Letters to the Editor
-
RE: JimC- Defender of Freedom
What's your point?
-
... the United States a crumbling and isolated basket case.
Glenn do you read the now ubiquitous The Economist ?
You would see frothat your affinity for their allied-edness is not felt in return, unless you wish for your country to do their military bidding.
I humbly suggest you buck up on some this "conspiracy theory":
Did the British intentionally "blunder" into an incident that had the potential to be the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident setting off a chain-reaction of events leading to general war?
While no definitive answer can be given to that question at this time, several U.S. analysts took careful note of an article that appeared in the March 17, 2007 edition of The Economist in a special report celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union. The article revealed the state of mind of a significant faction within the City of London-centered Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, for which The Economist speaks. Under the title "The European Union at 100—Is the Best Yet To Come?," the anonymous author engaged in a game of futurology about the global strategic alignment in 2057, the year that the EU turns 100:
"The EU is celebrating its 100th birthday with quiet satisfaction. Predictions when it turned 50 that it was doomed to irrelevance in a world dominated by America, China and India, proved wide of the mark. A turning point was the bursting of America's housing bubble and the collapse of the dollar early in the presidency of Barack Obama in 2010." The spin-meister author went on to report a massive expansion of the EU, including Israel, Palestine, and Russia, and the ultimate success of the euro as a leading global currency. At the end of the day, Europe had re-emerged as the leading global power, with the United States a crumbling and isolated basket case."
This is their goal, not a fairy tale if they have anything to say baout it.
-
JimC Defender of Freedom
JimC's rules on posting:
"The environment we want to maintain here is one that is not hostile nor profane but at the same time allow full freedom to express your thoughts
Entire comments will not be deleted but we reserve the right to edit or delete portions that may offend or run counter to our values. Decisions to do so will be weighed heavily."
-
RE: ezwriter
Thanks for the link. This is the kind of discourse that leads to the truth, not the name calling and accusations to smear someone with a different viewpoint....thanks ezwriter.
After all is said and done, I do not believe Pelosi will be charged, I merely stated that it may be possible. Once the truth is found, then can we say we've done our duty...
-
Jim Montague
What is your point about posting my rules for commenting? Are you an anarchist? I pay the bills for that site, I lay down the rules, just like this site has rules...get over yourself.
-
That's a relief!
"After all is said and done, I do not believe Pelosi will be charged..."
Who does Jeebus like in the SuperBowl next year?
-
Interesting JimC thread...
What is your point about posting my rules for commenting? Are you an anarchist? I pay the bills for that site, I lay down the rules, just like this site has rules...get over yourself.
Point? Finding out what motivates/drives individuals.
Who does Jeebus like in the SuperBowl next year?
I'm afraid it might be canceled this year due to war with Iran. But I'm sure some higher power of some sort of monotheistic persuasion will be rooting for both sides.
-
Who The Heck Was Doctor Logan?
He was an agent of that dastardly red-headed left-handed traitor, Tom Jefferson.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33265.pdf
History of the Logan Act
After the French Revolution, difficulties developed between the Federalist Administration of the United States and the various revolutionary governments of France. Because the United States had not assisted the French revolutionaries to their satisfaction and because the United States had ratified the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, the French government authorized plunderings of American merchant ships.
In 1797 President Adams sent John Marshall, Charles C. Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry as special envoys to France to negotiate and settle claims and causes of differences which existed between the French Directory and the United States. This mission resulted in the XYZ letters controversy, and its failure led to such strong anti-France feelings in the United States that preparations for war were begun by the Congress.
After the unsuccessful envoys returned from France, Dr. George Logan, a Philadelphia Quaker, a doctor, and a Republican, decided to attempt on his own to settle the controversies. Bearing a private certificate of citizenship from his friend, Thomas Jefferson, who at the time was Vice President, Logan sailed for France on June 12, 1798. In France he was hailed by the newspapers as the envoy of peace and was received by Talleyrand. The French Directory, having concluded that it was politically wise to relax tensions with the United States, issued a decree raising the embargo on American merchant ships and freed American ships and seamen. Logan, however, received a less friendly response from the United States after he returned. Secretary of State Pickering told him that the French decree was illusory. General Washington expressed his disapproval of Logan’s actions. President Adams recommended that Congress take action to stop the “temerity and impertinence of individuals affecting to interfere in public affairs between France and the United States.” Representative Roger Griswold of Connecticut introduced a resolution in Congress to prevent actions similar to Logan’s . . .
. . . The bill was debated at length, and various amendments were proposed, some of which passed and some of which did not. The House of Representatives passed the bill on January 17, 1799, and the Senate passed it on January 25, 1799. It was signed and became a law on January 30, 1799.
. . . So far as can be determined, there have been no prosecutions under the Logan Act.
. . . The one indictment found occurred in 1803 when a grand jury indicted Francis Flournoy, a Kentucky farmer, who wrote an article in the FRANKFORT GUARDIAN OF FREEDOM under the pen name of “A Western American.” Flournoy advocated in the article a separate Western nation allied to France. The United States Attorney for Kentucky, an Adams appointee and brother-in-law of Chief Justice Marshall, went no further than procuring the indictment of Flournoy, and the purchase of the Louisiana Territory later that year appeared to cause the separatism issue to become obsolete.
If somebody were prosecuted under the Logan Act, its vague language might be found unconstitutional, but meanwhile, it's the law. Does it apply to members of Congress? Here's what some U.S. State Department lawyers concluded :
DIGEST OF UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 1975, p. 750.
. . . The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. Senator McGovern’s report of his discussions with Cuban officials states: “I made it clear that I had no authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States — that I had come to listen and learn....” (Cuban Realities: May 1975, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., August 1975). Senator Sparkman’s contacts with Cuban officials were conducted on a similar basis. The specific issues raised by the Senators (e.g., the Southern Airways case; Luis Tiant’s desire to have his parents visit the United States) would, in any event, appear to fall within the second paragraph of Section 953.
Accordingly, the Department does not consider the activities of Senators Sparkman and McGovern to be inconsistent with the stipulations of Section 953.
Like Sparkman and McGovern, Speaker Pelosi made no attempt to negotiate, and made it clear that she wasn't authorized to negotiate. Therefore, she didn't break the Logan Act.
Doctor Logan, however, may have broken the Logan Act. That's the kind of guy he was. In 1791, he got expelled from Quaker meeting because he was a captain in the state militia. In 1794, he resigned from the militia in protest against Washington's orders to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Despite (or because of) the controversies in 1798, he became a U.S. Senator in 1801. He became disillusioned with Jefferson. (He just couldn't respect AUTHORITY.) And he made a supposedly unauthorized trip to England, in search of peace, but was never indicted under the Logan Act, partly because President Madison may actually have (unofficially) sent Logan to England.