A REPORT:
U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 2007
A Grassroots Town Hall Forum
June 23rd, 1-4 PM
George Mason University - Fairfax
Mason Hall Conference Center
The Forum was definitive in revealing the horrifying depth of frustration with which concerned Americans are living.
The participants ran the gamut from those who intellectually understand the wounds that have been inflicted upon the fabric of this nation, the corruption that has been visited upon our system of Government, the violence visited upon our Constitution and basic legal system, and dangers which “We The People” face from our government, and want to cling desperately to the hope that institutions: the Congress, the media, and the masses of unengaged Americans, will awaken and rise to the occasion to right the wrongs that confront us as a people, to those who have all but abandoned that hope and are prepared to march down the road of escalation from protest, to rebellion, to the type of militant resistance we experienced during the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam Era.
Regardless of where the participants stood, they were in unanimous agreement that the war in Iraq must end, and the both President Bush and Vice President Cheney must be impeached.
SHOULD IMPEACHMENT BE ON THE TABLE?
During the founding or our nation George Mason asserted, "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued." Now, in the early years of the 21st Century, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has decreed, "Impeachment is off the table."
What has happened to the United States that might justify the Speaker's view? Whose position is more essential to the protection and preservation of our Republic today and in the future?
Come to a grassroots town hall forum to explore these questions publicly with fellow citizens and special guests (see below) who are making themselves available during this special Northern Virginia citizens event.
Special Guests
Bruce Fein, Constitutional lawyer; Associate Deputy Attorney General, Reagan Administration; Principal, the Lichfield Group; Principal, the American Freedom Agenda; former General Counsel, FCC.
Lawrence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff for Secretary of State, Colin Powell; Visiting Professor, College of William & Mary; former Director, USMC War College, Quantico, VA; Colonel, US Army, retired.
PBS. Org (The Darkside Front Line Interviews)
CNN.com Tuesday, August 23, 2005
(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.
"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."
They Have Stolen My Party and I want it back!
Neocons Lobbied For Taiwan To Declare Independence Despite…
An ex-chief of staff to Colin Powell was quoted in `Congressional Quarterly' magazine as saying that hawkish US officials encouraged Chen Shui-bian to declare independence.
Wilkerson said that the actions had the potential to generate a conflict -- possibly nuclear -- between the US and China.
Cheney's Impeachable Crimes Highlighted at UDC Forum
On May 7, a group of leading U.S. intelligence and military veterans joined investigative authors Peter Eisner and Knut Royce in a forum at the University of the District of Columbia (UDC), that provided, among many revelations, dramatic new evidence as to why Vice President Dick Cheney should be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Originally convened as a book-signing forum for Eisner and Royce's new book, The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter To Build the Case for War in Iraq, an invaluable documentary account of the Bush Administration lies that led the country to war against Iraq, the authors decided to open the event to a panel of leading retired intelligence officers, to comment on the just-released memoirs of retired CIA Director George Tenet.
The event, which drew over 100 students, faculty, and community activists, provided one of the most damning indictments of the Bush-Cheney Administration's manipulation of intelligence and other crimes.
The panelists who joined Eisner and Royce—former CIA officers Larry Johnson and Mel Goodman; retired Defense Intelligence Agency Middle East chief Col. W. Patrick Lang; and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson—presented such a significant amount of previously unknown documentation about the crimes of Bush and Cheney, that EIR has decided, as a public service, to publish an only slightly edited transcript of the entire event. This transcript appears in the May 25, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
As with everyone else on the program, I have provided additional informational linkages to allow readers far beyond the lovely grounds of George Mason University to develop just a bit more flavor of the participants. To say that Larry Wilkerson was a hit would be a gross understatement. One can safely assume that the participants numbered only a few Republicans, disaffected if any, on Saturday.
Wilkerson was direct, candid, and conversant upon questioning; he did not spin skirt or squirm out of, or around issues.
In baseball parlance; you threw him the pitch and he sent it sailing to the delight of all. The only problem one had after a healthy dose of Mr. Wilkerson, was that one not only wanted to Impeach Bush and Cheney, but you got the feeling that backing a big dumpster up to the White House and taking out all of the rest of the incompetent trash would be just as important. Was he being honest and forthright with us? I don’t think there is any question, and that is just plain scary!
Marcus Raskin, Co-Founder, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC; Professor, the George Washington University; author "Four Freedoms Under Siege," and "In Democracy's Shadow."
Presidential DisrespectA history of presidential denigration from Washington to Clinton
Marcus Raskin: You Want A New Direction? Here’s One
If you have been involved in the American Political experience as long as I have been and you have devoted thirty-one (31) years to teaching American History and Political Science, attempting to convey the message that the study of history, that research, is an unending pursuit of the truth, and you live with the hope that people can grasp those truths with open and inquisitive minds and a willingness of their being to have a reasoned faith in our way of life, and the strength of character and moral conviction to take a stand in the name of, and for, the America most of us believe should exist; then you will find Marcus Raskin one of the most spell binding intellects you could encounter. More than any other Forum participant he provided the historical perspectives that other could spin off from and or take focus from. I found him to be an absolute joy.
At the outset of this writing I was determined that I would attempt to be as even handed as possible given the subject and circumstances, but intention was quickly lost in the conviction, reinforced, for me, Saturday that we are past the point of political correctness for “correctness sake”. Being polite to, and about, the blight that this administration has brought down on this land just does not make any sense. I despise what they have done and continue to do. I hold them in contempt, and I certainly entertain no notions of respect where they are concerned, so I am going to give credit where credit is due.
The panelists who joined Eisner and Royce—former CIA officers Larry Johnson and Mel Goodman; retired Defense Intelligence Agency Middle East chief Col. W. Patrick Lang; and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson—presented such a significant amount of previously unknown documentation about the crimes of Bush and Cheney, that EIR has decided, as a public service, to publish an only slightly edited transcript of the entire event. This transcript appears in the May 25, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
As with everyone else on the program, I have provided additional informational linkages to allow readers far beyond the lovely grounds of George Mason University to develop just a bit more flavor of the participants. To say that Larry Wilkerson was a hit would be a gross understatement. One can safely assume that the participants numbered only a few Republicans, disaffected if any, on Saturday.
Wilkerson was direct, candid, and conversant upon questioning; he did not spin skirt or squirm out of, or around issues.
In baseball parlance; you threw him the pitch and he sent it sailing to the delight of all. The only problem one had after a healthy dose of Mr. Wilkerson, was that one not only wanted to Impeach Bush and Cheney, but you got the feeling that backing a big dumpster up to the White House and taking out all of the rest of the incompetent trash would be just as important. Was he being honest and forthright with us? I don’t think there is any question, and that is just plain scary!
Marcus Raskin, Co-Founder, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC; Professor, the George Washington University; author "Four Freedoms Under Siege," and "In Democracy's Shadow."
Presidential DisrespectA history of presidential denigration from Washington to Clinton
Marcus Raskin: You Want A New Direction? Here’s One
If you have been involved in the American Political experience as long as I have been and you have devoted thirty-one (31) years to teaching American History and Political Science, attempting to convey the message that the study of history, that research, is an unending pursuit of the truth, and you live with the hope that people can grasp those truths with open and inquisitive minds and a willingness of their being to have a reasoned faith in our way of life, and the strength of character and moral conviction to take a stand in the name of, and for, the America most of us believe should exist; then you will find Marcus Raskin one of the most spell binding intellects you could encounter. More than any other Forum participant he provided the historical perspectives that other could spin off from and or take focus from. I found him to be an absolute joy.
At the outset of this writing I was determined that I would attempt to be as even handed as possible given the subject and circumstances, but intention was quickly lost in the conviction, reinforced, for me, Saturday that we are past the point of political correctness for “correctness sake”. Being polite to, and about, the blight that this administration has brought down on this land just does not make any sense. I despise what they have done and continue to do. I hold them in contempt, and I certainly entertain no notions of respect where they are concerned, so I am going to give credit where credit is due.
Barbara Olshansky
I had some time alone with Professor Olshansky in a conference room while she was endeavoring to review her notes. That was unnecessary and I think she was really just trying to rest a bit from her flight in from New York. I found her to be refreshingly candid with an intelligence that makes a conversation a joy. And where she is rather gentle and soft spoken in a one-on-one conversation, as soon as she was seated at the guests table her demeanor changed into one of those beautiful confident presences that says: I’m in my element; so let’s get it on!”
For every woman in America who is disappointed or disgusted with Nancy Pelosi, having trusted that, hoped for, a role model marching into History writing one of the finest pages of “Women In American Politics”, only to profoundly disappointed as the Speaker has surely squandered that opportunity; I commend you to Barbara Olshansky, a woman who can be held up as a role model for any young woman in America, not only as a woman, but an inspiration and example for all of us should be like in advocating for right, and for the America we are striving to protect, defend and save.
Barbara is an American of genuine integrity.
She is also a very approachable woman, and I left with this picture of her in my mind, sitting on the floor talking with participants, signing a copy of the Lindorff/Olshansky book, and she wasn’t just signing her name, and on the floor again, earlier in the day, she took as much delight in signing the huge “We The People Canvas” as anyone else…no pretense, a good person.
When the rather sedate tone of the session was broken and everyone let loose their passions and perspectives, her recounting a personal “informal fact finding” trip to the world of horror and torture froze the room as her voice trembled just a bit, the only time in the day, as she made the point: “America does not know how really bad the situation is….”
Barbara Olshansky, Professor, Stanford Law School; former Deputy Director, Center for Constitutional Rights; Co-Author "The Case for Impeachment." And the author of Secret Trials and Executions: Military Tribunals and the Threat to Democracy. Barbara Olshansky
When the rather sedate tone of the session was broken and everyone let loose their passions and perspectives, her recounting a personal “informal fact finding” trip to the world of horror and torture froze the room as her voice trembled just a bit, the only time in the day, as she made the point: “America does not know how really bad the situation is….”
Barbara Olshansky, Professor, Stanford Law School; former Deputy Director, Center for Constitutional Rights; Co-Author "The Case for Impeachment." And the author of Secret Trials and Executions: Military Tribunals and the Threat to Democracy. Barbara Olshansky
BARBARA OLSHANSKY is the Leah Kaplan Distinguished Professor in Human Rights at Stanford University. Previously, she was deputy legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and director counsel of the Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative there. She was one of the lead attorneys who brought the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in a decision allowing the nearly 600 detainees held at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to challenge their unlawful indefinite detentions.
She’s the coauthor most recently of The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush from Office (St. Martins, 2006), among other titles, and author of Secret Trials and Executions: Military Tribunals and the Threat to Democracy (Open MediaSeries/Seven Stories Press, 2002).
She came to CCR in September of 1995 from the Environmental Defense Fund, a national, not-for-profit environmental organization. Barbara's current docket at the Center includes class action lawsuits concerning immigrants' rights, race discrimination in employment and education, environmental justice and public health, prisoners' rights, and Native American rights.
During her four years at the Environmental Defense Fund (now called Environmental Defense or "ED"), Barbara specialized in addressing community and workplace exposures to environmental toxins. During her tenure at ED, Barbara was instrumental in incorporating environmental justice concerns into the organization's docket and worked on a number of environmental racism cases, including those addressing the construction and operation of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Incinerator and the Bronx Lebanon Medical Waste Incinerator; and the exposure of workers in chemical and dye manufacturing industries.
Prior to her employment at ED, Barbara worked at a small plaintiffs' employment discrimination and union representation firm in New York City. During her work in these areas, Barbara focused not only on the enforcement of traditional workplace issues such as wages, hours, and benefits, but also the occupational safety and health concerns of employees working in a wide range of industries.
Barbara graduated from Stanford Law School in 1985, and clerked for two years for Rose E. Bird, Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. She has written several articles on environmental racism, immigrants' rights, public access to radio programming and ownership, and a chapter on occupational exposures for the 2000 ABA treatise on environmental justice.
-Democracy DetainedSecret Unconstitutional Practices in the U.S. War on Terror
Barbara Olshansky
due out in August 2007 Will American democracy become the true casualty of the U.S. war on terror?
-America’s DisappearedSecret Imprisonment, Detainees, and the “War on Terror”
Rachel Meeropol, Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner, Steven Macpherson Watt
2005 Edition This book provides detainees’ own testimonies with a comprehensive framework for understanding the issues by the leading constitutional scholars working for their release.
-Against War with IraqAn Anti-war Primer
Jennie Green, Barbara Olshansky, Michael Ratner
2003 Edition In this Open Media Series special edition, three legal scholars from the Center for Constitutional Rights argue persuasively that the looming war against Iraq is both unnecessary for national security, and illegal.
-Secret Trials and ExecutionsMilitary Tribunals and the Threat to Democracy
Barbara Olshansky
2002 Edition "Olshansky lays out a skillful argument which, point by point, shows how the "war on terrorism" at home amounts to a declaration of war on the Constitution itself. "—Criminal Defense Weekly
Barbara Olshansky '85: Public Interest Lawyer of the Year
By David McKay Wilson
Barbara Olshansky '85 speaking at the award dinnerPhoto: Misha Bruk
Barbara Olshansky '85 won the biggest case of her legal career when the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 ruled that detainees at the U.S. facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could challenge their incarceration in federal court. Rasul v. Bush, which The New York Times hailed as "the most important civil liberties case in half a century," reined in presidential power in prosecuting the war on terror.
But more than a year later, despite help from hundreds of pro bono lawyers working under Olshansky's oversight, not one habeas corpus petition has been heard in federal court. Having lost on the habeas corpus issue, the U.S. Department of Justice is now arguing that "enemy combatants" simply have no rights to enforce. Worse, the Supreme Court's ruling may be negated as a practical matter if the Graham-Levin amendment, a measure limiting detainees' rights which passed the Senate in late November, becomes law. "I feel like I'm arguing Rasul all over again," said Olshansky, deputy legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City.
Mark Levine, Host "Inside Scoop" radio, internet and TV talk show; former U.S. Congressional staff attorney.
Biography
Taking a Closer Look at Levine
When you attend a Forum such as Saturday’s, everyone is going to come away with his/her favorites, and folks are going to make judgments about each and every participant. I heard comments indicating that some felt Mark wasn’t up to par or as forceful a charismatic presence as he could have been.
Oh well, I can see where that opinion formed in the early segment of the presentations where everyone was in fact giving their opening statements, so to speak, and everything was placidly proper…and Levine was placid. That’s just a fact. One also must take into account that this was not a panel of light weights and wall flowers.
Some of these people are used to daily advocacy at some high levels of performance and confrontation with other peoples lives in the balance, so I didn’t expect Mark to Attila The Liberal Hun, but once the ice at this conference was broken early on in the question and answer period, and everyone began to let it all hang out and the unspoken words of “blood and in the streets” were breached people’s passions and most troubling questions welled up.
They didn’t want to quit.
The planned small group wrap up sessions became truncated, and that was fine, because a more important dynamic had set in, a dynamic that revealed how deeply disturbed we are as a people. Our frustrations are serious, our rage is growing. At that point Levine exhibited more life, passion and pointed discourse.
Dennis Loo, Professor, Cal Poly Pomona, Co-Editor "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush & Cheney."
Voter Fraud Analysis: More Questions than answers
Dennis Loo, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Cal Poly Pomona. He graduated with honors from Harvard in Government and received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Santa Cruz in Sociology. He has been a journalist, including as a Photo Editor at the Harvard Crimson and an Associate Editor at the Hawaii Observer. His research and writings revolve mostly around polling and public policymaking, with an emphasis on the roles of media, public officials and social movements. His most recent article,
-Impeach the PresidentThe Case Against Bush and Cheney
Dr. Dennis D. Loo, Peter Phillips
2006 Edition A gripping call for action from the leading political analysts of our time.
Contributions
-Censored 2008The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006-7
due out in September 2007 The breaking news stories you won’t find anywhere else.
Barbara Bowley, Associate Professor & Director Education Services, Woodbury University; contributor "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush & Cheney."
The planned small group wrap up sessions became truncated, and that was fine, because a more important dynamic had set in, a dynamic that revealed how deeply disturbed we are as a people. Our frustrations are serious, our rage is growing. At that point Levine exhibited more life, passion and pointed discourse.
Dennis Loo, Professor, Cal Poly Pomona, Co-Editor "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush & Cheney."
Voter Fraud Analysis: More Questions than answers
Dennis Loo, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Cal Poly Pomona. He graduated with honors from Harvard in Government and received his Ph.D. from the University of California at Santa Cruz in Sociology. He has been a journalist, including as a Photo Editor at the Harvard Crimson and an Associate Editor at the Hawaii Observer. His research and writings revolve mostly around polling and public policymaking, with an emphasis on the roles of media, public officials and social movements. His most recent article,
-Impeach the PresidentThe Case Against Bush and Cheney
Dr. Dennis D. Loo, Peter Phillips
2006 Edition A gripping call for action from the leading political analysts of our time.
Contributions
-Censored 2008The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006-7
due out in September 2007 The breaking news stories you won’t find anywhere else.
Barbara Bowley, Associate Professor & Director Education Services, Woodbury University; contributor "Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush & Cheney."
The Team of Loo and Bowley did not come into play until after the Q an A session but one is left with the impression that Mr. Loo’s forte is research and publication, and as sometimes happen with these events one or more of the player may have a bit of ego show through. It did here but with no harm done. He is young, and I’ll leave it there.
Ron Pinchback (Moderator), General Manager, WPFW (89.3 FM), Pacifica Radio, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Pinchback is another one of those personalities that brings a solid perspective to the table that needs to be heard and with his practiced media voice and delivery, he is heard. I heard nothing but good comments as regards his performance and contribution.
On The Other hand!
Gil Davis, distinguished attorney represented Paula Jones in the first private civil case in U.S. history against a sitting President for personal wrongdoing, winning a unanimous Supreme Court decision that a President is not immune for personal misconduct (Clinton v. Jones, 1997). He is parliamentarian for Virginia’s 11th CD Republican Committee, and is a past Bush Campaign Rules Committee Counsel.
Gil Davis is owner of the law firm of Davis & Associates. Gil earned a B.A. from Cornell College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law. He directed two state agencies following graduation from college. Before entering law school, he was a teacher of American history, a factory worker, custodian, and basketball coach. He is currently president of the Fairfax; Virginia based Para-Legal Institute and chairman of the board of Yorktown University. Gil was Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia from 1969 to 1973 and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the District of Columbia Superior Court, the Supreme Court of Virginia and many other federal district and circuit courts. Gil Davis has tried cases in 20 states and the District of Columbia.
He was Associate Editor of the 1969 revision of the Virginia Lawyer Handbook and authored the Criminal Trial Manual for the United States Attorney's office in the Eastern District of Virginia. He served as Parliamentarian for the Reagan White House Conference on Small Business in 1986. During a distinguished legal career, Gil brought the first prosecution under the Clean Air Act and the first prosecution of an aircraft hijacker. Gil has also served as a FOX and MSNBC TV news analyst and was a founder of The Virginia State Police Association.In 1996 Gil was awarded the Freedom Legal Defender Award by the co-sponsors of the Conservative Political Action Conference and in 1999 he was awarded the Job Award by the Christian Action Network “in recognition of steadfast principles, outstanding character, and unwavering perseverance in the defense of truth, justice and freedom.”
Gil's Friends:
American Conservative union
Our American Values
Americans For Prosperity
Family Research Council
Yorktown University.com Human Events Americans Have Had Enough
American Solutions
Right Talk
The Heritage Foundation
The Leadership Institute
NEWT - Winning the Future
Thomas More Institute
Interview with Gil Davis
The Pedigree should give you a good idea of just where the following commentary is heading. Unlike the organizers of the Forum I feel no need to be nice about Mr. Davis. I am an advocate; he is an advocate; so let’s have it.
Gil Davis calls himself a "country lawyer"…and he tries to bring the act off. He is a true right wing Republican lawyer through and through who tried to play the polite country lawyer flipping his bait on the water waiting for you to bite on any of his introductory presentation’s assumption. His arrogance was suppressed but showed through in a quiet air of superiority and condescension. Any suggestion of administration fault of any significance was quietly, deftly dismissed as someone else’s fault or responsibility. Most every day citizens would not be familiar with or able to detect the practiced verbal skills he brought to the table. As the expression goes; been there; done that; seen it all before…no problem.
When you sit on a panel with Barbara Olshansky these days there is almost an obligation for a peer to acknowledge her triumph over the administration. Mr. Davis’s acknowledgment was muted, without eye contact, and his vocal tone disapproving and perfunctory.
The organizers of the Forum, whom I have only recently come to know, (all very good dedicated thoughtful people), were serious in trying to present both sides of the issue, and I thought it might be refreshing to have an administration supporter who was willing to engage in a thoughtful dialog.
Americans For Prosperity
Family Research Council
Yorktown University.com Human Events Americans Have Had Enough
American Solutions
Right Talk
The Heritage Foundation
The Leadership Institute
NEWT - Winning the Future
Thomas More Institute
Interview with Gil Davis
The Pedigree should give you a good idea of just where the following commentary is heading. Unlike the organizers of the Forum I feel no need to be nice about Mr. Davis. I am an advocate; he is an advocate; so let’s have it.
Gil Davis calls himself a "country lawyer"…and he tries to bring the act off. He is a true right wing Republican lawyer through and through who tried to play the polite country lawyer flipping his bait on the water waiting for you to bite on any of his introductory presentation’s assumption. His arrogance was suppressed but showed through in a quiet air of superiority and condescension. Any suggestion of administration fault of any significance was quietly, deftly dismissed as someone else’s fault or responsibility. Most every day citizens would not be familiar with or able to detect the practiced verbal skills he brought to the table. As the expression goes; been there; done that; seen it all before…no problem.
When you sit on a panel with Barbara Olshansky these days there is almost an obligation for a peer to acknowledge her triumph over the administration. Mr. Davis’s acknowledgment was muted, without eye contact, and his vocal tone disapproving and perfunctory.
The organizers of the Forum, whom I have only recently come to know, (all very good dedicated thoughtful people), were serious in trying to present both sides of the issue, and I thought it might be refreshing to have an administration supporter who was willing to engage in a thoughtful dialog.
Mr. Davis was not, and time after time simple dismissed issues as non existent.
He was the party line, and the assemblage seethed and squirmed in their seats and tried to appeal for “political correctness/polite conduct” chastising mildly any interruption of points he attempted to make that fell on people’s ears like the repetition of lies we have to despise so vehemently.
He was the party line, and the assemblage seethed and squirmed in their seats and tried to appeal for “political correctness/polite conduct” chastising mildly any interruption of points he attempted to make that fell on people’s ears like the repetition of lies we have to despise so vehemently.
One man would not be silenced, and rage filled he had his say and left the room. Following him outside in his departure, I managed to engage him conversation and let him vent and explain the depth of his rage. He will be alright, insofar as, he is aware of the depth of his emotions and the need to do something about them for his own good.
Gil Davis calls himself a "country lawyer" who represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against President Clinton. This first part of the interview was interesting to us because he used the classical method of answering our questions... he gave examples of the difficulty individuals have when faced with decisions.
Helen: We'd like to remind Americans today about the foundations of America. We had all been reminded, during President Reagan's funeral, that once one has a firm grasp of one's core principles, it's a lot easier to make decisions. So we'd like to hear some of your current ideas and work, but also to delve into the basic principles that sustain you. Too often we hear people complaining they don't know how to make a decision one way or the other. Sometimes a bit of American history and knowledge of basic foundational principles of our country will help. We're trying to fill the gap where the current educational system is failing.
Gil: We have to have everyone feel sensitive and socially adjusted and so we have classes on that, yet civics are sometimes ignored.
Helen: Few people realize America was called the Great Experiment because it is an experiment in human freedom and self-government what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of this system of government?
Gil: When you say it's an experiment, that's right. It really was the new thing on the block. We were the first republic since the Roman republic. George Washington was the first leader of a nation who voluntarily relinquished his job as leader to go back to his home. He wasn't assassinated or deposed. He could have been a king if he had wanted to, because he was the only one they trusted.
Peter: Let me clarify something. You mentioned that the American republic was the first republic since the Roman republic. It's pretty obvious how a republic differs from a monarchy, but how would you distinguish it from the term we generally use, 'democracy'?
Gil: A republic is a representative government where the people choose those who make the decisions; the people themselves don't make the decisions. The Athenian model is a direct democracy where the people themselves made the decisions. It was interesting in that they had rotating leaders and big committees of three or four hundred, so in a sense they were representative, but they were all involved directly in the decisions.
Gil Davis calls himself a "country lawyer" who represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against President Clinton. This first part of the interview was interesting to us because he used the classical method of answering our questions... he gave examples of the difficulty individuals have when faced with decisions.
Helen: We'd like to remind Americans today about the foundations of America. We had all been reminded, during President Reagan's funeral, that once one has a firm grasp of one's core principles, it's a lot easier to make decisions. So we'd like to hear some of your current ideas and work, but also to delve into the basic principles that sustain you. Too often we hear people complaining they don't know how to make a decision one way or the other. Sometimes a bit of American history and knowledge of basic foundational principles of our country will help. We're trying to fill the gap where the current educational system is failing.
Gil: We have to have everyone feel sensitive and socially adjusted and so we have classes on that, yet civics are sometimes ignored.
Helen: Few people realize America was called the Great Experiment because it is an experiment in human freedom and self-government what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of this system of government?
Gil: When you say it's an experiment, that's right. It really was the new thing on the block. We were the first republic since the Roman republic. George Washington was the first leader of a nation who voluntarily relinquished his job as leader to go back to his home. He wasn't assassinated or deposed. He could have been a king if he had wanted to, because he was the only one they trusted.
Peter: Let me clarify something. You mentioned that the American republic was the first republic since the Roman republic. It's pretty obvious how a republic differs from a monarchy, but how would you distinguish it from the term we generally use, 'democracy'?
Gil: A republic is a representative government where the people choose those who make the decisions; the people themselves don't make the decisions. The Athenian model is a direct democracy where the people themselves made the decisions. It was interesting in that they had rotating leaders and big committees of three or four hundred, so in a sense they were representative, but they were all involved directly in the decisions.
It was wise of our founders to construct our system the way they did because it was easier to put in checks and balances so that the majority could work its will, but still maintain rights for the minority. In a direct democracy, minority rights could be squelched. Plus a direct democracy for this country as it's developed and grown would be an almost impossible way to govern. Now, ironically, with the internet, maybe everyone could have direct access. However, probably everyone wouldn't want to take the time it would require, especially now, with a government that's into everything.
Free America Web.com (The end of the pedigree)
Invitations have been extended to Hon. Tom Davis, Virginia 11th Congressional District, and Hon. Jim Moran, Virginia 8th Congressional District.
They were not in attendance. That problem of avoidance behavior is all too common and has to be brought to a stop through more aggressive contacts with these people. He hired them; we pay them and we can fire them.
And where does this leave us? I think everyone went away committed to all those normal things identified as protest and opinion formation, but more importantly they walked away with a better perspective on the longer road that may very well have to escalate from protest, to resistance and finally rebellion.
Free America Web.com (The end of the pedigree)
Invitations have been extended to Hon. Tom Davis, Virginia 11th Congressional District, and Hon. Jim Moran, Virginia 8th Congressional District.
They were not in attendance. That problem of avoidance behavior is all too common and has to be brought to a stop through more aggressive contacts with these people. He hired them; we pay them and we can fire them.
And where does this leave us? I think everyone went away committed to all those normal things identified as protest and opinion formation, but more importantly they walked away with a better perspective on the longer road that may very well have to escalate from protest, to resistance and finally rebellion.
A Kent State Graduate an on-scene for our Vietnam War Era tragedy, I am painfully aware of the cost that might lay ahead; as a historian I know that great change has been accompanied by controversy and often bloodshed, and philosophically I have always been aware that human freedom and liberty have been purchased from one gallows to the next gallows, and that justice has all too often been acquired, nurtured and sustained by the blood that has flowed down the gutters of the streets of history.
The forum speakers made the point repeatedly that our Republic has no guarantee of continued existence, and I am of the opinion that we are wrapped up in a self absorbed national existence at the moment that negates our ability to appreciate the broad canvas of history.
After all, we are merely a Republic fashioned by ideas, given form by words on paper of long ago. We are an idea, and while history tells us that ideas in confrontation cannot be killed; ideas can be abandoned by choice, set aside as anachronism, replaced with new ideas by those who would transplant them and have a different vision that advance with the vigor and vitality of the true believer, the new evangelist.
The notion that somehow America in our own self-defined immunity from the ills of time and history was clearly dismissed as all were reminded of the fragility of nations and the menace of our current crisis, a crisis precipitated in the main by men and women who have a different vision of a different America.
After all, we are merely a Republic fashioned by ideas, given form by words on paper of long ago. We are an idea, and while history tells us that ideas in confrontation cannot be killed; ideas can be abandoned by choice, set aside as anachronism, replaced with new ideas by those who would transplant them and have a different vision that advance with the vigor and vitality of the true believer, the new evangelist.
The notion that somehow America in our own self-defined immunity from the ills of time and history was clearly dismissed as all were reminded of the fragility of nations and the menace of our current crisis, a crisis precipitated in the main by men and women who have a different vision of a different America.
Our greatest dangers lay in simple words, in the words of Sinclair Lewis, adopted by Larry Lindorff for his web site: “It can’t happen here”, and in the words: “I believe”. How many human problems and tragedies have welled up in history from those two words, how many?
But let us conclude this post with earlier reminders that this nation, this Republic does not have some exclusive warrantee of eternal existence.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves”.
~Abraham Lincoln
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing”.
~Albert Einstein
“The voice of protest...is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum...is bidding all men...obey in silence the tyrannous word of command”.
~Charles Eliot Norton
“Peace...is the product of Faith, Strength, Energy, Will, Sympathy, Justice, Imagination, and the triumph of principle”.
~Dorothy Thompson
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.
~Abraham Lincoln
:Benjamin Franklin (1706–90) QUOTATION:“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.
McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.
THINK ABOUT; ACT ON IT!
In Alexandria we are preparing to act as we plan for a petition drive of Impeachment and transmission to the City Council.
In Alexandria, Virginia…Ed. Dickau, The Precinct Master In The Court of Impeachment and War crimes…
![[PDA - Progressive Democrats of America - Stand Up. Take Action. Vote.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/pdalink-150x200.gif)
No comments:
Post a Comment