can download the Motion exactly as it was entered into the records of the US District Court by going through this free hosting service at this handy link.
-By Gary Krasner
This article includes a discussion of sex and nudity. I just wanted that caveat up front. So don’t complain.
I’d like to comment on two bits of recent curiosities in the news.
The first story was reported on March 27, 2012. The computer hacker who had leaked nude photos of actress Scarlett Johansson last summer is facing 60 years in prison and a $2.2 million fine. He plead guilty to nine charges of hacking.
-By Paleo Skeptic
As stated elsewhere, this is the text of the motion in the US District Court of Western Missouri from an advance copy. There are a few things that I want to note before we get to the text of the motion itself.
One of the big ones is the complicity of the Missouri Attorney General, Chris Koster (D-Cass). Koster is well-known for only taking on cases which are politically significant to him; most recently being the big tobacco settlement, whose funds went to shore up the failing state university system. This makes liberals happy when one of their primary indoctrination mechanisms remains intact. But it should be noted that selective enforcement of the law, and especially when a political opponent is an opposing party, is quite the norm for Koster’s office.
Secondly, it should be noted that the incidents described in this motion are by no means isolated. There are at least two occasions involving different persons that the prosecutor’s office of Platte County, under Eric Zahnd, has relied on the statements of mentally ill persons in a questionable fashion, not to mention the occasions disclosed by commenters at this site.
And third, let me state that I have seen the documentation in question, and studied it in depth. The claims made in this motion are true and verifiable.
Redacted text of the motion below the fold:
I’ve stated elsewhere that I would publish this here at the time that it is completed. The full text will be forthcoming later.
I’m still working on it, touching up a few things before it’s filed. This motion is to be ruled on by US District Judge David Gregory Kays.
Most of it is establishing that I am, in fact, an integral witness in this case. The rest just pretty much states that I am not at liberty to disclose to the Court the exact nature of the incredible amount of tampering with a federal witness under color of law which has already occurred, causing this federal witness to make numerous public statements as early as March of 2011 regarding having fled the State of Missouri in fear of his life.
Here is the first page of the motion:
I’m something of a skeptic, and especially so where politics is concerned. I’m aware that both the Left and the Right misrepresent themselves to some degree, and political advertisements are exactly that— advertisements with political content— and their objective is the same as any other advertisement— they’re trying to get something out of you.
So, I really didn’t take it seriously when I heard complaints about how the mainstream media (MSM) is biased against Republicans.
I’m no partisan, and I’ve always been a split-ticket voter. I consider the person to be of greater importance than their party affiliation. Locally, the big election is for County Coroner, and I don’t see it as particularly important if a Democrat or a Republican does that job.
Historically, I was a lifelong Democrat, up until about 2007 or so. A lot of that had to do with my concern with local politics rather than at the national level; and frankly, I didn’t pay attention all that much. I was a fairly typical blue dog Democrat, and I fit the profile.
My first big break with the Democratic Party was when I was in a forum with a group of “progressives,” and they were advocating an end to equitable representation of racial minorities. This might sound odd to some of you, but they wanted to push their agenda on abortion, and racial minorities tend to be a bit more socially conservative. I found that to be nothing short of monstrous. But the experience clued me in that the Left means what they say only long enough to argue for a specific policy position, after which no one knows what position they may take. And my skepticism was on red alert.
The Corn Refiners Assn., ADM, and others were out in the US District Court in the Central District of California on Wednesday to defend their advertising practices. They want to be able to list the high-fructose corn syrup they produce as “corn sugar” on food package labeling. Cane sugar producers are opposed.
I side with the producers of cane on this one.
To label the high-fructose corn syrup as “corn sugar” would be misleading.
-By Paleo Skeptic
Only “Evidence Tampering” can help restore accreditation to St. Louis Public Schools!
It’s not often that this writer is willing to endorse a candidate. But I think it’s time to stand up in our support for Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling. Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling will appear on the April ballot for corrupt Board of Education member for the St. Louis Public Schools.
Not many members of the SLPS Board of Education can brag about expending so much in resources to prevent child abuse from being reported as Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling. The prevention of lawful investigation of child abuse by State authorities has long been one of the top priorities of our dear old “Evidence Tampering.”
Only a few members of the Board of Education in the history of the St. Louis Public Schools can claim the level of corruption that Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling brings to her duties as corrupt Board of Education member.
Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling is the pro-choice candidate. With a known proclivity for the protection, preservation, and promotion of student / teacher sexual relationships, Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling will ensure that teachers who are sexual predators will be able to engage in sexual relations with the student(s) of their choice. Not much could make our schools a happier place.
Suppose you’re the President of the Board of Education for a public school system in a major city. An English teacher that has a previous history of sexual relations with her students comes to you with a complaint that an informant may soon well report her to the appropriate State agency for willfully endangering the safety and well-being of a child in her care. What do you do?
Well, if you happen to be Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, President of the Board of Education of the non-accredited St. Louis Public Schools, you get to work— and fast. You see here the opportunity to harass, intimidate, and victimize anyone who would dare refer to a teacher who has a long and established history of receiving money from men she meets for sex in hotel rooms as a “prostitute.”
The first thing that you would do (if you happen to be the above-mentioned Ms. “Evidence Tampering” Wessling) is to commit material fraud on the federal government in the willful misapplication of funds, having previously lied to the feds by telling them that you wanted to help battered women, when in reality you wanted to hush up teachers’ sexual relations with their students and suppress the lawful reporting of child endangerment, abuse, and neglect.
When it comes to verifying the underlying elements of the Federal obstruction of justice statutes relating to the behaviors and conduct of Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, managing attorney for the 501 (c) (3) organization, Legal Advocates for Abused Women, and sitting member of the Board of Education of the non-accredited St. Louis Public Schools, one is at first overwhelmed with the abundance of material available.
Briefly, Chapter 73 of Title 18, U.S.C., covers the bulk of the Federal obstruction of justice statutes. This Chapter was thoroughly overhauled and revised by Section 4 of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (VWPA), and further amended by the Criminal Law and Procedure Technical Amendments Act of 1986 (CLPTA).
While many states (such as Missouri) mark the differentiation of official proceedings as either civil or criminal, this is not the case with the federal statutes. The United States Code draws the distinction as either 1) a judicial proceeding, or 2) a proceeding before the legislative or executive branches of government, and any of their agencies; thus civil and criminal matters are given identical treatment for federal purposes.
The Federal code further makes distinctions between investigations and proceedings (sometimes an investigation is a proceeding), and whether a proceeding is pending or not (as many entries therein have no pending proceeding requirement).
I was inspired by WTH’s post here to re-post this “oldie-but-goodie” from another (non-political) blog. *
“He that is unjust in his judgment is destitute of the characteristics that distinguish man’s station.”
I am reminded of a time not too long ago.
There was an occasion when there was a fellow from some Tea Party protest at some strip mall. The owner of the place was by-and-large unconcerned with the political views expressed, but was mindful of the disposition of his patrons. The Tea Party gathering was allowed to continue, provided they not become too disruptive, and the security kept an eye on them there.
Then one fellow got the idea that he’d like to have a burger, so he went over to a sidewalk café there– just one lone fellow, no milling about. The problem is that he was wearing a t-shirt that said, “Give me Liberty– Not Obama.” The security people came over to talk to him about it, and asked if he would turn his t-shirt inside out while he remained at the establishment, so as not to offend the other diners. He refused, and was subsequently arrested.
The big to-do was all about some peaceful citizen exercising his right to assemblage, when all of a sudden some jack-booted Nazi rent-a-cop comes over and waylays the guy.
But from my view, I can see that the owner of this shopping center has rights. The patrons are there as guests. When you get right down to it, each of the businesses there are as well.
But most of the people didn’t see it that way.
I took a lot of heat over that.
I plan on making good on every one of the claims that I made in my letter to the Senator.
In that letter to the Senator, I stated that there was:
• A government funding an NGO which operates to squelch constitutionally-protected political speech.
These would be some of the applicable federal laws:
§ 245. Federally protected activities
(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States;
(5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate—
This has to do with a man who had previously worked as a volunteer for two campaigns, one for governor and one for Congress, trying in vain to show the letters that he had received from those campaigns to a judge. The judge in this case was under the undue influence of an attorney from the 501 (c) (3) group, Ms. Katherine “Evidence Tampering” Wessling, who asserted on various occasions during the course of this same proceeding that this campaign volunteer was prohibited from engaging in Constitutionally-protected political speech.Next Page »
Help the Soldiers!
American GeniusOur Founding Ideas
- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Contact UsEmail Publius' Forum
Separation of School