English Corpus

The Department of Justice in the United States of America suffers from an intense problem and cancer, which is destroying it from the inside out. That problem is a lack of control of ethics of some of its junior and rarely talked about “Little agencies” within the DOJ. Let’s take the Federal Trade Commission, a little puny, tiny agency, which is part of the Department of Justice. Although this ridiculous waste of taxpayer’s money is very small, it affects so much by its archaic policies and ultra liberal and anti-business, anti-capitalism and pro socialist viewpoints.

The Federal Trade Commission has been accused that one of their junior legal advisors has written “Gay Porn” on the Internet, filed false accusation in a secret court against a company and doctored evidence, while coaxing declarations in order to get the FTC’s commissioners to vote to file a case against the company. The allegations and accusations go much further and indeed, have much back-up data.

The Federal Trade Commission has failed to fire this individual, and like the Catholic Church with their Child Molesting Priests has merely re-assigned this person to other divisions within the agency. The DOJ is equally impotent in fixing these internal affairs issues; in fact there is little if any background checks on the FTC employees, even though they are part of the Justice Department. One would have to ask why we need an FTC, which cannot police itself. Yet, I ask the question; why is the DOJ so utterly incompetent is its internal affairs investigation of its own? How can we trust an agency, which operates the law, while placing themselves above it? How can we trust anything coming out of any of the DOJ’s smorgasbord of little agencies, if they refuse to hold up the order of law and “Truth Justice and The American Way” within their own ranks? It makes wonder if all the DOJ is a giant lie against the backgrounds of the Constitution we all agree to live under. Think on this.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Comments Off

Experts are working daily to discover new ways to fight global warming. Current research believes that there are two ways to reduce global warming. One is by limiting carbon dioxide and two is by removing carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere or by preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Scientists believe the best way to prevent releasing carbon dioxide is by using energy sources that do not release carbon dioxide. These include sunlight, wind, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Solar power is already becoming popular for many different reasons. Wind turbines, used in certain parts of the world, are capable of converting wind energy in to electric energy.

Scientists believe storing carbon dioxide in living plants might be the answer to stopping global warming. Plants collect carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow. Plants create sugars by combining the carbon from carbon dioxide with hydrogen. They then store this in their tissues. As dead plants decay they release carbon dioxide. Areas with a lot of plant life are capable of collecting a lot of the carbon before it is released into the atmosphere. Experts insist forests and croplands are capable of collecting this much carbon. This is only possible if humans reduce their current activities involving the clearing of the land.

Comments Off

The plight of whistleblowers - those employees who sound the alarm about anything from dangerous conditions in the workplace to missed or ignored intelligence regarding our nation’s security - is a story that seems to grow stronger and with more frequency every day. My guess is that those stories have always been there; I suspect I am just paying closer attention to them now.

You see, I joined the “ranks” of whistleblowers more than one year ago when, on December 2, 2003, a major newspaper printed a story in which I confirmed for them what many of us already knew - we, the members of the United States Park Police, could no longer provide the level of service that citizens and visitors had grown to expect in our parks and on our parkways in Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. The world changed for all of us on September 11, 2001, and the expectations of police agencies across the country grew exponentially overnight. As the Chief of the United States Park Police, an organization responsible for some of America’s most valued and recognizable symbols of freedom, I knew it was my duty, as chiefs of police across the country do every day, to inform the community of the realities of the situation.

For being candid — for being “honest” — while still being supportive of my superiors, I was, without warning, stripped of my law enforcement authority, badge, and firearm, and escorted from the Department of the Interior by armed special agents of another Federal law enforcement entity in December of 2003. Seven months later, the Department of the Interior terminated me.

Frighteningly, the issues I brought to light about our citizens’ and visitors’ safety and security and the future of these American icons have not been addressed — other than to silence me. In fact, there are fewer United States Park Police Officers today than there were more than one year ago when I was sent home for daring to say that we weren’t able to properly meet our commitments with existing resources. Other security concerns I raised internally have also gone un-addressed.

Imagine the outcry if I had previously stayed silent and if one of those symbolic monuments or memorials had been destroyed or the loss of life had occurred to someone visiting one of those locations. I did not want to be standing with my superiors among the ruins of one of these icons or in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain why we hadn’t asked for help.

Despite the serious First Amendment and security implications of my case for each American, there has been no Congressional intervention, no Congressional hearings, no demand of accountability by elected officials for those who took action to silence me and who have ignored all warnings about the perils to which I alerted them. Following my termination and the publicity that accompanied it, it is unlikely that any current Federal employee will be willing to speak up with straightforward, accurate information about the realities of any danger we face.

Our legal appeals continue, and some of the administrative charges placed against me have already been thrown out. Through it all, it is becoming clear that Federal employees have little protection for simply telling the truth.

My story is told on a website, www.honestchief.com, established in December 2003 and maintained by my husband so that the American people could “witness” the issues in this case. The website has provided transparency to my situation by making key documents available for viewing, including the transcripts of depositions of top officials and their testimony during a key administrative hearing.

Suppression of information is spreading - gag orders, non disclosures agreements, and the government’s refusal to turn over documents. In agencies that span Federal service, conscientious public servants are struggling to communicate vital concerns to their true employers - you, the American public. Is anyone listening?

Teresa C. Chambershe plight of whistleblowers - those employees who sound the alarm about anything from dangerous conditions in the workplace to missed or ignored intelligence regarding our nation’s security - is a story that seems to grow stronger and with more frequency every day. My guess is that those stories have always been there; I suspect I am just paying closer attention to them now.

You see, I joined the “ranks” of whistleblowers more than one year ago when, on December 2, 2003, a major newspaper printed a story in which I confirmed for them what many of us already knew - we, the members of the United States Park Police, could no longer provide the level of service that citizens and visitors had grown to expect in our parks and on our parkways in Washington, D.C., New York City, and San Francisco. The world changed for all of us on September 11, 2001, and the expectations of police agencies across the country grew exponentially overnight. As the Chief of the United States Park Police, an organization responsible for some of America’s most valued and recognizable symbols of freedom, I knew it was my duty, as chiefs of police across the country do every day, to inform the community of the realities of the situation.

For being candid — for being “honest” — while still being supportive of my superiors, I was, without warning, stripped of my law enforcement authority, badge, and firearm, and escorted from the Department of the Interior by armed special agents of another Federal law enforcement entity in December of 2003. Seven months later, the Department of the Interior terminated me.

Frighteningly, the issues I brought to light about our citizens’ and visitors’ safety and security and the future of these American icons have not been addressed — other than to silence me. In fact, there are fewer United States Park Police Officers today than there were more than one year ago when I was sent home for daring to say that we weren’t able to properly meet our commitments with existing resources. Other security concerns I raised internally have also gone un-addressed.

Imagine the outcry if I had previously stayed silent and if one of those symbolic monuments or memorials had been destroyed or the loss of life had occurred to someone visiting one of those locations. I did not want to be standing with my superiors among the ruins of one of these icons or in front of a Congressional committee trying to explain why we hadn’t asked for help.

Despite the serious First Amendment and security implications of my case for each American, there has been no Congressional intervention, no Congressional hearings, no demand of accountability by elected officials for those who took action to silence me and who have ignored all warnings about the perils to which I alerted them. Following my termination and the publicity that accompanied it, it is unlikely that any current Federal employee will be willing to speak up with straightforward, accurate information about the realities of any danger we face.

Our legal appeals continue, and some of the administrative charges placed against me have already been thrown out. Through it all, it is becoming clear that Federal employees have little protection for simply telling the truth.

My story is told on a website, www.honestchief.com, established in December 2003 and maintained by my husband so that the American people could “witness” the issues in this case. The website has provided transparency to my situation by making key documents available for viewing, including the transcripts of depositions of top officials and their testimony during a key administrative hearing.

Suppression of information is spreading - gag orders, non disclosures agreements, and the government’s refusal to turn over documents. In agencies that span Federal service, conscientious public servants are struggling to communicate vital concerns to their true employers - you, the American public. Is anyone listening?

Teresa C. Chambers

Teresa Chambers devoted nearly 28 years to law enforcement service. Her most recent position was that of Chief of Police of the United States Park Police, headquartered in Washington, D.C. U.S. Park Police employees are responsible for protecting national parks, monuments, and parkways in the Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and New York City areas. They also provide dignitary protection for the President and other officials as well as a variety of law enforcement functions necessitated in the role as one of only a few uniformed Federal law enforcement agencies.

Before being sworn as the Chief of the U.S. Park Police in early 2002, Chambers served as the Chief of Police in Durham, North Carolina. There she was credited with significantly reducing crime while improving morale and retention of employees. Chambers also served more than 21 years in the Prince George’s County, Maryland, Police Department, retiring in 1997 at the rank of major in order to accept the job of Chief of Police in Durham.

Please visit http://www.honestchief.com to learn more about her current situation.

tcchambers@honestchief.com

Comments Off

One of the great fallacies abroad is thinking that any regime
today can lay claim to being democratic. None are. Though we say
they are democratic and that they are democracies, they are
actually republican government?representative democracies. This
means that certain people are elected to serve the interests of
the people at large. These representatives make the decisions
for the people rather than the people making them. And these
representatives are elected for a period of time during which
period they cannot be removed except for what amount to crimes
or malfeasance.

If we had real democracies, the people would make the decisions
on any policy of government. It would be the people as
legislators?and enforcers, by the way. But that doesn?t go far
enough either. If we truly had a democracy, that is, a system of
government responsive to the desires of the people, then an
official would have to wear a device that would track what the
people want. And when a majority is reached either to do an act
or not do it, the official would have to either do it or cease
doing it depending. And that would be true even down to the
level of what is said or not said. If the people do not want a
particular official to use a particular word, the will of the
people would rule. Vox populi, vox dei. The wishes of the people
are the only thing that matters.

Government, however, would not be possible if this were the case
even though now this is much more feasible to do. (Some people
are advocating just this type of thing by the way. And all this
concern about polls to augur by is much of the same thing.) No
treaty could be negotiated, nor legislation could ever be passed
and no criminal could ever be apprehended, tried and convicted,
if this were the case. It would be government by committee and
that committee would be the committee of the whole people. And,
pardon the expression, it would be a rabble.

As it is, representatives are elected for a term of years and
the people are not allowed in to express their wishes except for
every 2 years, 4 years, or 6 years depending. This allows an
insulation from the people that is intended to create a space
for the representative to act in the common good. This means
that the common good should be the interest. The people will
vote on it later by voting on the representative. By that time,
however, passions may have cooled, the result may be clearer or
the argument made might have a better chance of carrying the
day. The point is that sometimes the people demand what is not
good for them, or they sometimes demand what is not good for a
sizeable minority of people. The mob is still a distinct
possibility.

Is this elitist? Well, yes. But the elitism was to have been
moderated by an intelligent people, a people who were involved
and understood the issues and went to a meeting from time to
time on some problem of government or society. But even so this
is the form of government we have and it has worked very well
over the past centuries. And it is only when the public good is
not the primary focus of government that we have had problems.

Usually, the people arguing for this kind of thing argue this
way because they think they have a greater chance of getting
power by yoking themselves to the people. Wherever the people
go, they go?and they will swear they were there first. But it is
demagoguery, literally. And it can create the likes of a Hugo
Chavez. And this sort of reasoning can also form the basis for a
regime like Vladimir Putin?s in Russia. (Protect me and give me
some stability and we will forgive your use and possibly abuse
of power. But that argument though is for another time.)

So is a policy something the people want or isn?t it. Maybe it
is or it isn?t but that ought not be the issue–whether it is
good or bad for the country ought to be the focus of attention.
And, if it is good, a statesman, as opposed to a politician,
would bring the people along with him?or her.

Comments Off