IS IT A PLANE , A BIRD, A ICBM ? PART 2

First it was a commercial jet, then It’s a commercial rocket. Given the size and location of the thing, though, wouldn’t we already have an idea of who the culprit was? Presumably there’s a short list of commercial entities capable of boosting a bird that big. And if it was fired from a land-based platform, surely someone had to have seen the launch preparations. So why the confusion today?


It’s one of ours but is being officially denied because it’s part of some secret operation. If that’s true, though, why launch it so close to the coast where people will see it and buzz about it? Alternately, if  it’s a show of strength to China or Asia generally, why not do it further out in the Pacific? You’re not showing much strength if you’re firing it off in your own backyard. And in fact, one military official says that an exercise like that wouldn’t be held so close to a population center.

The other side to this is we The Obama Administration  are claiming the Chinese have a super stealth submarine that can get within 35 miles of our coast and launch a ICBM submerged? IF they did have such a weapon why would they expose it to us in such a public manner. Has anybody watched "THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER" THE RUSKIES KNOW HOW TO KEEP A SECRET!



  If it did come from the water and it’s really not a U.S. operation, then presumably it’s from an enemy sub. Relations with China have been souring, and they’ve made their opposition to American naval influence in Asia increasingly clear. Maybe this was a message to The One while he’s in their backyard shoring up alliances that China’s navy is stronger than thought? Wouldn’t be the first time a Chinese ship has surprised the U.S. Navy with its stealth, and Chinese advances in missile tech have been in the news of late. I don’t buy this theory either, though: Firing a missile within 35 miles of L.A., where it’s sure to be seen by the public and thus designed to embarrass the U.S. military, would be provocative in the extreme.

Why now, when Hu Jintao just finished making plans to visit the White House early next year?



HERE IS THE POINT EVERYONE IS MISSING! IT'S NOT WHO LAUNCHED IT, OR WHAT IT WAS, OR HOW IT WAS LAUNCHED, OR THE FACT WE DID NOT TRACK IT ORIGINALLY FROM A SUBMARINE OR FROM LAND.


WHERE DID IT COME DOWN?? WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF SPY SATELLITES, NORAD,SPACE COMMAND, NSA, CIA, AND NOBODY KNOWS WHERE IT CAME DOWN... OR DID IT COME DOWN OR DID IT GO INTO ORBIT OR DID IT GO INTO DEEP SPACE???
.

It's bird, no it's a plane, no it's really a super secret ICBM lauched from a super secret Chinese stealth Sub!! Really

What goes up must come down right? Well unless it is launched into deep space. Well anyway our government should know right? I mean we pay lot's of tax dollars to defend our home land ? Surely they know what launched off of Vandenberg Air force Base Right

W R O N G!!!!! WATCH THE CBS REPORT BELOW AND BE AMAZED AT HOW LITTLE OUR GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY REALLY KNOW! BY THE WAY DON'T WORRY THEY ARE GOING TO FIX YOUR HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND KEEP YOU SAFE AT NIGHT ...NO REALLY!!

(CBS)  A mysterious missile launch off the southern California coast was caught by CBS affiliate KCBS's cameras Monday night, and officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile.

CBS station KFMB put in calls to the Navy and Air Force Monday night about the striking launch off the coast of Los Angeles, which was easily visible from the coast, but the military has said nothing about the launch.

KFMB showed video of the apparent missile to former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former Deputy Secretary of Defense, to get his thoughts.

Scroll down for KFMB video showing the launch.

"It's spectacular… It takes people's breath away," said Ellsworth, calling the projectile, "a big missile".


Magnificent images were captured by the KCBS news helicopter in L.A. around sunset Monday evening. The location of the missile was about 35 miles out to sea, west of L.A. and north of Catalina Island.

A Navy spokesperson told KFMB it wasn't their missile. He said there was no Navy activity reported in the area Monday evening.

On Friday night, Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, launched a Delta II rocket, carrying an Italian satellite into orbit, but a sergeant at the base told KFMB there had been no launches since then.

Ellsworth urged American to wait for definitive answers to come from the military.

When asked, however, what he thought it might be, the former ambassador said it could possibly have been a missile test timed as a demonstration of American military might as President Obama tours Asia.

It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine … to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that," speculated Ellsworth.

Ellsworth said such tests were carried out in the Atlantic to demonstrate America's power to the Soviets, when there was a Soviet Union, but he doesn't believe an ICBM has previously been tested by the U.S. over the Pacific.

Officially, at least, the projectile remains a mystery missile.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7040407n

No say it is't SOOO..Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10m in public money on her vacations

The daily mail reporter: London

The Obamas' summer break on Martha's Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.
But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.
White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers' money on vacations alone in the past year.

The 'top source' told the National Enquirer: 'It's disgusting. Michelle is taking advantage of her privileged position while the most hardworking Americans can barely afford a week or two off work.
'When it's all added up, she's spent more than $10million in taxpayers' money on her vacations.'
The First Lady is believed to have taken 42 days of holiday in the past year, including a $375,000 break in Spain and a four-day ski trip to Vail, Colorado, where she spent $2,000 a night on a suite at the Sebastian hotel.
And the first family's nine-day stay in Martha's Vineyard is also proving costly, with rental of the Blue Heron Farm property alone costing an estimated $50,000 a week.
The source continued: 'Michelle also enjoys drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favors martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.
'The vacations are totally Michelle's idea. She's like a junkie. She can't schedule enough getaways, and she lives from one to the next - all the while sticking it to hardworking Americans.'

While the President and his wife do pay for some of their personal expenses from their own pocket, the website whitehousedossier.com says that the amount paid by the couple is 'dwarfed by the overall cost to the public'.
The magazine also reported that Mrs Obama, whose fashion choices are widely followed, had been going on 'wild shopping sprees', much to the distress of her husband, who, its sources reveal, is 'absolutely furious' at his wife's 'out-of-control spending'.
The President has already come under fire this week over his decision to take a family vacation while millions of Americans are out of work and countless more are financially strapped.
But the situation sparked further anger after he and his wife elected to fly separately to the Massachusetts retreat - despite travelling on the same day.
Mr Obama left the White House aboard Marine One on his way to Andrews Air Force base to hitch a lift aboard Air Force One - along with First Dog Bo.
After landing at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, he then took a final helicopter to his holiday destination to complete the remarkable 500-mile journey.
His wife and daughters, who arrived just four hours earlier, were also travelling from Washington, but took a specially designed military aircraft.
They would also have had their own motorcade from the airport to the vacation residence.

FIRST LADY OF LUXURY TRAVEL: HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE OBAMAS' LAVISH GETAWAYS OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS

GIRLS' TRIP TO SPAIN: AUGUST 2010

The exact cost is unclear as Mrs Obama and her 40 friends footed many personal expenses, such as hotels and meals themselves.
But the U.S. taxpayer would have paid for the First Lady's 68-strong security detail, personal staff, and use of presidential jet Air Force Two.

Per diems for the secret service team runs at around $281 each - nearly $98,000 for the length of the summer break.

Use of Air Force Two, the Air Force version of a 757, comes in at $149,900 for the round trip. This does not include time on the ground.

Mrs Obama's personal staff, of which there are an unknown amount and might cost considerably more per day, should also be taken into account.

CHRISTMAS BREAK IN HAWAII: DECEMBER 2010

According to the Hawaii Reporter, the bill for the $1.5m trip included:

• $63,000 on an early flight bringing Mrs Obama and the children to Hawaii ahead of the President.
• $1,000,000 on Mr Obama’s return trip from Washington on Air Force One.
• $38,000 for the ‘Winter White House’ beach property rental.
• $16,000 to rent nearby homes for Secret Service and Navy Seals.
• $134,000 for 24 White House staff to stay at the Moana Hotel.
• $251,000 in police overtime.
• $10,000 for an ambulance to be on hand at all times

SKI TRIP TO VAIL: FEBRUARY 2011

Mrs Obama and her daughters stayed at the Sebastian hotel on Vail Mountain, where rooms cost more than $2,400 for multi-bedroom suites.
The family appear to have flown there on Air Force Two.
They were escorted to the resort by a motorcade of about a dozen vehicles, including 15 state and local law enforcement officers

SUMMER HOLIDAY ON MARTHA'S VINEYARD: AUGUST 2011

The Blue Heron Farm estate, where the Obama family are currently staying, rents for about $50,000 a week.
According to U.S. News and World Report, the Coast Guard is required to keep ships floating near the property, the presidential helicopter and jet remain at the ready and security agents will be on 24-hour duty.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) Will Be the States of the United States undoing...

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.

“

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

”

History

Senate election by Constitution

Originally, each Senator was elected by his state's legislature to represent that state in the Senate.^[1] This was intended to protect each state's power within the federation established by the Constitution by having its own direct representation in the Congress. While an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, were thought safe from such folly. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to concentrate on the great business of the federal government. This last purpose was also served by the six-year term for Senators, compared to the two-year term for U.S. Representatives.

Senate election in practice

Election by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850s. There were frequent vacancies of a few days up to several months, but these nearly always occurred when Congress was not in session. In the 1850s, the sectional crisis over slavery led to increasing partisanship and strife. As a result, Indiana failed to elect a Senator from March 1855 to February 1857^[why?], while California failed to elect one from March 1855 to January 1857. California had previously failed to elect from March 1851 through January 1852, missing two months of the first session of the 32nd Congress, while Delaware failed to elect from September 1839 to January 1841, missing the entire first session and half the second session of the 26th Congress.
After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature.^[2] Stockton asserted that the exact method for elections was murky and varied from state to state. To keep this from happening again, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when Senators were to be elected from each state. This was the first change in the process of Senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. In the worst case, Delaware failed to elect from March 1899 to March 1903; by the end of this period both of Delaware's seats were vacant for two years.^[3]

Senate election reform

William Randolph Hearst
Publisher - reformer
Cosmopolitan Magazine

David Graham Phillips
Journalist - muckraker
exposed corruption

Reform efforts began as early as 1826, when direct election was first proposed.^{[citation needed]} In the 1870s, citizens petitioned the House of Representatives for direct election.^{[citation needed]} From 1893 to 1902, support for direct election increased considerably. Each year during that period, a constitutional amendment for direct election was proposed in Congress, but the Senate rejected it.^{[citation needed]} In the mid-1890s, the Populist Party put direct election of Senators in its platform, but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans paid much notice at the time.^{[citation needed]} Direct election was also part of the Wisconsin Idea championed by Republican Senators Robert M. La Follette, Sr., a progressive, and George W. Norris, a reformer. In the early 1900s, Oregon pioneered direct election of Senators. Oregon tried various procedures until success in 1907, and was soon followed by Nebraska.
Popular support of Senatorial election reform grew rapidly at this time. In 1905, William Randolph Hearst acquired Cosmopolitan (then a general-interest magazine), and made it an advocate of direct election. In 1906, Cosmopolitan published "The Treason of the Senate", a series of scathing articles by "Muckraking" reporter David Graham Phillips, which described Senators as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers.^[4] A prime example was Senator William A. Clark of Montana.^[5] Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a general election. These de facto directly elected Senators supported legislation to promote direct election, but to make direct election general, a constitutional amendment was required.

Senate election amendment

The Senate had consistently rejected the proposed amendment, and so direct election advocates acted through the states. Amendments to the Constitution are normally proposed by Congress, a two-thirds vote of both Houses being required. However, under Article V, two-thirds of the states may apply for the creation of a convention to propose amendments and the Congress must then create one. By 1910, almost two-thirds of the states had called for such a convention, which put pressure on the Congress to propose the amendment and eliminate the need for the convention.

Joseph L. Bristow
US Senator (R) Kansas
submitted amendment

William Borah
US Senator (R) Idaho
supported amendment

Consequently, in 1911, Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas submitted an amendment, supported by Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight Southern Senators and all of the Republican Senators from New England, New York and Pennsylvania opposed Bristow's amendment. However, the Senate now included many Senators recently chosen by de facto direct election, and they supported the amendment. The Senate passed the amendment on June 12, 1911. The House debated for almost a year, and passed the amendment on May 13, 1912.
The campaign for ratification was led by Borah and other directly elected Senators. Another important figure was Professor George H. Haynes of Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a political scientist whose scholarly work on the Senate showed the need for direct election. The amendment was ratified by three states within a month (Massachusetts, Arizona, and Minnesota). However, there was no further progress until 1913, when state legislators elected in 1912 took office. Nine states ratified in January 1913, seventeen in February, four in March, and three in April. On April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted when Connecticut became the 36th state (out of 48) to ratify. Louisiana also ratified the amendment in June. Utah was the only state to explicitly reject the amendment. The Seventeenth Amendment took effect a year and a half prior to the 1914 Senate elections.

Effect

The Seventeenth Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, § 3 of the Constitution, but replaces the phrase "chosen by the Legislature thereof" with "elected by the people thereof".
The amendment also supersedes part of the second paragraph of Article I, § 3. The phrase "and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies" is superseded by the second paragraph of the amendment.
Under the original language, when a Senate seat fell vacant, the legislature, which could act immediately, was expected to elect a replacement immediately. If the legislature was not in session, the governor could appoint a person to occupy the vacant seat, but that person would serve only until the legislature next met, when it was expected to elect a permanent replacement.
However, unlike election by the legislature, election of a replacement by popular vote takes a fair amount of time and cost, and may not be realistically possible. For instance, there may be only a few weeks or months left before the end of the present Senate term. Therefore, when and how popular elections of replacement Senators are held is up to the legislature. The replacement Senator appointed by the governor serves until the election specified by the legislature, if one is held, or else till the end of the term.
Several states have interpreted this passage as giving the legislature power to bar appointment by the governor, so that vacancies may only be filled by election. As of 2010, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Wisconsin do not permit appointment by the governor.
The Seventeenth Amendment does not affect the restriction in Article I, § 4, cl. 1, which exempts "the place of Chusing Senators" from the power of Congress to "make or alter" state election laws. If Congress could regulate the "place of Chusing Senators" when the state legislatures chose Senators, then Congress could dictate where a state's legislature had to meet for that purpose, which would violate state sovereignty.

Direct elections held in the states

The following is a list of all direct elections to the Senate.^[6]

Before ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment: 1906: Oregon Class 2, Vacancy, term ending 1907 Class 2, Full term, 1907–1913 1908: Nevada Class 3, Full term, 1909–1915 1911: Arizona (pending statehood) Class 1, Long term, 1912–1917 Class 3, Short term, 1912–1915 1912: Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma Class 2, Full term, 1913–1919

After ratification of Seventeenth Amendment: 1913: Maryland, Virginia Class 1, Vacancy, term ending 1917 1914: All 32 Class 3 Senators, term 1915-1921 1916: All 32 Class 1 Senators, term 1917-1923 1918: All 32 Class 2 Senators, term 1919-1925

Oklahoma, admitted to statehood in 1907, chose a Senator by legislative election three times: twice in 1907, when admitted, and once in 1908. In 1912, Oklahoma re-elected Robert L. Owen by advisory popular vote.
New Mexico, admitted to statehood in 1912, chose only its first two Senators legislatively.
Arizona, admitted to statehood in 1912, chose its first two Senators by advisory popular vote.
Alaska, and Hawaii, admitted to statehood in 1959, have never chosen a U.S. Senator legislatively.

Proposal and ratification

Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment on May 13, 1912 and the following states ratified the amendment:^[7]

1. Massachusetts (May 22, 1912)
2. Arizona (June 3, 1912)
3. Minnesota (June 10, 1912)
4. New York (January 15, 1913)
5. Kansas (January 17, 1913)
6. Oregon (January 23, 1913)
7. North Carolina (January 25, 1913)
8. California (January 28, 1913)
9. Michigan (January 28, 1913)
10. Iowa (January 30, 1913)
11. Montana (January 30, 1913)
12. Idaho (January 31, 1913)
13. West Virginia (February 4, 1913)
14. Colorado (February 5, 1913)
15. Nevada (February 6, 1913)
16. Texas (February 7, 1913)
17. Washington (February 7, 1913)
18. Wyoming (February 8, 1913)
19. Arkansas (February 11, 1913)
20. Maine (February 11, 1913)
21. Illinois (February 13, 1913)
22. North Dakota (February 14, 1913)
23. Wisconsin (February 18, 1913)
24. Indiana (February 19, 1913)
25. New Hampshire (February 19, 1913)
26. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
27. South Dakota (February 19, 1913)
28. Oklahoma (February 24, 1913)
29. Ohio (February 25, 1913)
30. Missouri (March 7, 1913)
31. New Mexico (March 13, 1913)
32. Nebraska (March 14, 1913)
33. New Jersey (March 17, 1913)
34. Tennessee (April 1, 1913)
35. Pennsylvania (April 2, 1913)
36. Connecticut (April 8, 1913)

With Connecticut's ratification, three-fourths of the states had ratified and so the amendment was adopted. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:

1. Louisiana (June 11, 1913)
2. Delaware (June 25, 2010)^[8]

The following state rejected the amendment:

1. Utah (February 26, 1913)

The following states did not ratify the amendment:

1. Alabama
2. Kentucky
3. Mississippi
4. Virginia
5. South Carolina
6. Georgia
7. Maryland
8. Rhode Island
9. Florida

As Alaska and Hawaii were not states when the amendment was adopted, their admissions to the Union in 1959 simply required their adherence to the Constitution in its already-amended form.

Advocacy for repeal

A movement exists that calls for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, generally opposing it on grounds of federalism and taking away too much power from the states. Proponents of repeal have also accused Senators of being hostage to special interests, the same charge that helped pass the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.^[9] Repeal gained renewed interest in 2004, when U.S. Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, shortly after announcing his intention to retire from the Senate, introduced a resolution in the Senate to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Miller said:

Direct elections of Senators ... allowed Washington's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.^[10][11]

Miller's resolution never made it out of committee; it has been noted that it is unlikely for Senators elected by the popular vote to back a change to the method that worked for them.^[12]
The movement to repeal gained new prominence in 2010, with many leaders of the Tea Party movement advocating its repeal on grounds of restoring power to the states.^[13][14] The issue affected several Republican primaries of 2010; support of the amendment was portrayed as a "Washington insider" position.^[15] Tim Bridgewater, one of the candidates who ousted Republican Senator Bob Bennett in the Utah Republican Nominating Convention, advocates repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. In the Republican primary of Idaho's first district, both NRCC-endorsed candidate Vaughn Ward and state representative Raúl Labrador initially advocated repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Ward later said that he supported direct election of Senators, and clarified that his opposition to the Seventeenth Amendment meant that he was in favor of term limits for Senators.^[16] Ward lost the primary to Labrador, who maintained his position in favor of repeal.^[17] In Ohio's 15th District, Republican candidate Steve Stivers initially supported repeal before backing off almost immediately after Representative Mary Jo Kilroy, his Democratic opponent, attacked him over this position.^[15]
Republican Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas's 1st congressional district advocated repeal in March 2010.^[18][19]
Cleon Skousen's The Five Thousand Year Leap (1981) is a source for many Tea Party supporters and candidates who have argued for the amendment's repeal. Skousen wrote, “Since [enactment] there has been no veto power which the states could exercise against the Congress in those cases where a federal statute was deemed in violation of states’ rights." The book gained higher prominence in 2009 after Glenn Beck recommended it for the Taxpayer March on Washington-9/12 groups.^[20]

Advocacy for prohibiting gubernatorial appointment to the Senate

2008–2009 Senate vacancies

With the commencement of the Obama administration in 2009, four sitting Democratic Senators left the Senate for executive branch positions: Barack Obama (President), Joe Biden (Vice President), Hillary Rodham Clinton (Secretary of State), and Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior). Controversies developed about the successor appointments made by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and New York Governor David Paterson. This created interest in abolishing Senate appointment by the governor.^[21][22]
Currently, 46 of the 50 states permit appointment by the governor; only Connecticut, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Wisconsin rely completely on special election. In eight other states, the governor may fill a vacancy by appointment, but a special election is to be held as soon as possible. In the remaining 38 states, the governor may fill a vacancy by appointment, and the appointed Senator will serve until a replacement is chosen by election at the time of the next general election.
The state of Massachusetts has seen considerable recent activity on both sides of this issue. Massachusetts enacted a law requiring a special election in 2004; the Democratic legislature wanted to prevent Republican Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican replacement if Democratic Senator John Kerry had won the 2004 presidential election. After the death of Senator Ted Kennedy in 2009, and with Kennedy's encouragement before his death, the state changed its law to allow the governor to appoint an interim Senator.^[23] Massachusetts still required a special election to be held; a "caretaker" appointment of Paul G. Kirk by Governor Deval Patrick to succeed Kennedy^[23] was followed by a January 2010 special election in which Republican Scott Brown won.
It has also been noted that since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, nearly one quarter of all Senators seated (182) first arrived in the Senate by appointment.^[24][25]

Proposed amendment

In 2009, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative David Dreier of California proposed an amendment to remove the power of governors to appoint Senators.^[26][27][28] Senators John McCain and Dick Durbin became co-sponsors, as did Representative John Conyers.^[21] On March 11, 2009, a joint hearing was held between the Senate and House subcommittees on the Constitution regarding S.J. Res. 7 and H.J. Res. 21.^[29] On August 6, 2009, the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution held a separate hearing.^[30] It was not reported out of committee.

References

1. ^ See Federalist No. 62 through No.66
2. ^ U.S. Senate: Direct Election of Senators
3. ^ Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U. S. Elections. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1985. ISBN 0-87187-339-7. 
4. ^ In Washington, the anxiety of influence - International Herald Tribune
5. ^ Treason of the Senate
6. ^ Dubin, Michael J. (1998). United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997: the official results of the elections of the 1st through 105th Congresses. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-0283-0=. 
7. ^ Mount, Steve (January 2007). "Ratification of Constitutional Amendments". http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html. Retrieved February 24, 2007. 
8. ^ "DE ratifies 17th Amendment". http://www.wdel.com/story.php?id=715306276514. Retrieved June 25, 2010. 
9. ^ National Review Online - Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. 2004-05-12.
10. ^ 150 Cong. Rec. S4503
11. ^ Statements on Introduced Bills and Resolutions. C-SPAN. April 28, 2004.
12. ^ FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Department of Colossally Stupid Ideas: Repeal 17th Amendment
13. ^ Tea Party pushes 17th Amendment to the forefront - The Hill's Ballot Box
14. ^ Firestone, David (May 31, 2010). "So You Still Want to Choose Your Senator?". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue4.html?hp. 
15. ^ ^{a b} Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC
16. ^ A Ward clarification? No, this was a flip-flop | Kevin Richert's columns | Idaho Statesman
17. ^ "GOP favorite Vaughn Ward loses to Raul Labrador in Idaho primary". The Washington Post. May 27, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052605334.html. 
18. ^ http://gohmert.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=125&itemid=805
19. ^ Gohmert: Fight Health Care Bill By Repealing Popular Election Of Senators (VIDEO) | TPMDC
20. ^ Zernike, Kate, "Movement of the Moment Looks to Long-Ago Texts", The New York Times, October 1, 2010 (October 2, 2010 p. A9 NY ed.). Retrieved 2010-10-02.
21. ^ ^{a b} "New Idea on Capitol Hill: To Join Senate, Get Votes" by Carl Hulse, The New York Times, March 10, 2009 (in print 3/11/09 p. A20 NY edition). Retrieved 3/11/09.
22. ^ Senate Vacancies Raise Questions of Framers' Intentions - Roll Call
23. ^ ^{a b} ABC News
24. ^ Segal, David (January 24, 2009). "Don’t Name That Senator". The New York Times. pp. WK11. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25segal.html. Retrieved 2009-03-11. 
25. ^ "Senate Vacancies" press release "A FairVote Policy Perspective", January 29, 2009. Retrieved 3-11-09
26. ^ Feingold, Russ. "S.J. Res. 7". http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.7:. Retrieved 2009-02-03. 
27. ^ Dreier, David (February 11, 2009). "H.J. Res. 21". http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.21:. Retrieved 2009-02-14. 
28. ^ Feingold, Russ (January 29, 2009). "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies". http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=307525. Retrieved 2009-01-31. 
29. ^ Feingold, Russ (March 11, 2009). "Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on a Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies". http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=309452. Retrieved 2009-03-19. 
30. ^ THOMAS (Library of Congress) All actions on S.J. Res. 7

• Much of the text of this article comes from U.S. Senate: Direct Election of Senators, which is in the public domain as a work of the U.S. government.

Further reading

• Bybee, Jay S. (1997). "Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment". Northwestern University Law Review (Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Law Review) 91: 505. 
• Hoebeke, Christopher Hyde (1995). The Road to Mass Democracy: Original Intent and the Seventeenth Amendment. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 9781560002178. http://books.google.com/?id=ll16O9jdfUEC. 
• Kochan, Donald J. (2003). "State Laws and the Independent Judiciary: An Analysis of the Effects of the Seventeenth Amendment on the Number of Supreme Court Cases Holding State Laws Unconstitutional". Albany Law Review (Albany, NY: Albany Law Review) 66: 1023. 
• Rossum, Ralph A. (2001). Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 9780739102862. http://books.google.com/?id=FmvtjKHpgYwC. 
• Rosen, Zvi S. (2006). "The Irony of Populism: The Republican Shift and the Inevitability of American Aristocracy". Regent Law Review (Virginia Beach, VA: Regent Law Review) 18: 271. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957933. 

External links

• National Archives: Seventeenth Amendment
• NARA - The National Archives Experience: Seventeenth Amendment
• CRS Annotated Constitution: Seventeenth Amendment
• The State Legislatures Opposed to the Seventeenth Amendment

Did Obama quote Alinsky in Mideast policy address? Speech reflects main theme of 'Rules for Radicals' book dedicated to Lucifer ??

JERUSALEM – In his major address on the Middle East last week, did President Obama quote from the centerpiece of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky's defining work?
While hailing the Arab uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa, Obama laid out his foreign policy using terminology strikingly similar to Alinsky's mantra.
"There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity," Obama stated. "Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be."
One of Alinsky's major themes was contrasting how the world "is" and how "it should be."
In his defining work, "Rules for Radicals," which he dedicated to "the first rebel," Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda – that radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking a system from the outside.
"It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system," wrote Alinsky.
This is not the first time Obama used that phraseology.
In an April 2009 talk to a London girl's school, the First Lady recalled that, on her first date with Barack Obama, he took her to a "community meeting" and taught her about the world "as it is" and "as it should be."
"As he talked to the residents in that community center, he talked about two concepts," she stated. "He talked about 'the world as it is' and 'the world as it should be.' And I talked about this throughout the entire campaign."
Alinsky's ideology is not foreign to Obama. The politician started his career as an Alinsky-style community organizer in Chicago.
WND first reported the executive director of an activist organization that taught Alinsky's tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation was part of the team that developed volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign.
Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed and delivered the first Camp Obama training for volunteers aiding Obama's campaign through the 2008 Iowa Caucuses.
Camp Obama was a two-to-four day intensive course run in conjunction with Obama's campaign aimed at training volunteers to become activists to help Obama win the presidential election.
WND also reported The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided capital to the Midwest Academy.
Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.
Also, in 1998, Obama participated on a panel discussion praising Alinsky alongside Midwest Academy's founder Heather Booth, an organizer and dedicated disciple of Alinsky.
The panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play "The Love Song of Saul Alinsky," a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as "bringing to life one of America's greatest community organizers."
Obama participated in the discussion alongside other Alinskyites, including Booth, political analyst Aaron Freeman, Don Turner of the Chicago Federation of Labor and Northwestern University history professor Charles Paine.
"Alinsky had so much fire burning within," stated local actor Gary Houston, who portrayed Alinsky in the play. "There was a lot of complexity to him. Yet he was a really cool character."
In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky's son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the 2008 Democratic National Convention "Saul Alinsky style," saying, "Obama learned his lesson well."
The letter, signed L. David Alinsky, closed with, "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully."
'Communist fellow traveler'
Former 1960s radical and FrontPageMagazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the "communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States."
Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet "Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model": "The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what '60s radicals called 'boring from within.' … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse."

Our President is a living walking joke... Two years of this and he thinks it's funny??

The White House Correspondents Dinner is my favorite thing ever! Ever since Stephen Colbert roasted George W. Bush a few years back, I look forward to this like CHRISTMAS. Two years ago Wanda Sykes was the guest comedian, last year it was Jay Leno, this year was Seth Meyers.
If you’re unfamiliar with the White House Correspondents Association Dinner then here’s the scoop: Starting in 1920, the White House Correspondents Association (an organization of journalists who cover the White House and the President of the United States) holds a dinner on the last Saturday in April at the Hilton. Usually the president and vice president will go. Before World War II, the dinner included singing between courses, a movie, and an hour-long, post-dinner show with big-name performers. Over the past several years they’ve switched to hiring comedians who basically roast the President.
Past comedians have included Sinbad, Conan O’Brien, Jon Stewart, Drew Carey, Jay Leno and Cedric the Entertainer. After the year where Stephen Colbert embarrassed him, George W. Bush had his wife do the funny bits and it was very lovely.
In addition to the actual press in attendance, lots of movie stars come to these things. This year’s famouse people included Eric Stonestreet, Jesse Tyler Ferguson. Jane Lynch, Mira Sorvino, Kate Hudson, Amber Riley, Alyssa Milan, Felicity Huffman, Rashida Jones, Chelsea Handler, Cee-Lo, America Ferrera, Sean Penn, Anna Paquin, Mindy Kaling, Chris Colfer, Jon Hamm, Eliza Dushku, and DJ Samantha Ronson. The complete guest list is here, except it’s not really complete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E&feature=player_embedded

Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine You won't believe who helped devise policy used by president

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Hanan Ashrawi

TEL AVIV – A staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late PLO leader Yasser Arafat served on the committee that invented the military doctrine used by President Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
As WND first reported, billionaire philanthropist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine. Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on multiple boards with Soros.
The doctrine and its founders, as WND reported, have been deeply tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.
See what it's going to take to stop CAIR and the "Muslim Mafia" from Islamizing America
Now it has emerged that Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect.
That commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "Responsibility to Protect," while defining its guidelines.
Ashrawi is an infamous defender of Palestinian terrorism. Her father, Daoud Mikhail, was a co-founder of the PLO with Arafat. The PLO was engaged in scores of international terrorist acts and was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in 1987.
During the First Palestinian Intifada, or war of "resistance" against Israel, in 1988, Ashrawi joined what was known as the Intifada Political Committee, which sought to advance Palestinian goals through both politics and "resistance." She served there until 1993.
In 1991, Arafat appointed Ashrawi to serve as the PLO's Minister of Higher Education and Research. The Palestinian school system is notorious for its glorification of "martyrdom," or suicide bombings, and has long preached against the existence of Israel.

Discover the Networks notes Ashrawi has long defended the Hamas terror group as a legitimate component of the Palestinian "political spectrum."
She has stated she does not "think of Hamas as a terrorist group."
"We coordinate [with Hamas] politically," she said in April 1993, "the people we know and talk to are not terrorists."
In 1998 Ashrawi founded MIFTAH, a nonprofit that seeks to undermine Israel's legitimacy and refers to that Jewish state's 1948 creation as "Al Nakba," or "The Catastrophe."
Ashrawi has long been a Holocaust denier. In the July 2, 1998, edition of the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, she published an article calling the Holocaust "a deceitful myth, which the Jews have … exploited to get sympathy."
In 2001 Ashrawi became a spokeswoman for the Arab League.
Notably, Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, served as an adviser to the same 2001 commission that invented the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.
Ashrawi, meanwhile, was a protégé and later colleague and close friend of late Columbia University Professor Edward Said, another notorious apologist for Palestinian terrorism.
Said was replaced by Rashid Khalidi, a close personal friend to Obama.
Soros funded doctrine
With Ashrawi on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.
In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama specifically cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of "Responsibility to Protect."
"Responsibility to Protect," or "Responsibility to Act" as cited by Obama is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."
The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has also been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.
The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.
Two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the "Responsibility" doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "Responsibility to Protect."
Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."
Obama cited doctrine multiple times
Aside from his direct citation of the "Responsibility" doctrine in his address explaining why the U.S. is acting against Libya, Obama alluded to the doctrine four more times in his speech.
The following are relevant excerpts from his address, with references to U.S. "responsibility" in bold:

• In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.
• Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.
• To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.
• The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict," he concluded.
More Soros ties
Responsibility founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chair, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "Responsibility to Protect."
In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."
Evans presented "Responsibility to Protect" at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.
Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.
Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.
Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.
WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.
Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.
Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.
'One World Order'
WND also reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."
"Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote in a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."
He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.
"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.
Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."
Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."
Power pushes doctrine
Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power.
Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the "Responsibility to Protect" principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.
Then last November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of "Responsibility to Protect" alongside Evans.
With research by Chris Elliott