Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Carolina. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2015

National Insanity Hits Mathews CountyThe



Posted by Marsha Maines on Thursday, July 30, 2015

 The war against history that has been raging for weeks now has moved to Mathews County.  The supposed threat that history posses on some people who are ignorant has no end in sight.






The 4 clips above come from a popular Walt Disney cartoon featuring Donald Duck.  They promote racism and nazism.  Yet there is no public outcry against Walt Disney for having created a bunch of these types of cartoons.  What is interesting to note is the Nazi swastika is a slight variation from a very ancient religious symbol.  Everyone cries that we should not forget our world history so that we do not ever repeat it.  So one has to ask, if everyone is removing Civil War American History, we will be doomed to repeat that which some say is racism.  So are we really being told that these folks want a return to slavery?  People being bought and sold on blocks like cattle?  The Confederate flag was a sign of Confederate state rights.  Nothing about slavery.  Slavery did not come into play in the Civil War until Abraham Lincoln threw it in at a much later date well after the war started and the Confederate flag was created.





General Robert E Lee, Recollections and Letters from Chuck Thompson

Take a look at Robert E Lee's account of the Civil War and one has to ask if it was about slavery.  Slavery was an issue since it started in Colonial America and was despised by many.  The first slave owner in the Colonial America was a black freeman who had to take his claim to court in order to be allowed to own a slave.  The problem today is ignorance.  Its a lack of many of a true history education and that is by design.  Stop believing what you see on TV.  Its only entertainment and not designed to be accurate.  Liberal liberties are taken everywhere to keep you dumbed down.  The Confederate Flag is still a symbol to so many of American Freedom and rights.  Not about racism as only a very few claim.  Once again it seems we are going to let the few control the majority and allow the violation of our own rights and thoughts just dwindle to dust.

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Governor McAuliffe Appoints 27-Member Parole Commission

Bipartisan Participants Represent Law Enforcement, Community Groups, Academia 

RICHMOND – Today Governor Terry McAuliffe announced the appointment of an experienced group of law enforcement professionals, legislators, community leaders and academics to serve on his Commission on Parole Review. On June 24ththe Governor signed Executive Order No. 44 creating the Commission and charging it with reviewing Virginia’s approach to parole and recommending any policy changes that may enhance public safety while protecting taxpayer dollars. The Commission will be chaired by former Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security Brian Moran and Secretary of the Commonwealth Levar Stoney.

“This bipartisan panel of Virginia leaders will bring an array of perspectives to this important discussion about how our Commonwealth can best keep our communities safe while spending every taxpayer dollar as wisely as possible,” said Governor McAuliffe.  “I applaud their willingness to put political dogma and preconceived notions aside and engage in a thoughtful process about how this policy has worked for Virginians over the past twenty years and whether there are any opportunities to improve it going forward. With the guidance of Co-Chairs Moran, Stoney and Earley, I am confident that their final report will represent the best interests of all citizens of the Commonwealth.”

The first meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Monday, July 20, from 1-4 p.m. in House Room 3, Virginia State Capitol

The Commission will address five significant priorities related to Parole Reform:

1.      Conduct A Review of Previous Goals and Subsequent Outcomes.
2.      Examine the Cost of Parole Reform/Abolition
3.      Evaluate the Best Practices of Other States
4.      Recommend Other Mediation Strategies
5.      Provide Recommendations to Address Public Safety Challenges

A draft report is due to the Governor by Nov. 2, 2015, with a final report due Dec. 4, 2015.


Members are as follows:

·         The Honorable Mark L. Earley, Sr., of Leesburg, Former Attorney General of Virginia; Owner, Earley Legal Group, LLC.  Will serve as Chair.
·         The Honorable Brian Moran of Arlington, Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security.  Will serve as Co-Chair.
·         The Honorable Levar M. Stoney of Richmond, Secretary of the Commonwealth.  Will serve as Co-Chair.
·         The Honorable Jill Vogel of Fauquier, Member, Senate of Virginia
·         The Honorable Dave Marsden of Burke, Member, Senate of Virginia
·         The Honorable Dave Albo of Fairfax, Member, Virginia House of Delegates; Chairman, Courts of Justice Committee
·         The Honorable Luke E. Torian of Prince William, Member, Virginia House of Delegates
·         The Honorable Kenneth W. Stolle of Virginia Beach, Sheriff, Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office
·         The Honorable La Bravia J. Jenkins of the City of Fredericksburg,  Commonwealth’s Attorney
·         Gail Arnall, Ph.D., of Washington, DC, Consultant for Outreach and Development, Offender Aid and Restoration
·         Camille Cooper of Louisa, Director of Government Affairs, The National Association to PROTECT Children & PROTECT. 
·         Marcus M. Hodges of Spotsylvania, President, National Association of Probation Executives
·         Cynthia E. Hudson of Richmond, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
·         Kimberly Lettner of FarmvilleRetired Chief of Police, Division of Capitol Police
·         William R. Richardson, Jr. of Arlington, Member, Virginia CURE; Retired partner, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr LLP.
·         Cheryl Robinette of Buchanan, Director of Substance Abuse Services, Cumberland Mountain Community Services Board
·         Mira Signer of Richmond, Executive Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness of Virginia
·         Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D.,  of Gaithersburg, MD, Professor, George Mason University
·         David R. Lett of Richmond, Public Defender, Petersburg Public Defender’s Office
·         Meredith Farrar-Owens of Henrico, Director, Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission
·         Sandra M. Brandt of Norfolk, Executive Director, STEP-UP inc.
·         Alvin Edwards, Ph.D, of Charlottesville, Pastor, Mt. Zion First African Baptist Church
·         Jack Gravely, JD. of Richmond, Executive Director, Virginia State NAACP
·         Bobby N. Vassar of Richmond, Chief Counsel (Retired), U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime
·         Timothy J. Heaphy of Charlottesville, Partner, Hunton & Williams, former United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia
·         Mindy M. Stell of Dinwiddie, President, Virginia Victim Assistance Network
·         Thomas M. Wolf of Richmond, Partner, LeClairRyan
Ex-Officio Members:

·         Tonya Chapman of Richmond, Deputy Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security
·         Karen Brown of Richmond, Chair, Virginia Parole Board
·         Harold Clarke of Richmond, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
·         Francine Ecker of Richmond, Director, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
·         Margaret Schultze of Richmond, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Social Services


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Governor McAuliffe Announces 25 New Jobs for Franklin County

English: Photo of the Virginia State Capitol b...
English: Photo of the Virginia State Capitol before renovations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
~Trinity Packaging Corporation to invest $9.5 million to expand manufacturing operation~ 

RICHMOND - Governor Terry McAuliffe announced today that Trinity Packaging Corporation will invest $9.5 million to expand capacity at its operation in the Town of Rocky Mount in Franklin County. The project will create 25 new jobs. Virginia successfully competed against New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee for the project.

               Speaking about today’s announcement, Governor McAuliffe said, “Trinity Packaging Corporation continues to grow in Franklin County, as this project is the company’s second major investment in its Rocky Mount operation in less than four years. Trinity’s history spans nearly 100 years, and we are proud that this valuable Virginia employer is on the roster of companies that continue to bolster the thriving advanced manufacturing industry in the Commonwealth. It is my goal to increase jobs of the 21st Century, and this expansion and the addition of 25 new jobs in this important sector is significant.”

            “Trinity Packaging Corporation’s expansion is a great testament to the region’s skilled workforce in advanced manufacturing and in the plastics industry,” said Maurice Jones, Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade. “The company’s continued growth in Franklin County is evidence of its commitment to Virginia and the benefits of our business-friendly environment. We look forward to a long corporate partnership with Trinity Packaging for years to come.”

Headquartered in Armonk, New York, Trinity Packaging is a privately held family business founded in 1917 as a paper bag converter. In 1979, Trinity entered into the plastics market and throughout the past several decades has expanded its plastics product offerings. Today, Trinity has multiple plant locations and its products are sold globally and include flexible films for a variety of industries. The market segments Trinity currently services include lawn & garden, consumer & home goods, dry food & snacks, pet care and all other industrially packaged products in both small and large formats.

“We are pleased that our future growth and expansion will remain in the town of Rocky Mount and Franklin County,” said Peter Freund, President of Trinity. “We have a long history of success with the state of Virginia as a tremendous business partner and we look forward to continuing to prosper here.”

The Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) worked with Franklin County, the Town of Rocky Mount and the Roanoke Regional Partnership to help secure the project for Virginia. Governor McAuliffe approved a $65,000 grant from the Governor’s Opportunity Fund to assist Franklin County and the Town of Rocky Mount with the project. The Virginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission approved $75,000 in Tobacco Region Opportunity Funds for the project. The company is also eligible to receive manufacturers’ Sales and Use tax exemptions. Through its Virginia Jobs Investment Program, the Virginia Department of Small Business and Supplier Diversity will provide funding and services to support the company’s training activities.

David Cundiff, Chairman of the Franklin County Board of Supervisors and member of theVirginia Tobacco Indemnification and Community Revitalization Commission, stated, “Trinity Packaging has long been one the County’s most respected major employers and their stability and growth continues to fuel the community’s strong local economy. We are proud to be a part of the team assisting Trinity Packaging to prosper here in Franklin County.”

“The Town of Rocky Mount is pleased to support the expansion of jobs and production at Trinity Packaging,” said Mayor Steve Angle. “We value highly Trinity’s part in employing our citizens, their strong corporate citizenship, and their continued dedication to growing, expanding and staying in Rocky Mount. As we work to make Rocky Mount a destination, we value the security represented by strong industries and major employers like Trinity, and we are grateful to Dan Mills and his local staff for their efforts on our behalf.”





Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Washington Hemp Passes Senate Hurdle

English: Leaf of Cannabis עברית: עלה של קנביס
 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Washington State has voted to nullify the Federal ban on hemp, by passing bill HB 1888 in the state senate unanimously. With marijuana already legalized for recreational use, this step goes further for legalizing and licensing industrial hemp use in the state. We discuss the implications of the bill in this Buzzsaw news clip.


Colorado, Washington, California, New York all have laws on the books saying that recreational pot is cool with them and not a violation of law.  How long before you think it hits here in Virginia?  Maybe then we will see the only drug busts being made are coming from the mom and pop stores selling the synthetic versions.  Oh wait, that is all we are seeing isn't it?  Oh look, South Carolina is now legalizing dope.  See bottom storylines.  Oh wait, now there is also West Virginia and Indiana.  Oh wait, add Tennessee too.  No reason to get upset about gay marriages, just smoke a joint and get over it?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Federalist Papers No. 39. The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles

For the Independent Journal. Wednesday, January 16, 1788

MADISON
THE last paper having concluded the observations which were meant to introduce a candid survey of the plan of government reported by the convention, we now proceed to the execution of that part of our undertaking.
The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.
What, then, are the distinctive characters of the republican form? Were an answer to this question to be sought, not by recurring to principles, but in the application of the term by political writers, to the constitution of different States, no satisfactory one would ever be found. Holland, in which no particle of the supreme authority is derived from the people, has passed almost universally under the denomination of a republic. The same title has been bestowed on Venice, where absolute power over the great body of the people is exercised, in the most absolute manner, by a small body of hereditary nobles. Poland, which is a mixture of aristocracy and of monarchy in their worst forms, has been dignified with the same appellation. The government of England, which has one republican branch only, combined with an hereditary aristocracy and monarchy, has, with equal impropriety, been frequently placed on the list of republics. These examples, which are nearly as dissimilar to each other as to a genuine republic, show the extreme inaccuracy with which the term has been used in political disquisitions.
If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.
On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years; as in New York and Delaware, the chief magistrate is elected for three years, and in South Carolina for two years. In the other States the election is annual. In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office. The tenure by which the judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behavior. The tenure of the ministerial offices generally, will be a subject of legal regulation, conformably to the reason of the case and the example of the State constitutions.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.
Without inquiring into the accuracy of the distinction on which the objection is founded, it will be necessary to a just estimate of its force, first, to ascertain the real character of the government in question; secondly, to inquire how far the convention were authorized to propose such a government; and thirdly, how far the duty they owed to their country could supply any defect of regular authority.
First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States. It must result from the UNANIMOUS assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character; though perhaps not so completely as has been understood. In several cases, and particularly in the trial of controversies to which States may be parties, they must be viewed and proceeded against in their collective and political capacities only. So far the national countenance of the government on this side seems to be disfigured by a few federal features. But this blemish is perhaps unavoidable in any plan; and the operation of the government on the people, in their individual capacities, in its ordinary and most essential proceedings, may, on the whole, designate it, in this relation, a NATIONAL government.
But if the government be national with regard to the OPERATION of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the EXTENT of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly NATIONAL nor wholly FEDERAL. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the MAJORITY of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society, to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles. In requiring more than a majority, and principles. In requiring more than a majority, and particularly in computing the proportion by STATES, not by CITIZENS, it departs from the NATIONAL and advances towards the FEDERAL character; in rendering the concurrence of less than the whole number of States sufficient, it loses again the FEDERAL and partakes of the NATIONAL character.
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
PUBLIUS

Learn More About US History;  Visit Jamestown, Yorktown and Colonial Williamsburg Living Museums in Virginia.
Enhanced by Zemanta