— “Mysterious transactions of Bob Healey prompt probe” —
By Gloria Q. Garvin —
The silence is over. I have anguished with this and thought long and hard and after receiving permission from Bob’s relatives I am making this public because Bob wanted to be remembered for the truth, so here it is….
Contrary to10 NEWS — What IS NOT ‘Mysterious’… are Bob’s ‘transactions’, because prior to his passing he was very clear about what financial matters were outstanding (both debts and liabilities) which he detailed in a letter that he authored to the executrix of his Will with specific instructions of what he believed was due, or owing at the time of his death. Therefore, the fact that he left this letter to her (Item #2) in addition to his Will clearly demonstrates how important it was to him that his last wishes be understood and fulfilled.
The executrix provided a copy of the letter below at the same time she passed Bob’s Will to Attorney John Bernardo, lawyer for the estate and Gavin Hunter, Bob’s former business partner. (Item #2 was filed with the Barrington Probate Court on January 27th, 2017 in Exhibit #18) For the record, I have no vested interest in these matters except that Bob Healey was a dear friend and a man of great integrity who deserves to be treated better in his absence,
Therefore, I suggest that Attorney Wright tread carefully when making further accusations, and read the probate filings in seeking his answers to see ‘who’ opposed a forensic audit and why – which might uncover mismanagement of the estate and Client Account AFTER Bob died – because given how precise the list is it seems inconceivable that Bob Healey would not have identified such large liabilities if he believed that they were still legitimate.
Equally obvious, for those of us who understood Bob’s humor was his (satirical signature) incorporated into his Will by requesting to be ‘stuffed and maintained in a glass case for his 1 year post-mortal anniversary date’ which he knew would force smiles upon our faces while reading his Last Will and Testament!
What IS ‘Mysterious’… is why the Barrington Probate Court continued to ignore Bob Healey’s last wishes, which prompted me for over a year to intervene at the request of his family and former business partner to speak on Bob’s behalf under repeated threats by the court to charge me with practicing law without a license (that at times I felt would have amused Bob greatly). Bob’s wishes were clear. He wanted a Trust to be set up for his family (before anything else took place) which was finally achieved under my repeated threats to go public with my recordings of the proceedings… that I know would have amused Bob greatly!
Last but not least, while we’re at unraveling ‘Mysteries’… it should also be noted that before Bob departed he left a note by his bed that was found by the Police & EMT’s on March 20th, 2016 — along with a lengthy message he left on his computer which was personally shared with me when it was discovered, that provided a window into his last thoughts that I have not spoken of for time to heal.
However, nothing will change and no healing can take place until the truth is revealed – because although the story of Bob’s life is an open book… the story of his death has been “Mysteriously” overlooked.
“Individuals acting with the Cool Moose Party should be free from alliances and nepotism that would cloud their ability to act in a manner consistent with good government. They should at all times be fashioning public policy to include as much public participation as practical. Political power, so dispersed, avoids the potential for abuse due to political power being concentrated in monopolistic interests.”
~ Robert J. Healey, Jr.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE COOL MOOSE PARTY
The folly of this election proved (once again) that ‘Party loyalty’ demands a polarization of support or opposition, depending what side you are on. It forbids objectivity and shuns intellectual honesty because their records can clearly show that they are NOT the most qualified candidates to hold the office of governor.
If and when corruption takes place, party loyalists don’t investigate or prosecute those in their organization who have wronged the citizens — because to do so would be to commit political suicide. But in Rhode Island it goes much deeper. Being a ‘party’ to lies and corruption has become a prerequisite to promotion, not only in politics, but among established organizations and media outlets who play their part in the cover-ups of it.
Let’s face it, truth is the key to freedom, and the only way to discover truth is to become objective. To do this, one must love and embrace the truth more than the hollow praises of men or selfish interests. This was the valuable quality Bob Healey offered the people of Rhode Island, and a vote for him “was just that” for those who understood this.
He was not a ‘spoiler’, but a man who was loyal to God, the Constitution, and the principles of liberty — not to any political party — including the one he Founded…
~ The Cool Moose Party
Fed Up in RI’s “NOTICE” and Formal Statement in Opposition To H-7290
JOINT RESOLUTION AND AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE STATE TO ENTER INTO FINANCING LEASE AND PAYMENT AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BALLPARK IN
THE CITY OF PAWTUCKET
AN ACT RELATING TO TOWNS AND CITIES — REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES AND PROJECTS
Dear Honorable Chairman and members of the House Finance Committee,
Just like 38 Studios — The devil is in the details!
So, here’s how it works –
They tell you the lies.
We tell you the truth.
Now it’s up to YOU!
So, let’s cut through all the B.S. – as time is of the essence for the truth to emerge;
As we all learned from 38 Studios – state and local governments will always protect their bond ratings first at the expense of the taxpayers, because that is their borrowing power and life blood for survival, which is what the new stadium is all about – government protecting itself – via millionaires with a deal that will most likely fail to create spreadable millions for the well connected, while the taxpayers, once again, are thrown to the wolves to pay for it.
Because, contrary to what the Governor and Speaker Mattiello have publicly stated – Rhode Island’s statutory lien law, 45-12-1 plainly creates a lien in property taxes for the payment of bondholders.
That is why the Speaker said as late as last evening, “There are a lot of details that would need to be worked out.” “I leave it to the city and team to rewrite the details.” Because he knows what the game is – because if the stadium deal doesn’t generate the necessary revenue, the City of Pawtucket is going to follow the playbook of Central Falls to the ‘T’ (pun intended.)
You see, it’s the only plan that benefits all the players involved, the PawSox owners get a brand new stadium, while their shadow LLC’s buy up the surrounding prime property at eminent domain prices, along with the connected bond holder in place who’ll share with them the spreadable millions made from the bond-buyers at the high interest rates – because even if the whole thing goes a bust – they are ALL guaranteed to be paid EVERY PENNY by the Taxpayers under Rhode Island’s little spoken, “pay-bondholders-before-Rhode Islanders Law”, 45-12-1, which was signed into Law on July 1, 2011 by Gov. Lincoln Chafee, giving all types of bonds legal priority over all other payments that municipalities must make, including retirement benefits.
The law requires Rhode Island’s cities, towns and districts to dedicate their general revenue to paying bondholders first, AND TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES AS MUCH AS NECESSARY (above the Caps) to make all payments to bondholders on time. This virtually guarantees bond holders will receive their payments while R. I. Citizens will always be paying more and more in taxes!
In-turn, the City of Pawtucket, who is dead broke, then comes up to bat to implement the same game plan as was used in Central Falls bankruptcy to cut the cost of it’s pensions in half – and that is why the general assembly passed a massive amount of appropriations for the City of Pawtucket last evening – because who cares how many millions they give it – under R.I.Gen Law 45-12-1 – the taxpayers have to pay for it!
And that is why, although Rhode Island’s bond law is the first of its kind in the U.S., it has not been discussed by the Governor, the Speaker, nor, the General Assembly, because what they don’t want the citizens to know – Is that Rhode Island is an anti-default state for “Greedy” Millionaires and bankrupt municipalities to conspire with one another in picking the pockets of the citizenry for their own self-interests… which has NOTHING to do with the public!
Therefore, what the Speaker forgot to mention in his PawSox promotion is that Rhode Island’s landmark 2011 law which placed a statutory lien on local municipal debts provides for investor protections – NOT THE TAXPAYERS! See: R.I. Gen. Laws §45-12-1(a).
In the case of bonds secured with a statutory lien in an unlimited amount of ad valorem taxes, that “value” is whatever amount of taxes is necessary to ensure bondholders are paid. See: 11 USC 1129(b)(A).
Rhode Island’s statutory lien law plainly creates a lien in property taxes for the benefit of bondholders. See: R.I. Gen. Laws §45-12-1(a).
Bonds backed by statutory liens have a claim in municipal revenues that arises by force of law as opposed merely to a contract or judicial decree. Securing municipal bonds with statutory liens in specific revenue streams is one way to ensure that obligations to bondholders are honored in both good times and bad. Unfortunately, the same does NOT apply to Pawtucket’s property owners and taxpayers. (There will be more to come on this subject in the near future)
Thus, the language passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly re: priority of bond payments.
Act Relating to Cities and Towns – Providing Financial Stability, Chapter 24/27 of the Rhode Island Public Laws of 2010
g. § 45-12-1, as amended. grants a self-executing statutory lien on all ad valorem taxes and general fund revenues to secure the payment of all general obligation bonds and notes and other financing obligations of cities or towns.
The statute pledges all ad valorem taxes and general revenues of every municipality to secure its bonds and notes. It also requires each municipality to appropriate funds for the timely payment of bonds and notes and further provides that any sum not appropriated shall be automatically added to the municipality’s annual tax levy and then applied to payment of bonds or notes.
Further, City officials have suggested the stadium zone where new tax revenues will go to repay ballpark bonds might need to grow to account for the increased risk to investors without a state guarantee. — But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee.
Rhode Island House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello Tuesday gave his blessing to a reworked Pawtucket Red Sox ballpark financing plan that he said shifts risk away from state taxpayers. — But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee.
“I think the most important thing that we can say about it is, once we set up the framework, that there is no state guarantee,” Mattiello said. — But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee.
“The state of Rhode Island taxpayers will not be responsible for any of the debt associated with that project.” — But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee.
“If revenue comes up short, the Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency will have to figure out how to deal with it.” — But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee. @ https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/06/18/lawmakers-will-revisit-pawsox-stadium-deal-this-week
“Democratic House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello says the bill will follow his plan to finance the state’s contribution to the stadium with so-called “special revenue bonds. Only tax revenue generated directly by the stadium and its surrounding area would go toward paying off the bonds.”— But that’s not true, because R.I. Gen Law 45-12-1 IS a state guarantee. READ – http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE45/45-12/45-12-1.HTM
Last but not least, Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien Tuesday called on state lawmakers to pass House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello’s minor league ballpark financing plan with some “minor tweaks” by allowing the city to finance the stadium with “variable rate bonds”… however, the City doesn’t have enough residents to apply these variables – as required by R.I. Gen. Law 45-12-5 !!!!
Note: The current population of the City of Pawtucket is estimated @ 72,001. ??? http://www.pawtucketri.com/demographics-census-info
See § 45-12-5.4`
Cities or towns with a population greater than 125,000 ??? inhabitants – Variable rate obligations and interest exchange agreements. https://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/2013/title-45/chapter-45-12/section-45-12-5.4/
It’s easy to see who the government is looking out for – when you know what to look for. And that is what Worcester can’t offer the PawSox…
Therefore, if you pass H-7290 & H-7291 today – the Cities of Pawtucket and Central Falls are going to go down in history ‘as-one-in-the-same’. At which time the only relevant question that will command our attention is…“do we still live under a representative form of government in the state of Rhode Island?”
We respectfully request that you include “Fed Up in RI’s “NOTICE” and Formal Statement of Opposition be read and placed in the Permanent Record for future reference, and put into the Journal of the official file for;
Thank you for your time and consideration.
/s/ Gloria Garvin;
individually and on behalf of FED UP IN RI and its membership
June 21, 2018
“Fed Up in RI is NOT affiliated with, funded, or in any way associated with any other organization or institutions.”
Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity P3 Bill;
House Bill No. 7340
AN ACT RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT – PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT (Authorizes the creation of a public-private transportation partnership board to promote transportation improvement programs for the users of our roads. The board would evaluate proposed plans for transportation projects.) http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7340.pdf
What you are about to read below are quoted highlights taken from Bill H-7340 , submitted by Representative Jared Nunes on behalf of Mike Stenhouse, CEO of the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity. Fed Up in RI has painfully taken the time to read every horrible word of this Bill to bring to your attention the following clauses that we consider to be of great concern, if not dangerous. After many discussions with Representative Nunes concerning this proposed legislation, what finally dawned on us is that no one probably reads the stuff they’re given to sponsor. And yes, although there are some in the political limelight that have recently taken an interest to do so, but not a peep will you hear about “Privatization”, least they reveal that the talking points that the Center has promoted for public consumption – are contrary to the devil that is in the details of this legislation. Therefore we ask that you read it very carefully, so if it passes, you will not be able to claim that it was not brought to your attention. Because, let there be no mistake about this, we consider this P3 legislation an outright act against our Constitution and Republic, and therefore you are bound by duty under your sworn oaths to prevent this from happening.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Please see our formal testimony attached for the record.
RE: H-7340 –
PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT ** By Request of The Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Introduced By: Representatives Nunes, Hearn, Marcello, Morgan, and Reilly
Date Introduced: January 27, 2016
Referred To: House Finance
THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT
@ pg 1 — “Public entity” means an agency, a municipal authority or an authority created by statute which owns a transportation facility;
@ pg 2 – “Public-private transportation partnership agreement” means a contract for a transportation project which transfers the rights for the use or control, in whole or in part, of a transportation facility by a public entity to a development entity for a definite term during which the development entity will provide the transportation project to the public entity in return for the right to receive all or a portion of the revenue generated from the use of the transportation facility, or other payment, such as the following transportation-related services:…..
Translation – * Privatization just shifts money from working people to profit seeking corporations that end up paying little to no taxes, while the 99% pay rent back to the 1% on their own assets.
@ pg 3 — “Transportation facility” means a proposed or existing road, bridge, tunnel, overpass ferry, busway, guideway, public transportation facility, vehicle parking facility, port facility, multimodal transportation facility, airport, station, hub, terminal or similar facility used or to be used for the transportation of persons, animals or goods, together with any buildings, structures, parking areas, appurtenances, intelligent transportation systems and other property needed to operate or related to the operation of the transportation facility. The term includes any improvements or substantial enhancements or modifications to an existing transportation facility;
42-13.1-3. Public-private transportation partnership board.
(a) There is established a board to be known as the public-private transportation partnership board.
(b) The board shall be composed of the following members:
(1) The director of the department of transportation;
* Stenhouse purposely mislead the public in his talking points and documents – leading the public to believe that under his P3 plan the DOT involvement would be taken over by a private entity. He even referred to the ‘Big Dig’ in his propaganda.
(2) The state budget officer or a designee who shall be an employee of the state budget office;
(3) Five (5) members appointed by the general assembly under subsection (c)
of this section;
(4) One member appointed by the governor under subsection (d) of this section.
(c) Legislative appointments.
(1) Appointments of members by the general assembly shall be made as follows:
(i) One individual appointed by the president of the senate;
(ii) One individual appointed by the minority leader of the senate;
(iii) Two (2) individuals appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; and
(iv) One individual appointed by the minority leader of the house of representatives.
(2) Legislative appointees shall be residents of this state and serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.
Interpretation – “serve at the pleasure” of Rhode Island’s political hierarchy.
@ pg 5 — “Actions by the board are a determination of public policy and public interest and shall not be considered orders under chapter 35 of title 42 (the administrative procedures act) and shall not be appealable to any court of law.”
@ pg 10 – “The proprietary public entity may enter into a public – private transportation partnership agreement with any development entity that includes the provisions under subsection (a) of this section for a term not to exceed ninety – nine (99) years.”
Fed Up in RI’s “NOTICE” and Request for Investigation
and Formal Statement in Opposition to House Bill No. 7340
“PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT”
Dear Honorable Chairman, House Finance Committee Members, and House of Representatives,
Please take “NOTICE” that Fed Up in RI stands in firm Opposition to House Bill No. 7340 – entitled the “THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT”- RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT-Title 42 of the General Laws – CHAPTER 13.1 introduced by Representative Jared R. Nunes, on January 27, 2016, and sponsored by Representatives Joy Hearn, Michael J. Marcello, Patricia L. Morgan, and Daniel P. Reilly, and we hereby reserve all our constitutionally protected Rights against it’s passage by withholding our consent for good cause to the inclusion, tenets and passage of this Bill, and any accompanying PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIP (P3) amendments, joint resolutions, and any and all corresponding enactments pursuant thereto.
Due to the documented lack of transparency and highly questionable process employed thus far, Fed Up in RI also formally requests an immediate moratorium be placed on all Governor Raimondo’s Administration’s bold Transportation and Privatization initiatives – pending a full investigation and production of all “public” and undisclosed records and work products, for analysis, to ensure that all transportation infrastructure associations, possible conflicts of Interests, contracts, plans, leases, transit investment options and agreements with and under development or consideration, and/or in current law, have been totally revealed under full disclosure, openly and transparently to lawmakers and the public alike, in allowing an informed consent representing the Will of the People by their elected Representatives.
WHEREAS, our Representative form of Government demands adherence to the principles of the People’s right to know and the government’s duty to inform. The Public needs to know what the government is doing in it’s name, or the consent of the governed is meaningless. Thus, the consent of the governed is not consent – if it is not informed.
and WHEREAS, under our Representative form of government, it is not the burden of the Citizens of Rhode Island to prove to it’s Representatives that proposed legislation is NOT in the states and/or the public’s best interest, but rather, as the People’s elected voices, it is you who are charged in your official duties, through due diligence, to prove to those you represent – that House Bill No.7340 in particular, IS (emphasis added) ethically and legally ripe to consider and execute, and is worthy of the People’s informed “Consent.” To do otherwise, by your vote for passage of House Bill No. 7340 under the current documented circumstances, we will consider to be no less than a deliberate breach of your fiduciary duties and the public’s trust.
and WHEREAS, the General Assembly is required by sworn oath to act faithfully to the Constitution for the State of Rhode Island, and the United State’s Constitution, we demand that you uphold your Oaths of Office and withhold your approval at this time of House Bill No. 7340 – “THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT ” by voting against it’s passage.
THEREFORE, acting individually, and on behalf of Fed Up in RI and those in membership, please consider this correspondence, along with our “NOTICE” and Request for Investigation and Formal Statement attached, as our official written testimony for the Record – at this time – in Opposition to the proposed PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT.
We reserve our right to submit additional testimony and evidence for the record, during and up to the House’s final determination on this matter.
Further, WE, individually and collectively reserve our rights to seek any and all remedies available under the law for redress of grievances, including but not limited to any or deprecation of Rights arising out of passage of this ACT.
We respectfully request that you include “Fed Up in RI’s “NOTICE” and Formal Statement of Opposition to House Bill No.7340 – “THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP ACT” be read and placed in the Permanent Record and put into the House Journal for the official file for; http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText16/HouseText16/H7340.pdf
Thank you for your time and consideration.
/s/Gloria Garvin, founder
Fed Up in RI
“Does Rhode Island’s Tolling statute impermissibly discriminate against Truckers by requiring them to incur significant additional expenses not required of cars, in violation of the commerce clause?”
The overriding concern of the Commerce Clause is discrimination. “For over 150 years, our courts have rightly concluded – failure by a state to adhere to the “cardinal requirement of nondiscrimination” is almost always fatal. New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 274 (1988). Discrimination, then, is both the beginning and end of the Commerce Clause inquiry, for it ferrets out the protectionism that the clause was meant to proscribe.
In Hughes v. Oklahoma – 441 U.S. 322, 336 (1979) the United States Supreme Court set forth the “general rule” of Commerce Clause inquiry:
[W]e must inquire (1) whether the statute regulates evenhandedly with only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce either on its face or in practical effect; (2) whether the statute serves a legitimate local purpose; and, if so, (3) whether alternative means could promote this local purpose as well without discriminating against interstate commerce. The initial burden to show discrimination rests with the challenging party, but once that burden is met, “the burden falls on the State to justify it both in terms of the local benefits flowing from the statute and the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve the local interests at stake.” Hunt v. Wash. Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 353 (1977).
Furthermore, when considering the purpose of a challenged statute, a Court is not bound by ‘[t]he name, description or characterization given it by the legislature or the courts of the State,’ but will determine for itself the practical impact of the law. Id.at 336 (citations omitted).
There are many forms of discrimination, all of which trigger strict scrutiny. The classic form of discrimination, of course, is where a state flat-out imposes two different sets of fees or requirements. See, e.g., Boston Stock Exch. v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U.S. 318 (1977). Variations on the theme include instances where the state creates a set of fees or regulations, then creates an exemption for in-state industries or products, see, e.g., Bacchus, 468 U.S. 273; Hale v. Bimco Trading, 306 U.S. 375 (1939); where the state creates special burdens for interstate commerce as a condition of doing business in the state, see, e.g., Union Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1 (1910); and where the state requires the establishment of in-state business operations to enjoy special benefits available to residents. See, e.g., Bethlehem Motors Corp. v. Flynt, 256 U.S. 421 (1921).
“The commerce clause forbids discrimination, whether forthright or ingenious.” Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U.S. 454, 455-56 (1940). It precludes any “differential burden on any part of the stream of commerce.” West Lynn Creamery, 512 U.S. at 202. Therefore, where a law is facially discriminatory, any impact on interstate commerce, no matter how small, is sufficient to invoke strict scrutiny. “The volume of commerce affected . . . is of no relevance to the determination of whether a State has discriminated against interstate commerce.” Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 455 (1992). “[A]ctual discrimination, wherever it is found, is impermissible, and the magnitude and scope of discrimination have no bearing on the determinative question whether discrimination has occurred.” Assoc. Indus. of Mo. v. Lohman, 511 U.S. 641, 650 (1994).
Moreover, it does not matter for purposes of dormant commerce clause analysis, if the burden on interstate commerce is imposed based upon an exercise of the taxing power or the general police power. Rather, it is held to require a fully level playing field. For that reason, differential tax burdens repeatedly have been struck down. See Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 760 (1981) (“we need not know how unequal the Tax is before concluding that it unconstitutionally discriminates”). See also, James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Ga., 501 U.S. 529 (1991); Bacchus, 468 U.S. at 272; Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U.S. 638, 645-46 (1984); Granholm v. Heald, 544 US 460 (2005); Boston Stock Exch., 429 U.S. at 332; Halliburton, 373 U.S. at 65-75; Cf. Indeed it is a constitutional maxim that “revenue generation is not a local interest that can justify discrimination against interstate commerce.” C&A Carbone, 511 U.S. at 393. Whether or not the State possesses the tax power, it is plain that what the State cannot do is to discriminate. See Bacchus, 468 U.S. at 270; North Dakota, 495 U.S. at 448 (Scalia, J., concurring) (“That is not to say, of course, that the State may enact regulations that discriminate”). “States have broad discretion to configure their systems of taxation as they deem appropriate. (citations omitted).
SO, IS IT TRUCKS TODAY… AND CARS TOMORROW?
MAYBE – MAYBE NOT
“Fed Up in RI is NOT affiliated with, funded, or in any way associated with any other organization or institutions.”
“Legal information offered is for educational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice/legal opinions.”
How The American People Were Sold The Iraq War — should be a reminder of how ‘offensive wars’ are created and launched… from the following statements provided by Michael Isikoff, David Corn, and Geoffrey Ingersoll:
On March 19, 2003, as troops packed gear into their trucks on the Iraq-Kuwait border and loaded weapons for combat, President George W. Bush told the American people he had given the order to attack.
“At this hour, American and coalition forces are at the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger,” he said.
However, it is clear that most of the reasons given for the second post-9/11 war were dubious at best.
It All Began With The 9/11 Attacks…
One day later, Pres. Bush ordered his counter-terrorism director to find an Iraq connection.
Richard Clarke told the President: “We’ve done it before… and the answer has always been no, and it’s likely to be no this time.”
“[The President] didn’t like that answer,” Clark later told MSNBC.
Also pushing the connection was Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who was convinced that “if we looked strongly enough… we’d find the hand of Saddam Hussein,” said Isikoff.
On the afternoon of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld penned notes asking for the best way to hit Iraq, and to ask Wolfowitz for a Saddam “connection with UBL [Osama Bin Laden]”
“We all looked at each other and thought Saddam Hussein?… Bin Laden hates him. He’s a heretic. There’s no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.”
But the call went out to the intelligence services: Find the connection.
And while troops began the war on terror in Afghanistan…
Attention turned to Iraq. “I think the United States since Desert Storm has always had various planning with respect to Iraq,” said Rumsfeld.
His comments came from experience. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and a number of others urge the President to remove Saddam from power.
It was Jan. 29, 2002 when Pres. Bush named Iraq as part of the “Axis of Evil” during his State of the Union address…
But declassified documents show Rumsfeld brainstorming the Iraq war with his top General in Nov. 2001.
“9/11 made it politically possible for the first time to persuade the American people to break a tradition of not launching offensive wars.”
The following is an unofficial list of potential and declared candidates running for Governor in the Rhode Island 2018 gubernatorial election —
Gina Raimondo — Incumbent (D)
Matt Brown — Former secretary of state (D)
Spencer Dickinson — Former state rep. (D)
Paul Roselli (D)
Allan Fung — Cranston Mayor (R)
Patricia Morgan — State Rep. /ALEC state Chair (R)
Giovanni Feroce — Former state Sen. (R)
Joseph Trillo — Former state Rep. (I)
Dr. Luis Munoz — (I)
Stephen Laffey — Former Cranston Mayor (M)
How Many More Breaths Does Local Talk Radio Have Left?
‘Cumulus Media, who owns WPRO AM, WPRO FM, is in financial collapse due to big debt and an unsustainable business model…’ “claims filed against the company have begun to stack up. A total of 22 have been filed in bankruptcy court so far, including hundreds of thousands of dollars owed in taxes.” (Read more @ link below)
So, what makes Republican candidate for governor Giovanni Feroce’s Benrus battle any different from WPRO’s financial woes?
Contrary to what these talking-heads would have the public believe…
Feroce’s former lawyer, Michael F. Sweeney, a ‘Mergers & Acquisitions’ attorney — may have engaged in a ‘hostile takeover’ involving Benrus assets that are in litigation — which happens everyday in the world of big business, and has nothing to do with his ability to lead an organization, or the State of Rhode Island.`
On the other hand, WPRO’s financial melt-down IS directly tied to its management and poor ratings – which IS a personal reflection on their capabilities.
In the spirit of Rhode Island Independence Day — to understand how far we’ve strayed, please take a moment to read the following words from our Founders who were clear about our Constitution’s Rule of Law and its prescribed protections for our Independence…
George Washington: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all. … Should, hereafter, those incited by the lust of power and prompted by the supineness or venality of their constituents, over-leap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to show, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.”
John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People. … [T]hey may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. … A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. … The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. … The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are Constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch. … On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. … In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Alexander Hamilton: “[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. … The Judiciary … 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. … If it be asked, ‘What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic?’ The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last. … A sacred respect for the Constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. … [T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes — rejecting all changes but through the channel itself provides for amendments.”
James Madison: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. … If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
Today, our nation is in disarray. Our Constitution has been trampled, and the decline of the moral fabric of our society is in question. Our governments have lost the trust of the people. Our courts do not uphold the Constitution, and the American people afraid for the future of their children are being told to relinquish even more of their individual liberties in the name of security – by a federal government and state bureaucracies operating outside their constitutional boundaries that continue to encroach upon the God given rights of ‘We The People’ enshrined in and protected by our Constitutions.
Therefore, the time has come to ask the question… “Is the Second Amendment under attack because America is in a post-constitutional “age of betrayal”— meeting the definition of tyranny as understood by the Founders?”
Here are some words on the matter from the late Bob Healey, founder of The Cool Moose Party…
The Right to Overthrow
by Robert Healey
Aug 19, 2015
Opinion – Motif Magazine
“I may be on the wrong end of a gun debate, but I am still bringing a knife to this gunfight. My position is that the Second Amendment does not relate to guns, but has a far more visionary intent: revolution. To me, the argument that the Second Amendment is about guns completely misses the target. The Second Amendment is about the right to pick up a pitchfork, sword or gun to either protect or restore our rights against any tyrannical government (and oddly enough, tyrannical governments do not interpret this similarly).
The colonists, having survived a bout of tyranny, were in no mood to be restricted. Guns were as commonplace as spoons and necessary for daily existence. They were a daily tool and not explicitly mentioned in the Second Amendment. Has anyone proposed any good hammer amendments recently? At the founding, tyranny was real threat. Retaining a right to keep arms to rise up against government is far more logical as the foundation for the Second Amendment.
While we can debate whether we need to preserve (or expand) our Second Amendment right of revolution, the idea that has been postulated for most of the 20th century that the Second Amendment is to protect or regulate guns is misguided. Whatever side you are on, gun control or gun ownership, you are wrong to think the Second Amendment is your problem or your savior. The real issue is the change in society and how this relates to the Second Amendment.
The deinstitutionalization of America in the late 1960s put thousands on the street based on the theory that one is insane only if the person is ‘dangerous to self or others’ (usually proven after a mass shooting). While deinstitutionalization was a victory for personal freedom (and humanity), the downside is that the state, freed of its commitment to its mentally deficient, failed to provide support on the outside for those released from the inside.
Mass shootings, often the work of the certifiably insane, trigger a debate about gun control under the Second Amendment when it really should initiate a discussion of how our society fails its mentally deficient. Having potentially insane people among us can be dangerous (as it was back then). Guns are an easy means for the insane to vent their frustrations, but is the solution to take away the guns or to better care for our mentally unstable? Is your answer for us to submit to more tyranny because we are allowing more freedoms? Do we still fight wars for peace?
I do not own a gun (as I may be dangerous to myself and others). I have used a gun. I can state unequivocally, I don’t see myself as shooting people (even those assholes who bring 15 items to the 10 items or less cashier. Although, as an aside, does corn count as one item or 12?). All that said, I would shoot a tyrant, with malice aforethought. I guess that means government needs to keep me happy enough not to see it as tyrannical. Either that, or take my Second Amendment rights away, or shoot me, or both.
The Second Amendment is my inalienable right to overthrow my government, and that, they will have to pry from my cold dead hands.”
Robert J. Healey, Jr.