Lawrence Klein who died last October at age 93 is most remembered for the "creation of econometric models and the application to the analysis of economic fluctuations and economic policies" as the Nobel Prize committee put it in the 1980 citation. But in these days of "macroeconomists at war" it is worth remembering that Klein was also a pioneer in exploring the reasons for differences between macro models and the views of the economists who build and estimate them. The Model Comparison Seminar that he ran during the 1970s and 1980s brought macroeconomists and their models together—macroeconomists at peace?—to understand why their estimates of the impact of fiscal and monetary policy were different. In my view there is too little of that today.
I will always be grateful to Lawrence Klein for inviting me to join his Model Comparison Seminar and enter into the mix a new kind of model with rational expectations and sticky prices which we were developing at Stanford in the mid-1980s. The model was an estimated version of what would come to be called a "new Keynesian" model, and the other models in the comparison would thus logically be called "old Keynesian." They included such famous workhorse models as the Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) model, the Federal Reserve Board's model, the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates (WEFA) model, and Larry Meyer's Macro Advisers model. It was probably the first systematic comparison of old and new Keynesian models and was an invaluable opportunity for someone developing a new and untried model.
Klein was thus shedding light in why government purchases multipliers were so different—a controversial policy issue that is still of great interest to economists and policy makers as they evaluate the stimulus packages of 2008 and 2009 and other recent policies as in the paper "New Keynesian versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers," by John Cogan, Tobias Cwik, Volker Wieland and me.


text:
Who is Vincent Chin?
New digital series "Jubilee Project: Voices" gathers Asian Americans to answer a single question.
Do you know who Vincent Chin was? The hate crime murder of Vincent Chin is often cited as a rallying point for Asian American activism, but how many people know who he was and what happened to him?
The Jubilee Project's latest video installment of "Voices" for NBC Asian America gathered a group of Asian Americans -- including myself -- to talk about Vincent Chin. Some were intimately aware of what had happened to him, while others, unfortunately but not surprisingly, had never heard of the case at all.
Learning about Vincent Chin was a seminal moment in my own Asian American political consciousness. It's one of those cases that everyone should know about, yet is perpetually at risk of being buried and forgotten to history. I think Taz's quote, which closes the piece, sums it up: "We need to remember the past to make sure it doesn't happen in the present."
The five-episode "Jubilee Project: Voices" series is part of "NBC Asian America Presents...," a new video channel that will feature documentaries centered around themes and voices found in Asian American and Pacific Islander communities. New episodes of "Voices" will be release on Tuesdays in May.
More here: Have you ever had a "lunch box" moment?
FILE UNDER: jubilee project, jubilee project voices, nbc asian america, video, vincent chin

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The art may be hand drawn or digitally produced, color or black and white.
It must be 2d, able to be mounted on the wall, and no bigger than a legal size paper (8.5"x11").
Art will be on display from March 1 - March 31.
Winners will be chosen by library staff, and announced on March 25th.


text:
import { Component } from '@angular/core';
import { NewsServiceService } from './news-service.service';
@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  templateUrl: './app.component.html',
  styleUrls: ['./app.component.css']
})
export class AppComponent {
  title = 'app';

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Q & A: What sign did Jesus give to the Jews?
Question Summary: What sign did Jesus give to the Jews?
I've got a Bible question about John 2:18-22.
21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
The New King James Version. 1996, c1982 (Jn 2:18). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
I am a Jewish believer. I have heard arguments from mainstream Jews that Jesus never fulfilled John 2:19, since he never appeared to any of the Jewish leaders after his resurrection, therefore it could not have been a sign to them.
It's a fair question asked by unbelieving Jews and deserves a fair response. I am not going to give you the standard answer most Christians give because it will not satisfy the protests of the Jews contending against the faith. My answer is long-winded Ari, but it needs a comprehensive approach to be accurate. I will be weaving aspects of the Law into my interpretation to prove the fulfillment of John 2:18-19.
Let's agree on the TERMS used in the context first; I work from the Greek and Hebrew texts, not the English versions, but I will try to keep it simple for you Ari.
· The "Jews" mentioned refer to Jewish leaders; it is very important to identify who they are. Matthew 27:39-41 is but one of several key verses that proves who the "Jews" in John 2:18-24. The Jews include the chief priests and the Pharisees.
These Jews wanted Jesus to "show" them a "sign" AFTER he had just finished cleansing the temple and making a public spectacle of them. In essence, the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to furnish them with something that distinguished his actions as being directed by the finger of God; they wanted a token or visible proof, not just the words of truth from Christ.
Elsewhere this same group of Jews asks Jesus for a "sign" using the same Greek word for "sign," which is, "seemeíon." The Strong's number listed for seemeíon is NT: 4592.
The account in Matthew is a major sticking point; in John 2:18-19 Jesus never says, "This is the sign you will receive," instead he merely states a fact, "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up." They misinterpret his words to mean Herod's temple and leave it at that.
The analogy of Jonah in the belly of the fish corresponds directly to the burial of Jesus in the tomb for 3 days and nights. Jonah being spit onto dry land by the great fish parallels when Jesus raises his physical body from a flat horizontal position to an upright, vertical position (standing up), AFTER God the Father raises him from the dead.
The main point is this: The people of Nineveh DID NOT SEE THE FISH SPIT JONAH ON DRY LAND and yet they STILL BELIEVED his message. Jesus promises these hardhearted Jews only ONE SIGN… the same thing Jonah gave the Ninevites… repent.
In the Law given by God to Moses, we find a very important link to Matthew 27:37.
The Law specifies that if an accusation is made of anyone deserving death in Israel, a minimum of two witnesses is required, but one witness alone is not allowable. Turn to Deuteronomy 17:2-13 and read the entire context carefully.
The Jews disobeyed their OWN LAW and had the Roman government act as both JUDGE and executioner of Jesus. Neither God the Father, nor His son Jesus owed these stiff-necked Jews any visible "sign" because they had broken covenant with Him. These were obviously the same Jews that Jesus had spoken to in John 2:18-22.
1. There had to be evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses.
2. A difficult matter had to be taken to the Levitical priest or the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall inquire of them, and they will declare to you the verdict in the case.
The Jews violated all points of the Law, thereby nullifying any legitimate claims to its application. Scores have been written on this topic, but the main sticking point here is Points 1 & 2.
Because the Jews handed Jesus over to Herod and Pilate, these Gentile rulers became the substitutionary "judge" spelled out in the terms of the Law. Therefore, according to the Law, the "two witnesses" to Christ's death would also be Roman Gentile guards (legally).
According to the Law, if the Jews used the Romans to "destroy" the "temple" of Jesus' body, they relinquished their legal right be witnesses to his death AND resurrection. As a result, the TWO GUARDS, stationed at the tomb on behalf of and by the Jews, were LEGALLY witnesses of his resurrection for them, under the terms and requirements spelled out in Deuteronomy 17:2-13.
There you have it Ari; the Jews were given the sign of Jonah, just as Jesus promised. The Jews had their two legal witnesses (the Roman guards) come to them and give an EYEWITNESS account to his resurrection. They were legally accountable now.
Did the Jews repent once given the sign of Jonah? No! Instead, they blasphemed the Holy Spirit by paying blood money to the guards to spread a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body.
Aside from all these facts, and in spite of their unbelief, Jesus still gave the Jews a "sign" of when they were in the act of "destroying" the temple of his body; it is found in Matthew 26: when Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus to the Jews with a "sign" (seemeíon) of a kiss.
· Matthew 26:47-48, 57 And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and elders of the people. 48 Now His betrayer had given them A SIGN (seemeíon), saying, "Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him." 57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
I'm out of time for today Ari, but this should sum it up. Keep us in prayer will you, and come back to visit often!
Thank you so much for your thorough response. I do see now the fulfillment of the sign, although I'm not sure I accept all the points you brought up.
In my opinion, the sign of Jonah was more than the preaching of repentance; otherwise there would have been no need to mention the part about the Son of Man being three days and three nights in the belly of the earth (Matt 12:40) or raising the temple after three days (Jn 2:19).
However, the sign was fulfilled when the Jews were told about Jesus' resurrection by the Roman guards and acted to cover up the truth. If they had not believed the guards, they would not have paid them money or asked them to spread a false story. So even though they did not physically see Jesus, they knew that Jesus had made His resurrection known to them through a report that they acted upon, demonstrating their belief that the report was true.
Regarding the Jews violating the four requirements of the death penalty in Deuteronomy 17:2-13, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says: "The council could give a guilty verdict, but the Jews at that time were not allowed to impose the death penalty. Only Rome could sentence to death." (on Luke 22:71). Therefore, the Jews could not have violated the laws requiring taking the matter to the Levitical priests in the place that the Lord chose, nor stoning the person to death, nor witnesses throwing the first stones, since those laws were superceded by Roman law. However, they themselves were the witnesses of His "blasphemy", which they mistakenly attributed to Him, so in their interpretation of the Law, they were the witnesses, not the Roman guards.
I agree with all but one of your points; the Jews did pass a guilty verdict, but did so illegally. Besides that, they are not allowed to appeal to foreign government according to Deuteronomy 17; it is expressly forbidden. Roman law never supercedes God's law, regardless of what the commentaries say. If the Jews remained true to the application of the law all the way, they could never have arrived at their verdict. But their hearts were far from God anyhow, so it's a mute point, since in their unbelief and hardheartedness, deception blinded them.
You see, my point was, they went to Pilate and said, "Our law says this man must die, but your law disallows us to put him to death." That was forbidden for them to go to Rome by God's law. In subjecting themselves and their law to Rome, they now become completely subservient to Gentile law, especially when they said they have no king but Caesar. This is tantamount to then saying to Rome, "Here's our law, we want you to execute it YOUR way." Thus the terms of the law are now applicable legally by Gentiles.
Just some additional thoughts Ari; I like discussing it with you.


text:
Пётр Иванович Чардынин (, Пензенская губерния, Российская империя — 14 августа 1934, Одесса, СССР) — русский актёр и кинорежиссёр эпохи немого кино.

Биография
Пётр Иванович Красавцев (по другим источникам — Красавчиков) родился в крестьянской семье в Пензенской губернии, по другим сведениям — в Чердыни Пермской губернии. Позже его семья переехала в Симбирск. По другим данным — в Симбирске.

В 1890 году поступил в Музыкально-драматическое училище при Московском филармоническом обществе по драматическому классу, который вели сначала А. И. Южин и А. Н. Невский, а с 1891 года В. И. Немирович-Данченко. По окончании училища взял псевдоним Чардын, затем — Чардынин.

Работал в провинциальных театрах актёром и режиссёром.

С 1908 года — в труппе Введенского народного дома, вместе с которой был приглашён сниматься в фильмах ателье Ханжонкова «Песнь про купца Калашникова» и «Русская свадьба XVI столетия», которые ставил Василий Гончаров. Быстро овладел профессией постановщика, начал сам выступать в качестве режиссёра (дебют в кинорежиссуре — фильм «Власть тьмы», 1909) и вскоре стал ведущим постановщиком у Ханжонкова.

В 1916 году, после появления среди работающих у Ханжонкова режиссёров Евгения Бауэра, почувствовал себя «отодвинутым на второй план» и ушёл в конкурирующее киноателье Дмитрия Харитонова, где снял несколько чрезвычайно успешных мелодрам. Всего до 1917 года Чардынин успел поставить около 200 фильмов, из которых сохранились 34. Сохранились в основном фильмы периода 1909—1914 гг. (25 фильмов из 50). Наибольшей плодотворности Чардынин достиг в 1915 году, поставив 35 фильмов. Как правило, он являлся шефом-оператором всех своих фильмов. Отдельные картины он снимал сам.

В 1918 году на экраны вышел двухсерийный фильм-бенефис «Молчи, грусть… молчи…», которым было ознаменовано десятилетие кинематографической деятельности Петра Чардынина. Он поставил фильм по собственному сценарию и блестяще сыграл в нём одну из ключевых ролей.

Пётр Чардынин стоял у истоков латвийского кино. В 1920 году актёр и режиссёр Вилис Сеглиньш по своему сценарию снял получасовой фильм «Уходя на войну». В том же году было основано АО «Латвью филма» режиссёром и актёром П. Чардыниным и В. Сеглиньшем. В 1921 году «Латвью филма» организовало курсы киноактёров, которыми руководили его основатели.

В 1920—1923 годах Чардынин эмигрировал в Латвию, затем вернулся на родину, где работал на украинских киностудиях.

Историк отечественного кино Ромил Соболев написал, что «вклад Чардынина в развитие русского кинематографа очень велик и место, занимаемое им в истории, весьма почётно». Киноведы Ю. Цивьян и Р. Янгиров отмечали, что «режиссёрский стиль Чардынина не был экстравагантным, но отличался последовательным и умным применением "авторских" приёмов».

В 1934 году Пётр Иванович Чардынин умер от рака печени в Одессе. Похоронен там же на Втором христианском кладбище. На могиле кинорежиссёра был установлен кенотаф киноактрисе немого кино Вере Холодной.

Личная жизнь
Был женат несколько раз.

С 1924 по 1929 годы (одесский период) его женой была молодая актриса Маргарита Барская. На момент заключения брака ему было 52 года, а ей – 23. Чардынин стал наставником Барской в режиссёрской профессии. Она работала его помощником, монтажёром и ассистентом режиссёра. Барская была инициатором развода, после которого уехала из Одессы в Москву и стала выдающимся режиссёром детского кино и идеологом детской кинематографии как специфического вида киноискусства.

Фильмография

 1909 — Песнь про купца Калашникова (не сохранился)
 1909 — Боярин Орша (режиссёр под вопросом)
 1909 — Власть тьмы (не сохранился)
 1909 — Женитьба (не сохранился)
 1909 — Мёртвые души
 1909 — Хирургия (не сохранился)
 1909 — Хирургия (не сохранился)
 1909 — Чародейка
 1910 — В студенческие годы (не сохранился)
 1910 — Вадим
 1910 — Воевода (не сохранился)
 1910 — Вторая молодость (не сохранился)
 1910 — Идиот
 1910 — Любовь за гробом, или жизнь за жизнь (не сохранился)
 1910 — Мания величия (не сохранился)
 1910 — Маскарад (не сохранился)
 1910 — Мёртвые души (не сохранился)
 1910 — Пиковая дама
 1911 — Боярская дочь
 1911 — Василиса Мелентьевна и царь Иван Васильевич Грозный
 1911 — Крейцерова соната (не сохранился)
 1911 — На бойком месте
 1911 — Накануне манифеста 19 февраля (не сохранился)
 1911 — Последние минуты Дмитрия Самозванца (не сохранился)
 1911 — Последний нынешний денёчек
 1911 — Светит, да не греет
 1911 — Евгений Онегин
 1912 — Барышня-крестьянка
 1912 — Весенний поток (сохранился фрагментарно)
 1912 — Любовь за гробом, или жизнь за жизнь (не сохранился)
 1912 — Рабочая слободка (не сохранился)
 1912 — Трагедия перепроизводства (не сохранился)
 1913 — Братья
 1913 — Вам такие сцены не знакомы (не сохранился)
 1913 — Воцарение дома Романовых
 1913 — Домик в Коломне
 1913 — Дядюшкина квартира
 1913 — Жизнь как она есть (не сохранился)
 1913 — За дверями гостиной
 1913 — Княгиня Бутырская (не сохранился)
 1913 — На кавказском курорте (не сохранился)
 1913 — Обрыв
 1913 — Фальшивый купон (не сохранился)
 1913 — Война и мир
 1914 — Бамбуковое положение (не сохранился)
 1914 — В руках беспощадного рока (не сохранился)
 1914 — Женщина завтрашнего дня (сохранился не полностью)
 1914 — Кормилица (сохранился не полностью)
 1914 — Король, закон и свобода
 1914 — Мазепа
 1914 — Немецкое засилье (не сохранился)
 1914 — Ревность (не сохранился)
 1914 — Руслан и Людмила (не сохранился)
 1914 — Сестра милосердия (не сохранился)
 1914 — Сказка о спящей царевне и семи богатырях
 1914 — Сорванец (сохранился фрагмент)
 1914 — Тётушка огерманилась (не сохранился)
 1914 — Тёща в плену у германцев (не сохранился)
 1914 — Ты помнишь ли? (сохранилась 1-я часть из 3)
 1914 — Хризантемы
 1914 — Цыганские романсы (сохранились 2-3 части из 3)
 1915 — Барышня в белой шапочке (не сохранился)
 1915 — Бешеная собака
 1915 — Венецианский чулок (не сохранился)
 1915 — Власть тьмы (не сохранился)
 1915 — Возрождение (не сохранился)
 1915 — Вторая молодость (не сохранился)
 1915 — Дамочки пошутили (не сохранился)
 1915 — День трёх королей (не сохранился)
 1915 — Драконовский контракт
 1915 — Дурман (не сохранился)
 1915 — Женщина завтрашнего дня, 2-я серия
 1915 — Затравленная (не сохранился)
 1915 — Злой мальчик (не сохранился)
 1915 — Инвалиды духа (не сохранился)
 1915 — Испанское недоразумение (не сохранился)
 1915 — История одного лета (не сохранился)
 1915 — Как я осаждал крепость (не сохранился)
 1915 — Катюша Маслова (не сохранился)
 1915 — Клуб нравственности (не сохранился)
 1915 — Комедия о боярыне Сапун-Тюрякиной (не сохранился)
 1915 — Комедия смерти (не сохранился)
 1915 — Краденое счастье (не сохранился)
 1915 — Любовные похождения госпожи В. (не сохранился)
 1915 — Любовь статского советника (сохранились 3 части из 5)
 1915 — Марья Лусьева (не сохранился)
 1915 — Миражи
 1915 — Наташа Ростова (не сохранился)
 1915 — Потоп (не сохранился)
 1915 — Пробуждение (не сохранился)
 1915 — Родные души (не сохранился)
 1915 — Сила внутри нас (не сохранился)
 1915 — Сладострастие (не сохранился)
 1915 — Судьба не прощает удачи (не сохранился)
 1915 — Татьяна Репина (не сохранился)
 1915 — Тени греха
 1915 — Тени ушедшего, листья опавшие... (не сохранился)
 1915 — Убогая и нарядная (сохранились 2-3 части из 3)
 1915 — Хромоножка (не сохранился)
 1915 — Юность прекрасная, светлая, чистая (не сохранился)
 1916 — Белая роза (не сохранился)
 1916 — Воскресший Дон-Жуан (не сохранился)
 1916 — Жизнью смятые души (не сохранился)
 1916 — Золотой вихрь (не сохранился)
 1916 — Илья Мурин (не сохранился)
 1916 — Любовь среди декораций (не сохранился)
 1916 — Метресса Его Превосходительства (не сохранился)
 1916 — На ложе смерти и любви (не сохранился)
 1916 — Невинная жертва (не сохранился)
 1916 — Принцесса Греза (не сохранился)
 1916 — Ради счастья (не сохранился)
 1916 — Ребёнок-крошка (не сохранился)
 1916 — Роковой талант (не сохранился)
 1916 — Столичный яд (не сохранился)
 1916 — Шпаргалкин (не сохранился)
 1917 — Блуждающие огни (не сохранился)
 1917 — Жизнь Барона (не сохранился)
 1917 — Измена идеалу (не сохранился)
 1917 — На алтарь красоты (не сохранился)
 1917 — Поединок любви (не сохранился)
 1917 — Позабудь про камин, в нём погасли огни (не сохранился)
 1917 — Почему я безумно люблю (не сохранился)
 1917 — Пытка молчания (не сохранился)
 1917 — Раб женщины (не сохранился)
 1917 — Софья Перовская (не сохранился)
 1917 — У камина (не сохранился)
 1918 — Азра (не сохранился)
 1918 — Красная заря (не сохранился)
 1918 — Молчи, грусть… молчи… (сохранилась 1-я серия из 2)
 1919 — Мученики мола (не сохранился)
 1919 — Одесская чрезвычайка (не сохранился)
 1919 — Рубиновская саламандра (не сохранился)
 1919 — Тайна июльской ночи (не сохранился)
 1919 — Три капли крови (не сохранился)
 1919 — Чёрная хризантема (не сохранился)
 1920 — Красный Касьян (не сохранился)
 1920 — На заре (не сохранился)
 1920 — Рассказ о семи повешенных (не сохранился)
 1921 — В вихре времени \ Laiku viesulī (Латвия) (не сохранился)
 1921 — Fricītis jūrmalā (Латвия) (не сохранился)
 1921 — Дубровский, атаман разбойников \ Dubrowski, der rauber ataman (Германия) (не сохранился?)
 1921 — Человек-зверь \ Bestie mensch (Германия) (не сохранился?)
 1922 — Психея \ Psihe (Латвия) (не сохранился)
 1922 — Vilkiem mests laupījums (Латвия) (не сохранился)
 1923 — Магнитная аномалия (не сохранился)
 1923 — Не пойман — не вор
 1923 — Хозяин Чёрных скал (не сохранился)
 1925 — Генерал с того света (не сохранился)
 1925 — Изобретатель (не сохранился)
 1925 — Соль (не сохранился)
 1925 — Укразия
 1926 — Тарас Трясило
 1926 — Тарас Шевченко
 1927 — Каприз Екатерины II (не сохранился)
 1927 — Черевички (не сохранился)
 1928 — За монастырской стеной (не сохранился)
 1930 — Червонцы (с Михаилом Шором, не сохранился)
 1932 — Событие в степи (не сохранился?)

Примечания

Литература

Ссылки
 С. Конаев. Театральная карьера Петра Чардынина
 Чардынин, Пётр Иванович
 Фильмы из цикла «Русское кино. XX век. Документы и свидетельства». Фильм 2. «В начале был Чардынин» (реж. В. Лисакович, 2005)

Режиссёры немого кино
Умершие от рака печени
Похороненные на 2-м Христианском кладбище Одессы
Русские эмигранты первой волны в Латвии
Эмигранты из Латвии

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


From time to time we send promotion codes to customers. To receive your discount, simply enter the code into the 'Promotion Code' box at the checkout. The code is made up of a mixture of letters and numbers.
If the promotion code isn't working, please make sure it has been entered correctly. All promotion codes must be entered in capital letters exactly as they appear on your brochure, promotional card or email. The promotional discount will be applied immediately before payment is taken.
All conditions and expiry dates for any current promotions can be found in our 'Terms and Conditions'.


text:
Why the States must Nullify the National Voter Registration Act Now!
From the earliest days of our Republic, 1 some years before our federal Constitution of 1787 was ratified; 2 the Citizens of the States determined the qualifications for voting, and memorialized these qualifications in their State Constitutions. In keeping with this hallowed practice, the Citizens of North Carolina recently amended Article VI of their State Constitution to add to the Qualifications for voting the requirement that persons voting in person present a photo ID [link].
But lawsuits have been filed in federal court objecting to the photo ID's; and the judge on one of them, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs [Mid. Dist. North Carolina], has announced that she will issue a preliminary injunction against the requirement that voters present a photo ID. North Carolina election officials scurried to comply with Judge Biggs' announcement; and Republican politicians called for an appeal [link].
The purpose of this paper is to show a better way to proceed – to show how North Carolina can enforce the US Constitution and the qualifications for voting set forth in its State Constitution.
We begin by looking at what our federal Constitution says about qualifications of voters.
1. Our federal Constitution enshrines the pre-existing practice where States set the qualifications for voters
In our federal Constitution of 1787, the States expressly retained their pre-existing power to determine the qualifications of voters: Article I, §2, cl. 1, US Constit., says,
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." [italics added]
So! Under our federal Constitution, those who are eligible to vote for Representatives to their State Legislature are, by definition, the ones eligible to vote for Members of the federal House of Representatives.
The 17th Amendment [ratified 1913] provided that those who were eligible to vote for Representatives to the US House would also be eligible to vote for the US Senators.
With four later amendments, the States decided that they would not deny eligibility to vote to Citizens on account of race (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay taxes (24th Amendment), and for those 18 years of age or older on account of age (26th Amendment).
So the States have retained their original authority to set whatever qualifications for voting they deem appropriate, subject to their agreement (with each other) that they would not deny suffrage on account of a Citizen's being in one of those four categories.
2. Voting fraud
But today, we all know that, due to the federal government's long continuing refusal 3 to control immigration 4 and protect the States from Invasion,5 illegal aliens are flooding into our Country. In at least 15 States, illegals may get drivers' licenses [link] [link]; and with California's "motor voter law", illegals are automatically registered to vote when they get a drivers' license! 6
Furthermore, there are Precincts in this Country where well over 100% of the registered voters turn out to vote [link]! This Georgia Precinct had a 243% voter turnout!
Our elections are also corrupted by the "ghost voters" described in Deroy Murdock's article [here]. Murdock shows that throughout the United States, over 3.5 million persons who don't exist are registered to vote. For North Carolina, Murdock finds 189,721 ghost voters. Virginia has 89,979 ghost voters. But that's a pittance compared to California which "is a veritable haunted house, teeming with 1,736,556 ghost voters."
When you add California's 1,736,556 ghost voters to the illegal aliens who also vote there (thanks to "Motor Voter")7 and understand that this problem is nation-wide; who can deny that the States need to man-up and clean up their corrupt voting systems? The federal government has no constitutional authority to clean up the voting rolls; 8 but the States have the inherent and retained duty and power to do so.
By requiring photo IDs, the Citizens of North Carolina have taken a first step towards getting rid of some of those 189,721 ghosts, plus the illegals, who corrupt elections within their State.
3. The Federal Government has usurped the States' expressly retained power to set qualifications for Voters
In 1993, Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) [link], wherein they unlawfully seized power to dictate voter registration procedures (for federal elections) for the entire Country.
By dictating the registration procedures each State must use, and by mandating the voter registration form [the "federal form"] each State must use when registering voters; the NVRA stripped the States of their power to determine whether voters in their State meet the qualifications for voting set forth within their State Constitutions. It thus prohibits the States from enforcing the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitutions! 9
This is shown by what happened in Arizona:
The Constitution of the State of Arizona restricts voting to Citizens. During 2004, the People of Arizona (which had been overrun with illegal aliens) adopted an initiative (Proposition 200) which required those in Arizona who apply to register to vote, to provide documentary proof of citizenship. But a lawsuit was filed in federal court; and the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that since the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 doesn't require applicants for voter registration to provide documentary proof of citizenship, the States may not require it.
Thereafter, in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the US Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's opinion [link].
I wrote about the Ninth Circuit's opinion [here] and the Supreme Court's opinion [here]. Both opinions are monuments to judicial incompetence – or worse. The assertions made by the Courts in their attempts to justify their unconstitutional judgments are demonstratively false. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court is also logically incoherent.
But here we are: The Supreme Court has held that since the federally mandated voter registration form doesn't require that persons registering to vote provide proof of citizenship, the States may not require it. What this means, in practice, is that the States must register anyone who fills out the federal form.
4. So where does this leave North Carolina?
The federal voter registration form may be seen (in 15 different languages) [here].
The federal form doesn't require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID. Therefore, consistent with Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., North Carolina may not require applicants for registration to provide a photo ID.
May North Carolina require voters to present a photo ID when they show up to vote? The Supreme Court hasn't directly addressed this; 10 but consider that since the federal government requires the States to register anyone who fills out the federal form, why would the feds permit the States to deny exercise of the suffrage to any name which is "registered"?
We already know how U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs is going to rule – and her ruling is consistent with the Supreme Court's lawless holding in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.
5. Are There any Men in North Carolina?
The 7th paragraph of our Declaration of Independence recites how the Colonists opposed with manly firmness the King's invasions on the rights of the people.
Are there any politicians in North Carolina today who will oppose the federal government's invasions on the rights of the Citizens of North Carolina to set and enforce requirements for voting within their State?
A State Attorney General with brains and a spine would inform the federal judge that North Carolina won't participate in the litigation; that she may issue all the Orders and Judgments she wants – North Carolina will ignore them – because (if she obeys the Supreme Court instead of the federal and State Constitutions) her Orders and Judgments will be void as in violation of Article I, §2, clause 1, US Constitution; and as in violation of the Sovereign Rights of North Carolina to enforce their own Constitution respecting voter qualifications.
What could a federal judge do about such a principled response from North Carolina? She has no Army. She has no power to enforce her judgments. She has to depend on the Executive Branch of the Federal government to enforce her judgments.11
So we would find out whether Trump actually means it when he says he wants honest elections, or whether he is just another fake "conservative". If he is a fake, he will send in the National Guard to enforce the Judge's unconstitutional judgment. But if Trump lives up to his words about the need for honest elections [link]; then he will refuse to send in the National Guard to enforce the unconstitutional Judgment; and North Carolina will have won the Battle and set a noble example for other States to follow.
The Deep State which controls the federal government doesn't want elections cleaned up – they need dirty elections to get their henchmen in office. So they have embarked upon a course of action (such as the NVRA) to try to prevent the States from cleaning up elections. So, for Heaven's Sake! Man up and resist! Our Framers always advised the States to resist unconstitutional acts of the federal government [link] [link]! We will never get honest elections unless the States man up and reclaim their rightful authority over their own voter rolls. Do it before you lose the political power to do it.
1 From 1778 to 1789, we operated under our first federal Constitution, the Articles of Confederation [link].
2 Our present federal Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 [link].
3 Both political parties have embraced the Globalists' open borders policy – both parties have failed to secure our Borders.
4 Art. I, §9, cl. 1, US Constit., delegates to Congress as of January 1, 1808, the power to control immigration.
5Art. IV, §4, US Constit., requires the federal government to protect each of the States against Invasion.
6 During 2013, California passed a law which permits illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses [link]; and during 2015, consistent with the unconstitutional National Voter Registration Act, passed "Motor Voter" providing that when one gets a drivers' license, one is automatically registered to vote [link].
7 So with a "National Popular Vote" for President, or to ratify a new Constitution (if the mode of ratification for the new Constitution is a national referendum), it would be easy to steal the outcome! Illegal aliens and "ghost voters" in California alone would determine the outcome for the entire Country.
8 President Trump's Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017, which purported to establish a "Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" [link], is unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government.
9 Justice Thomas understands this: Until the federal government usurped power over this issue, the States always determined their own procedures for registration of those who were, pursuant to their State Constitution, qualified to vote. The function of registration of voters is so that the States may determine whether the qualifications for voting set forth in their State Constitution have been met! Justice Thomas points out in his dissent in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. at II. A. 2:
"This understanding of Article I, §2, is consistent with powers enjoyed by the States at the founding. For instance, ownership of real or personal property was a common prerequisite to voting … To verify that this qualification was satisfied, States might look to proof of tax payments… In other instances, States relied on personal knowledge of fellow citizens to verify voter eligibility. . . States have always had the power to ensure that only those qualified under state law to cast ballots exercised the franchise.
Perhaps in part because many requirements (such as property ownership or taxpayer status) were independently documented and verifiable, States in 1789 did not generally "register" voters . . . Over time, States replaced their informal systems for determining eligibility, with more formalized pre-voting registration regimes. . . But modern voter registration serves the same basic purpose as the practices used by States in the Colonies and early Federal Republic. The fact that States have liberalized voting qualifications and streamlined the verification process through registration does not alter the basic fact that States possess broad authority to set voter qualifications and to verify that they are met." [italics added].
10 In the Supreme Court's majority opinion [link], Scalia mentioned (4th para down from top) that Arizona's Proposition 200 also required voters "to present identification when they vote on election day"; but he did not grace us with an answer as to whether States may require voters to prove that they are who they say they are when they show up to vote.
11 As Alexander Hamilton points out in Federalist No. 78, the Judicial Branch is the weakest branch. All they can do is issue orders and judgments – they can't enforce their orders and judgments. They must rely on the Executive Branch to carry them out:
"… the judiciary… will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments." [caps are Hamilton's; italics added]
February 27, 2020 Posted by Publius Huldah | Arizona Lawsuit, Arizona's Proposition 200, federal election of 2020, National Voter Registration Act, Nullification, Voter eligibility, Voter Qualifications	| Arizona law suit, Arizona's Proposition 200, National Voter Registration Act, Nullification, qualifications for voters | 20 Comments
The Trial of The Lawsuit Against The State of Arizona: Must Supreme Court Judges Obey The Constitution?
In my last paper, I showed that Our Constitution requires that the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Brewer be tried in the supreme Court; and that federal district court judge Susan Bolton has no constitutional authority to preside over the trial.
But some lawyers responded that the case is properly before Judge Bolton because Congress & the supreme Court have said that cases where a State is a Party may be tried in federal district court.
Thus we come to The Pivotal Question of Our Time: Will we restore the Rule of Law, which prevails when people in the federal government obey The Constitution? Or will we side with those who seek to expand the Rule of Men, where people holding Power do whatever they want?
1. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them to ratify it. Thus, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution. And at a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825 at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were present, the following resolution selecting the texts for the Law school, was passed:
So! Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, Father of The Constitution, acknowledged the high authoritative status of The Federalist Papers. They saw The Constitution as having a fixed meaning which one could learn by consulting The Federalist!
2. But supreme Court judges soon refused to submit to The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers. In 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, "…the Constitution is what the judges say it is…". Judges thus rejected the objective standard provided by The Federalist, and substituted their own subjective interpretations. Law schools embraced this subversion: Instead of teaching The Constitution as a set of fixed principles explained by The Federalist, they taught supreme Court opinions which say Congress may do whatever it pleases. They also taught that supreme Court judges have unbridled authority to say what the Constitution means. Law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges who have been indoctrinated with the monstrous Lie that Our Constitution means whatever judges on the supreme Court say! And because these lawyers failed in their sacred duty to think, and uncritically accepted what they were told, Our Country is on the brink of destruction.
Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute understands this pivotal issue. He said:
Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don't? Absolutely – if we lived under the Constitution. But we don't. Today we live under something called "constitutional law" – an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions – and that "law" reflects the Constitution only occasionally.
Now you see how we came to this sorry state where lawyers insist on a view of Art. III, §2 which is, to the eye of reason, contrary to The Constitution: They don't obey The Constitution – they obey the supreme Court, as they were conditioned in law school to do.
3. Let us review Art. III, §2:
Clause 1 lists the categories of cases federal judges are permitted to hear.
Now look at clause 2: The FIRST SENTENCE lists two of the categories set forth in clause 1 (cases affecting "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" & "those in which a State shall be Party") and says that in ALL such cases, the supreme Court SHALL have original [trial] jurisdiction.
The SECOND SENTENCE says that in all the other cases set forth in clause 1, "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
The Constitution is clear! So is The Federalist. In No. 81, Hamilton sums it up:
We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, "with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make." (15th para) [emphasis in original]
See also, as to the supreme Court's original jurisdiction, No. 81 (13th para).
As to the "exceptions & regulations" respecting the supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, see No. 81 (last 6 paras): the exceptions & regulations merely address the mode of doing appeals.
I explained the original intent of the "exceptions clause" in a previous paper. But the most eloquent explanation of this whole issue is that given by Dr. Alan Keyes in his recent article at World Net Daily, and in his linked article on his website.
The supreme Court once knew that Congress could not reduce its original jurisdiction! In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the supreme Court discussed Art. III, §2, clause 2:
…If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance…(p 174)
…When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original… [emphasis added] (p 175)
Marbury v. Madison got it right – THAT is what the Constitution & The Federalist Papers actually say! But today, supreme court jurisprudence has "evolved" to embrace a view which contradicts The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and Marbury v. Madison!
4. So! In a recent article at World Net Daily, Bob Unruh quoted constitutional lawyers Herb Titus and John Eidsmoe to the effect that the "exceptions & regulations" language in the SECOND SENTENCE of clause 2 (which defines the supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction), permits Congress to reduce the supreme Court's original jurisdiction granted in the FIRST SENTENCE of clause 2!
Why do lawyers say this? Because Congress at 28 USC § 1251 et seq., & the supreme Court (e.g., Case v. Bowles (1946) at page 97) said so; and they go by what the supreme Court last said, not by the Constitution! Lawyers are trained to obey the supreme Court – they do not actually believe that the supreme Court is subject to The Constitution. Like Charles Evans Hughes, they see the supreme Court as above The Constitution!
5. Mr. Titus is also quoted as saying, "Could you imagine every case that involves a state as a party being before the Supreme Court? The court would be so loaded with those kinds of cases." Mark Levin (audio rewind for 08/03 at 69) said there was a "200 year history", "states are sued all the time", "every time a state is sued it goes to the supreme court?", and that only lawyers "who have no idea of what the history is" would say that only the supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the case against Arizona!
I do not wish to pillory good men. But really, gentlemen! THINK! In addition to failing to consider the actual text of Art. III, §2, clause 2; you have failed to consider two obvious points:
ONE: As Art. III, §2, clause 1 shows on its face, the judicial Power of the United States extends only to cases of "federal" or "national" cognizance. Hamilton explains each category of case in Federalist No. 80, and shows why each is a proper object of the federal courts. Read it, and you will see that the judicial Power does not extend to matters of internal concern to States. Furthermore, in Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton said:
…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority. [emphasis added]
Yes! The powers of the federal courts are enumerated! Federal courts are not supposed to hear any case which does not fall within the categories listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1. If the supreme Court would stay within its enumerated powers, its case load would be greatly reduced. Read No. 80 carefully, and much will become clear – to open minds.
TWO: Congress' powers are also enumerated! Congress has constitutional authority over international commerce and war. Domestically, it has authority to establish an uniform commercial system (bankruptcy laws, a monetary system, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a limited power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery.) It has authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Amendments granted Congress powers to protect former slaves, voting rights, and lay income taxes. That's about it!
This is why Hamilton was able to say in Federalist No. 81 (15th para),
…the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. [emphasis added]
Congress' law making power is so limited by The Constitution that it has authority to make only a few laws affecting States such that litigation involving a State would arise!
But most of the laws made by Congress for over 100 years are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And since the judicial Power of the federal courts includes all Cases arising under "the Laws of the United States", the federal courts are clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws!
Requiring the supreme Court to obey the Constitution [that's a novel idea!] and conduct the trials of cases of federal cognizance where a State is Party, would be a check on the powers of Congress. If the supreme Court's trial docket were clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws, perhaps it would do its duty & declare the laws unconstitutional!
6. To Herb Titus, John Eidsmoe, Mark Levin, and all the attorneys who contacted me citing the US Code and more recent supreme Court decisions which purport to say the supreme Court is not required to exercise original jurisdiction in ALL cases of federal cognizance in which a State is a Party: –
Take another look! If we are to restore our Constitutional Republic with its federal form of government, we all must reconsider and reexamine everything we think we "know" about The Constitution. Because most of what we think we know, just ain't so. PH
August 16, 2010; revised August 23, 2010.
August 16, 2010 Posted by Publius Huldah | Arizona Lawsuit, Article III Courts, Article III, Sec. 2, Marbury v. Madison, Original and appellate jurisdiction	| 18 Comments
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer.
1. Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don't read it. It is certain that only a few in Congress have even heard of it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
In ALL Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court SHALL have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction… [emphasis added]
"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a "trial" is – you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.
See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).
In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:
…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party." Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…[boldface added, caps in original]
Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped, by the Constitution, of jurisdiction to hear it.
2. So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:
(a) File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
(b) If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.
A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law "extraordinary writ": It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:
….the fact still remains that 'only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial 'usurpation of power' will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.' …(para 13)
When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped – by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 – of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona.
For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.
3. Now, let us examine a hurdle before us: For a very long time, as PH continually points out, Congress and the federal courts have ignored the Constitution. Congress has made innumerable laws which exceed the scope of the legislative powers delegated to it, and the supreme Court has applauded such usurpations!
But respecting the judicial power of the federal courts, Congress has made a law which directly contradicts Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 of Our Constitution! That pretended law is 28 USC § 1251:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens. [emphasis added].
Do you see what this pretended "law" purports to do? It purports to say that lawsuits filed by the United States government against States can be tried in federal district courts!
But Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says that in "ALL" [federal] Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court "SHALL" have original jurisdiction (i.e., the supreme Court is to conduct the trial). In Our Constitution, We delegated to the supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of such cases in which States are a party. We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals. And Congress may not alter, by any pretended "law", Our grant of power which was to the supreme Court alone.
The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the People and to induce them to ratify it. For this reason, the Federalist is the most authoritative commentary we have on the original intent of the Constitution. The States understood, before their delegations ratified the Constitution, that if they were ever sued by the new federal government, their case would be tried before the supreme Court! As noted above, Hamilton said, respecting suits against States:
…In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…
Congress may not unilaterally change the rules after the fact!
Article V sets forth the procedures for amending the Constitution. Note that the 11th Amendment (ratified 1795) was ratified to reduce the Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, Jurisdiction of the federal courts. If it is desired to extend to federal district courts the judicial Power to preside over [federal] cases in which a State is a party, then it can only be done by constitutional amendment.
In Federalist No. 78 (10 para), Alexander Hamilton says:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis added]
Congress may not amend Our Constitution by making a "law". Any such pretended "law" is void.
4. Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion! Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty – it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending herself! PH.
I don't cite SCOTUS opinions as authority, because they have become nothing more than judges' personal opinions on the cases before them. We have well over 100 years accumulation of such opinionated precedent! And, as when making photocopies of copies, after a while the original meaning is lost altogether.
Because of the firestorm over this paper, I now break my own rule and cite a SCOTUS case. And the case I cite is the most famous case in our country. It is a case which every American lawyer is supposed to have read in law school. That case is Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (1803), written by Chief Justice John Marshall. At pages 174-175, Justice Marshall discusses Art. III, §2, clause 2:
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage — is entirely without meaning — if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. [emphasis added]
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original…. [emphasis added]
But current supreme court jurisprudence has "evolved" to embrace the view which Chief Justice John Marshall ridiculed in this 1803 landmark case.
Folks! This is The Question of our Time: Must SCOTUS obey the Constitution?
July 30, 2010 Posted by Publius Huldah | Arizona Lawsuit, Article III Courts, Article III, Sec. 2, Marbury v. Madison, Original and appellate jurisdiction	| 101 Comments
The Arizona Illegal Alien Law & The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Exclusive & Concurrent Jurisdiction Explained.
The Sovereign State of Arizona recently made a law which provides for the cooperative enforcement – with the federal government – of federal immigration laws throughout Arizona. The People of Arizona are suffering terribly from massive Invasions of their Southern Border; and because the federal government refuses to repel the Invasions, the People of Arizona are forced to defend themselves.
Here is the text of the amazingly innocuous Arizona Law. Read it, and you will know more about it than the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder! On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before Congress that he hadn't read the Arizona Law; even though on previous occasions, he attacked the Law as "an unfortunate one", which is subject to "potential abuse" and the "possibility of leading to racial profiling". In short, he, Eric Holder, doesn't think the Arizona Law is "necessarily a good idea".
Of course, Holder's personal views are irrelevant when it comes to official Acts of Sovereign States. The only legitimate Question is this: Does the Arizona Law violate the U.S. Constitution? And the clear answer to that Question is, "No!"
1. Let us look at the "supremacy clause" of the Constitution. Article VI, clause 2 says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]
Note the two emphasized phrases, for therein is the Answer to the Question.
a) First, we must learn that only Laws made by Congress which are pursuant to the Constitution qualify as part of the supreme Law of the Land. Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 27 (last para):
…the laws of the Confederacy [federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws… [emphasis in original]
In Federalist No. 33 (next to last para), Hamilton says:
…But it will not follow…that acts of…[the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the..[the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such…[Art. VI, cl. 2] EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [emphasis in original]
In the next paragraph, Hamilton points out that a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,
…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution….
So! When Congress makes laws which are not within its enumerated powers, such pretended laws are mere acts of usurpation and have "supremacy" over nothing.
b) Second, note that Art. VI, clause 2 also shows that only laws of States which are Contrary to the Constitution must fall. States may make whatever laws they wish (consistent with their State Constitutions) except as prohibited by the US Constitution. Laws specifically prohibited to the States are listed at Art. I, Sec. 10. States also may not properly make laws which contradict the Constitution. For example, a State Law which purported to permit 25 year olds to be US Senators would contradict Art. I, Sec. 3, clause 3, and thus would fail under the "supremacy clause".
So Remember! When a State Law is not contrary to the Constitution, it remains in full force & effect and is not affected one jot by the "supremacy clause".
2. Let us now look at "exclusive jurisdiction" – those very few matters in which the federal government has sole authority to act. Obviously, when Our Constitution bestows sole authority on the federal government, then any State Law to the contrary would fall. Hamilton explains this in Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):
…the State governments …clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not… EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation …of State sovereignty would only exist in three cases… [emphasis in original]
Hamilton then describes the three cases where the Constitution grants to the federal government exclusive authority to act:
(a) Where the Constitution expressly grants an exclusive authority to the federal government; as in Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause, which grants to Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, Forts, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
(b) Where it grants an authority to the federal government, and prohibits the States from exercising that same authority; as in Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 1, which authorizes Congress "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"; and Art. I, Sec. 10, clause 2, which declares that, "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports…."
(c) Where it grants an authority to the federal government, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely & totally CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT; as in Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE.
So! These three are the only cases where the federal government has exclusive authority. In all other matters within the ENUMERATED powers, the federal and State governments have "concurrent jurisdiction". [Of course, as shown below, the States governments have exclusive jurisdiction over most of the matters within their respective Borders.]
3. Let's look now at "concurrent jurisdiction" – where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to act and does not prohibit the States from acting on the same matter. Here, the federal government and the States have "a concurrent and coequal authority" (Federalist No. 32, 3rd para)! Might there be some conflicts when both the federal government and State governments are acting on the same matter? Yes! But as Hamilton pointed out:
It is not …a mere possibility of inconvenience in the exercise of powers, but an immediate constitutional repugnancy that can …alienate and extinguish a pre-existing right of sovereignty [in the States]. (4th para)
The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor…[This]is…clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the…proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwith-standing the …grants of …authorities [to the federal government], there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States…[Art. I, Sec. 10] consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the…[proposed Constitution], which…refutes every hypothesis to the contrary. (5th para)
So! Even where the Constitution delegates a power to the federal government, the Sovereign States retain a concurrent and coequal authority over the same matter unless the Constitution specifically prohibits the States from exercising that power.
4. Now let us look at Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4. This is the clause which some in the "open borders" crowd claim "trumps" the Arizona Law. Well, well! Theirs is a silly argument indeed, and we can dispose of it easily. The clause reads:
The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…
James Madison explains in Federalist No. 42 (4th para from end) the reason for the clause. Under the Articles of Confederation, the various States had their own rules for qualifying for citizenship:
By the laws of several States, certain … aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent…with…citizenship…What would have been the consequence, if such persons…had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such … within the State proscribing them? … [C]onsequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly … made provision against them …by authorizing the general [federal] government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.
So! All this clause does is grant to the federal government exclusive authority to set the criteria for citizenship. The only way Arizona could violate Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4 would be if Arizona made a law which purported to set different criteria for citizenship in Arizona.
5. Now let us look at the Arizona Law. But you must prepare yourself for the shocking facts of this Law! When Arizona officials have made lawful contact with illegal aliens, they are going to turn them over to the custody of the federal government! Yes! Arizona officials actually propose to turn these illegal aliens over to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or to the United States Customs and Border Protection.
Other provisions of the Arizona Law address crimes committed by illegal aliens and others within the borders of the State (criminal trespass, human smuggling, impeding traffic while picking up day laborers, harboring & concealing illegal aliens, and knowingly employing illegal aliens). After the illegal aliens have served their sentences, they will be turned over to ICE or US Customs and Border Protection! Shocking, isn't it?
So, where's the conflict with the US Constitution? Identify Article, Section, & Clause, if you please! Is anyone so silly as to assert that it violates the U.S. Constitution for officials of the Sovereign State of Arizona to turn illegal aliens over to the federal authorities? Is anyone so silly as to assert that the Sovereign State of Arizona has no criminal jurisdiction over illegal aliens who commit crimes within the Borders of that Sovereign State? When illegal aliens murder, rape, and rob citizens of the Sovereign State of Arizona, does their status as illegal aliens immunize them from responsibility for their crimes? Is it the hysterical predictions that "racial profiling" might occur? Just what is "racial profiling", and where is that prohibited in the Constitution? And if the Southern Border is being invaded by Mexicans and Muslims from the Middle East, should Arizona officials focus on blue-eyed blonde-haired people who are speaking Norwegian just to show that they don't notice when someone looks Mexican or Muslim and speaks Spanish or Arabic? Are We a People who have lost our minds? Do we continue to permit political correctness to blind us to Reality? Do we continue to pretend that the naked Emperor is wearing clothes?
Alexander Hamilton shows in Federalist No. 32 (3rd para) the proper questions to ask: Is there anything in the US Constitution which makes the powers asserted by the Sovereign State of Arizona EXCLUSIVE in the federal government? Is there anything in the US Constitution which prohibits the States from exercising the powers which Arizona exercises in her Law? No and No! In fact, Arizona has exclusive jurisdiction over illegal aliens who commit violations of Arizona's Criminal Laws. And the federal government simply has no authority whatsoever to interfere. And to the extent the federal government does interfere, its actions would not be pursuant to the Constitution, but would be mere usurpations of power and would deserve to be treated as such.
There is nothing in the US Constitution which prohibits Arizona from exercising the powers in her Law. So far is this from being the case, that a plain and conclusive argument to the contrary is to be deduced from Art. I, Sec. 10, last clause:
No State shall …keep Troops…in time of Peace…or engage in War, unless actually invaded…
So! Not only may the Sovereign State of Arizona turn illegal aliens over to the custody of the federal authorities, and not only may that State prosecute illegal aliens for their crimes committed within the Borders of that State, Arizona may also keep troops and engage in War to defend herself from the Invasions. It has been shown before that Art. IV, Sec. 4 requires the federal government to protect each of the States against Invasion. But the federal government refuses to do its duty! The Sovereign States have both a retained and an express authority to do it themselves. They must do it, or be overrun. PH
June 4, 2010 Posted by Publius Huldah | Arizona Illegal Alien Law, Arizona Lawsuit, Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction, Supremacy clause	| 30 Comments


Our ordination gifts offer a life long keepsake to honor the day of ones ordination.
Our online gifts for ordination cross denominational lines. From Baptist ordination gifts, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Orthodox, Episcopalian to Pentecostal ordination gifts, these lovely gifts from the Holy Land are a wonderful way to commemorate one's call into Christian service.
Whether it be Pastor ordination gifts or Deacon ordination gifts, these lovely keepsakes will be treasured for life. We have a vast range of ordination gifts to meet anyone's budget as well. You will also find that with many of our ordination gift items that they are also priced in bulk to pass on savings to our customers when multiple gifts are needed.


text:
Filmed on location in Mexico, this excessively grotesque film is a freak show, both literally and figuratively. Santa Sangre (which means Holy Blood) is saturated with sadism, carnage, religious mania, mamings and freaks. A young boy is committed to an insane asylum as a result of his horrid childhood in a circus. The boy witnessed his mother pour acid on his father's groin after she caught him copulating with the tattooed lady. Dad, a knife thrower, seeks his revenge by hacking off Mom's arms. After the young man's release from the institution, he and his mom team in a bizarre act on the freak show circuit. She is his mind, he is her arms and he slices up every woman he comes in contact with.
Starring: Axel Jodorowsky and Blanca Guerra
Producer(s): Intersound
Distributor: Expanded Entertainment
Release Date: Monday, January 29, 1990
In one of the circus scenes an elephant is dying and blood pours from it's trunk. The scene was staged with the elephant lying on his side. The elephant drank a pleasant flavored thick liquid and expelled some through his trunk. In a later scene, scavengers break into the elephant's coffin and dismember the elephant. The dismembered parts were fake props. When chickens peck at a bloody arm, they are picking at feed placed on a prop. Dogs lap up gravy-flavored stage blood. A variety of other animals are seen briefly such as a snake, bird, puppy, horse, and pigeons. There is a scene involving many chickens where the chickens are dropping from the ceiling falling on the floor below. We have been unable to get any details on this scene, and because of the obvious potential for injury to the chickens, we are rating Santa Sangre "Questionable".


Here you can find an information about International driver license, such us a history of the development of an International Driving Permit, when and how you can use your International Driving Permit,, who and where it may be issued. Please use links above and find interesting for you information. We are working hard to find and create new topics about the International Driving Permit.
For the first time, an International Driving Permit was determined by the International Convention relative to Motor Traffic signed at Paris on 24 April 1926. Moreover, that United Nations treaty determined the form, size, contained information, and requirements of getting of the International Driving Permit. Thus, people from 18 years and older may have the International Driving Permit for driving overseas for one year from date of its issue in three categories A, B, and C – light and heavy vehicles and motorcycles.
The second time, the United Nations agreement about the International Driving Permit was signed in 1949 in the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic. That treaty confirmed new requirements to the International Driving Permit, namely, it is a 105 × 148 mm gray booklet with white inside pages first and second from which have to be written in the national language and last in France. It is allowed to drive abroad with the International Driving Permit for one year from date of its issue in five categories A, B, C, D, and E.
The last United Nations treaty about the International Driving Permit was done at Vienna in 1968. The main distinction which the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic has done in the International Driving Permit is a validity period. The International Driving Permit issued according to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic is valid for three years from the date of its issue.
The Vienna Convention has corrections of 3 September 1993 and on 28 March 2006 the last of which changed the International Driving Permit. The new model of the International Driving Permit is available from 29 March 2011; it has the new classification of 13 categories.
An International Driving Permit is a special document approved by the United Nations agreements and determined Geneva and Vienna Conventions on Road Traffic. Today, most countries in the world require from foreign drivers presence of the International Driving Permit further to their domestic driver licenses. Thus, a holder of the International Driving Permit can drive overseas on legal ground.
The International Driving Permit is the translation of an original Driver License at least on six languages (English, Spanish, French, Russian, Chinese, and Arabic), so the International Driving Permit helps its holder to circumvent difficulties with Police on account of different languages.
In many countries, rental car companies also demand of the International Driving Permit for hiring motor vehicles, consequently, the International Driving Permit gives access to all car hiring companies.
The International Driving Permit is a non-government identification document and may be useful in many situations, for instance, for realizing different bank operations or police investigation.
the International Driving Permit established by the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic of 1949.
The dimensions and page color both permits are the same; they are 105 x 148 mm grey booklets with white inside pages. The first and second pages are printed in the national language and the last two pages are printed in French. The structure of two last pages for both International Driving Permits is the same, but their contents are different. The inside pages repeat information from the last two pages in other official languages of the United Nations: English, Russian, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic. Both permits contain information about a driver and his picture and signature, category of vehicles for which this permit is valid and his term of validity, and exclusions (countries). For more information, see Form and size of the International Driving Permit.
the applicant must hold a valid Driver License issued by his domestic country.
The International Driving Permit is issued on the basis of an original Driver License; therefore, getting of the International Driving Permit doesn't required written and/or road tests.
an abroad country that has signed the Convention on Road Traffic of 1949 or 1968 and recognizes the driver license issued by another country.
International Driving Permits issued according to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic of 1968 are valid for three years from date of their issue.
Any International Driving Permit can only be used in countries where his holder is a temporary visitor. Different countries have different laws about a legal using term of the International Driving Permit. Usually, it is permitted to drive with the International Driving Permit for three, six, or twelve months; if a foreign visitor plans to stay longer than an allowed term of the International Driving Permit using, he must obtain a local driver license.
If you are going to travel to a foreign county or have a business trip, you will need the International Driving Permit as the International Driving Permit is required for driving motor vehicles by foreign drivers in most countries in the world.
Overseas, you may need the International Driving Permit not only for driving, but for renting a car too since many car hiring companies required presence the International Driving Permit.
The International Driving Permit can also be used as your personality identification in most places worldwide because the International Driving Permit is a non-government type of identification. If you want to have additional insurance abroad, you should obtain the International Driving Permit.


systems open TELNET connections and generating user command strings.
present Telnet or FTP commands for gaining access to its services.
and integrate them into his own user interface environment.
other systems around the network to get that service performed.
(numbering and storing of items), cataloging, and retrieval.
the network to work together cooperatively.
information portrayal online or in hardcopy; database querying etc.
networks of documents and messages).
The network wide linking of terminals through BBN's RSEXEC.
nonrecorded dialog and further manipulation of received messages.
subsystems such as TECO and NLS to support conferees.
The Hack system of CASE offers a bulletin board service.
environment or philosophy could do so.
proposed above.  A number seem worth mentioning here.
classes of cooperating processes can probably be systematized.
common structuring characteristics seems an important need.
this documentation is kept up to date.
when system environments are crossing machine boundaries.
defined for passing parameters back and forth between machines.
structuring HELP data bases needs agreement.
White in the thoughts above.


Financial Management – Management Professionals, Inc.
•	Owners are offered online access to their assessment account where they can sign up for paperless statements and automatic payment or pay by credit card.
•	Statements are generated monthly and provided to owners by mail or email to ensure owners are always informed of their current account balance. Up to date account history information is also available online 24/7.
•	Payment Processing is performed daily and deposited remotely to the association's operating account to improve cash flow.
•	Accurate monthly billing of assessments and other non-assessment items (owner chargebacks, parking/storage fee, fines, etc.). Late fees and interest are automatically applied based on the association's delinquency policy to improve the associations' ability to collect assessments in a timely manner.
We offer a state of the art online invoice approval process that saves you time and money while giving the board complete control over the invoice payment process.
•	Board members authorized to approve invoices receive a weekly invoice approval notification.
•	Authorized board members then log-in to their online account to view and approve invoices. The website shows all invoice expense coding and references, as well as scanned copies of invoices. Invoices can either be marked as approved or placed on hold, if there is an issue that needs to be resolved before payment is sent.
•	Additional instructions may also be sent to our accounts payable department (such as expense recoding and reference changes). This allows you to mark an invoice approved pending the completion of any instructions and a check will not be issued until the instruction is complete.
•	Once the invoices are approved, the checks are processed and mailed directly to the vendors. This eliminates the need for board members to receive, sign, and mail most checks.
There may occasionally be some checks that need to be sent to the board for signature. Checks from reserve accounts, for example, cannot be signed by our office and are mailed to the board in a check package for signature.
•	Our innovative proprietary software analyzes past spending to better predict future budgeting needs.
•	Using formula's developed over many years, we will prepare the Draft budget and present it to the board for review and approval.
•	The Balance Sheet consists of Assets & Liabilities. Assets are subcategorized by Operating Account, Reserve Accounts, Petty Cash, and Other Current Assets and Liabilities are categorized Reserves, Equity.
•	The Statement of Income & Expenses shows a comparison of Actual amounts spent versus the Budgeted amounts. The Income Category is broken down by Maintenance Fees, Interest, Late Fees/Interest, & Lien/Foreclosure Fees. Expense Categories include Contract Services, Utilities, Insurance, Maintenance and Repairs, Administration, and Reserves. A detailed Reserve Schedule is also included.
•	The Aging Report shows delinquent homeowners. The accounts are broken down by Current amount due and amount past due Over 30 days, 60 days and 90 days. The report also details any owners who have prepaid, & the total Balance. The detailed report displays homeowners that have a Credit Balance, Debit Balance and accounts that are Inactive, on Legal Hold, and Current Balance.
•	The Check Register displays the Check Number, Check Date, Vendor Code, Vendor Name, Invoice Number, Invoice Amount, and Check Reference.
•	A Bank Reconciliation report is provided for each bank account.
•	Year-end reports are prepared annually for the CPA.
•	1099 and DE-542 tax forms are processed as required.
MPI is proud to be an Accredited Association Management Company (AAMC). AAMC is the highest level of professional recognition in the community association field. Please see our detailed explanation of our services that make us the best management company in the area.
Your assigned manager is available for support by e-mail or phone to review community related concerns. Our CEO, Michael Huffman, is also available to discuss any community issues with Board members.
Response to inquiries during office hours are usually handled as they are received. If a message is left by e-mail or voicemail, we typically will respond within 4 hours for routine requests.
If you have a General Manager, online access will be available through our secure website. This will allow viewing of selected records to aid in the operation of your site office. All Board Members will have the same access to online records.
For associations with employees, we can establish payroll services for your current staff under a separate contract with ADP or continue to use your existing payroll company to update the financial reports.


Last night (August 4) I noticed a pink blush on the front part of the pupa and decided to watch it closely. This morning the blush was more pronounced (8:38 hours). However I missed the big moment! See following images.


I was born in Heliopolis city in Cairo, Egypt. I currently live in Manassas, Virginia.
Where did you learn to paint and draw?
I am self-taught. I learn through trial and error as well as touring art exhibitions and consulting with experienced artists.
What is your process? What are your preferred media?
I have no specific process. Each painting has its own different process. My favorite medium is all of the water-color family.
Do you have a daily or weekly routine?
I am used to practicing painting on a daily basis, even when I least desire it, and this is how it became a daily habit.
What is your inspiration? What are your favorite themes?
Inspiration has no specific time frame. When it comes, it comes! However, I get motivated and inspired whenever I see beauty in any of my surroundings as well as people. As for my favorite themes, anything that attracts me to paint it becomes my favorite.
Where have you shown your artwork?
Is your work available for sale? If so, where can our readers find it?
Yes, it is available for sale through my social media accounts. It's on Facebook and Instagram. They can also buy my work through my website.
What advice do you have to emerging artists?
Be yourself and paint whatever you like to paint.


islacanela, Author at Casa Chambers.
If you want to pop out and explore Castro Marim is just across the river in Portugal and has a fab castle.
Dig your toes into the sand, grab a cold drink and enjoy some live music tonight at Chiringuito Bombadill.
VOTE NOW FOR YOUR BEACH MOVIE.
We really know summer is here when the vote is opened for the summer cinema. Held just across the road from our apartment on the beach it is the highlight of our summer. My vote goes to….Kung Fu Panda 3!


KNIGHTS of COLUMBUS MEASURE UP COLLECTION: The Knights of Columbus will be here at St. MM on the weekend of April 23 / 24. They will be collecting for their "Measure Up" campaign for the Archdiocese Office of Residential Services for Persons with Mental Disabilities. This office operates several group homes for men and women. The K of C wishes to thank you in advance for your continued support and generosity for their ministry.


The big data-theft headlines continue for weeks or months. The names breached are astonishing: Apple, Target, Home Depot — household names you once expected not to fall victim. The damage is enormous.
Such headline-grabbing data robberies (and thousands more unpublicized thefts) attest to companies' essential need to do business in the cloud — as well as to the swarms of automated password hacking and guessing operations working around the clock to steal companies' online valuables.
Against such unrelenting attacks, the weak links are eventually found and breached. The 2013 data theft from Target — 40 million credit and debit card numbers stolen; 70 million personal identification records stolen — was traced to a remote attack against an HVAC company contracted by Target, according to security journalist Brian Krebs. A recent Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report found that 95 percent of breaches involve the use of stolen login credentials.
A known, authorized device — for example, a login confirmation call or text to your smartphone and an app to approve your login request.
Biometrics — a scan of your fingerprint, retina, or face.
Additional passcodes — one or several security questions and answers.
Two-factor login can help companies meet strict security compliance standards and recommendations established by the financial services industry for online credit-card and debit-card transactions, as well as the security standards mandated by federal HIPPA law to protect the privacy of medical records.
Duo Security supports thousands of organizations, including household names such as Accenture, Boston Medical, Emblem Health, Facebook, NASA, Toyota, Twitter, Virginia Tech, and Yelp. Most recently, RGTS implemented Duo Security to protect online data access provided to the staff of a major financial investment firm.
The first design dictum for Duo Security's success: It must be easy for end-users and host companies to use. That way, it gets used. An oversimplification? Not at all. So many data break-ins, famous and unknown, have occurred because security was weak.
Weaknesses arise when available security measures are cumbersome, poorly configured at the outset, and/or subsequently bypassed by host companies or authorized end users.
The BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) phenomenon of recent years is both a boon for business and a security nightmare for companies once accustomed to owning and controlling any device that had access to their data — devices that were safely ensconced behind company brick walls and electronic firewalls.
Duo Security enables companies to safely welcome and embrace diverse user-owned devices. Basic two-factor logins are available without having to install or update client-access software on the users' devices — a benefit that company employees, vendors, customers, and IT staff all value. More robust and more convenient two-factor login features are available with a downloadable Duo Security mobile app.
A cloud service that's exceptionally easy and quick for companies to implement and administer, Duo Security integrates seamlessly with enterprise cloud apps. It secures cloud apps such as Google Apps, Box, Office 365, AWS, and Salesforce with its Duo Access Gateway, which supports SAML 2.0.
Duo Security also supports a variety of Identity Providers (IdPs), including Active Directory, OpenLDAP, Google OIDC, Azure OIDC and SAML IdPs via Duo Access Gateway.
If Duo Security is so easy to implement and use, it must be lightweight, limited security, right? Wrong. In fact, the features, reporting, and configuration controls are particularly strong, versatile, and adaptable. You can readily fine-tune Duo Security's features to your particular circumstances and needs. Some examples follow.
You can allow access one or several more times until the user remedies the problem.
You can alert the user of the out-of-date problem and provide a link to the software publisher's update.
Restrict access geographically to block access from countries and regions where you don't do business.
Block access that's geographically impossible — e.g. block an individual user from logging in from Short Hills, NJ, one moment and then logging in three hours later from Bucharest.
Restrict a vendor's special access as needed to a specific calendar window, time of day, IP address, device, number of log-ins, fingerprint, geographic region, etc.
Use two separated channels to complete a login; for example, the first authentication factor travels over the Internet and the second factor travels by mobile phone connection.
Duo Security's own cloud service and infrastructure solution are designed by some of the world's best security experts. Duo Security uses asymmetric cryptography: Only the public key is kept on Duo Security's servers; private keys are stored on users' devices. If Duo Security servers were ever compromised, attackers would have access only to the public keys — not enough to access users' accounts. User logins remain safe because Duo Security does not store passwords.
Automated Updates — There' s no overhead required to update the Duo Security authentication app. Duo Security provides automatic updates every two weeks, sending the latest security and feature updates to users' devices.
High-Availability Architecture — Duo Security ensures an uptime exceeding 99.995% with a hard service level guarantee and premium private hosting available. Duo Security's servers are hosted across independent service providers that have strong physical security and certified compliance audits for PCI DSS, ISO 27001, and SSAE 16 security standards.
Duo Security provides high-availability service divided across multiple geographic regions, providers, and power grids for seamless failover. Its multiple offsite backups of customer data are encrypted.
Solid, Standardized Processes: Duo Security builds security into each step of its operations, including customer data handling, code release, upgrades, patch management, and security policies. Duo Security endeavors to meet all compliance standards, such as PCI DSS, OWASP, ISO 27001, and NIST 800. A team of independent third-party auditors regularly reviews Duo Security's infrastructure and operations.
Is Two-Factor Security Right for You?
To learn more about how two-factor security can benefit your particular organization, call your RGTS Client Advocate or 212-282-2222 (toll-free: 800-699-9199).


Portray your family or co-workers in the merriest way! Festive 3-dimensional ornament is crafted of sturdy resin, glitters with shimmery sparkles, hangs from a satiny ribbon, and is hand lettered with the family name (or department) and names you specify. Largest is 6" tall.


Not too long ago my journal pages were filled with questions. I was at a point in my life where I seemed to have every dream fulfilled. I had a husband who loved me, one I prayed so long for. I had a precocious little boy, a child I had prayed so long for. I… Continue reading Journaling Bible Giveaway!


Luxurious Couples Cottage Retreat Awesome Views of Jetty & Ocean.
DRIFTWOOD MCA 759~Perfect gem in the center of town with an oceanview loft.
Escape from it all at this 1 acre beachfront getaway.
Spectacular ocean views including Twin Rocks & Neahkahnie mountain.
Pretty, Traditional Single-Level Home Close to Beach has Private Dining Deck!


"Report on the Investigation of IG Farben Industry AG"
The Steven Spielberg Film and Video Archive of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is a major repository for moving images pertaining to the Holocaust and related topics in European history. The collection currently comprises 985 hours of archival footage. Additional materials are regularly acquired from sources throughout the world. The majority of the materials originated between 1930 and 1945.
To view a list of film and video material about I.G. Farben click here.
For other topics and a complete overview of the video material click here.
The Nuremberg war crimes trials began in November 1945, six months after Germany's defeat, on a continent still strewn with rubble and awash in displaced persons. The American military had commissioned Stuart Schulberg (brother of Budd) to make a documentary of the proceedings, believing that a visual record of Nazi crimes and of the legal process that would bring the perpetrators to justice was a crucial element to the reassertion of law and decency where barbarism had recently governed. The truth of what had been done by the defeated German regime and the fairness with which it was being addressed by the victorious powers needed to be shared with the world.
Auschwitz: The Nazis & the "Final Solution"
One of the latest documentaries about Auschwitz was produced by the BBC. First transmitted in 2005, it contains interviews with Auschwitz survivors and refers to the role of IG Farben.