PDA

View Full Version : So What Do You Think? Tripoli Treaty.



Gayle in MD
09-27-2007, 08:51 AM
<font color="red">From the Tripoli Treaty </font color>
"As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

<font color="red">There are a wide range of opinions regarding this document. However, there are many letters, written by our founding fathers, which suggest that this treaty is a fair analysis of their intentions, sighted in our Constitution, and elsewhere. </font color>





http://cliopolitical.blogspot.com/2005/05/christianity-as-founding-religion.html

<font color="red">I've been annoyed that the presidential debates have included questioning candidates about their religious philosophy. Since I do believe that our founding father's desire was to keep Church and State separate from Government, and/or as a guiding source in legal, and government policy.

The recent interference into our legal system, and particularly in the recent actions of the Supreme Court, having been based on religious philosophy, and also the illegal occupation of Iraq, by a president who claimed to have sought advice from his God, in preference to his own father, who had had vast experience of his own in Middle Eastern affairs, and hence, insight into any posibility of an invasion, and/or occupation of Iraq, against our signed and accepted former international agreements.

IMO, and since there are atleast two or three Supreme Court Judges who may leave the court due to their ages, Roberts has certainly already shown us that he, and the other right wing judges, intend to rule against women's rights, and would, if given the chance, vote for overturning Roe v. Wade, according to their personal religious beliefs. I think the issue of Separation Of Church and State will become much more important in the years to come. The recent rulings, have, in effect, devalued a woman's life, in preference to a fetus, and removed her right to an abortion, late term, in order that she may live, when her health is threatened by carrying the fetus full term. While IMO, this ruling has been almost completely overlooked by Americans in general, it is certainly a sign of a renewed attack upon all women, devalues their very survival, and proof that religious doctrine continues to threaten any progress women have made in wiping out the ages old religious based discrimination against them. This overturns their right to control their own bodies, make their own choices regarding child bearing, and birth control, and, as evidenced by rulings giving pharmacists the right to deny filling birth control prescriptions, and prescriptions for the morning after pill, and the intentions of the religious right having secured from Republicans removal of women's and gay's rights, in exchange for their votes, one wonders why they seem justified in such unamerican activities, given the assurances of our Constitution, and our bill Of rights, to privacy and freedom in the course of our own private lives.

As if this isn't alarming enough, we have also heard the offensive and degrading statements made by General Pace, against homosexuals, condemning them as unworthy human beings because they, apparently do not meet his Christian standards for what is a valuable, and good human being.

While I am not surprised that the religious right feels so threatened by anything that does not fit into their neat little mindset of what is right and wrong, good and bad, worthy and not worthy, of respect, and tolerance, for what are surely personal choices, and in the rights of gays, not a choice at all, according to many scientists, in our country, our constitution, and stated in the letters of our framers, they certainly did not intend that Christians be allowed to dictate according to their religious beliefs, to all others in our society.

I think the divisive results are evident already, and that the negative impact, and future social unrest which will surely follow such religious interference into the lives of all others, through religious efforts to dictate through the overturning of American laws, according to their religious beliefs, will not only set our country back in the good humanitarian progress we have made over the years, on behalf of an ideology of accpetance and tolerance for all, this is a very bad result of the Republican Party capturing power by using divisive and unconstitutional efforts to destroy that progress, for their own political benefit, and with no regard for the overall damage in the lives of others, and the reversal of that good progress which we had made as Americans, and as humanitarians.

I believe that this is very sad indeed, and also will not bring our country together, but tear it further apart, in years to come. Hence, the very idea that our presidential candidates must be publicly quizzed in national debates, about what is surely a private, personal issue, their religious beliefs, is completely out of order, IMO, and should not be acceptable in a country which was founded upon the idea that religion and the government should be separate, and without religious interference. Further, I wonder, what kind of people seek to control the lives of others, and why it is that a party which is so extremely approving of a free marketplace, with no regulations on behalf of the safety, health, of the country, are against their fellow Americans having free will and free choice in making the private decisions which they must face in their lives, according to their own judgement, and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It seems that the Tripoli Treaty, as in all other things in life, is interpreted according to where one stands on the issues, but IMO, reading the letters of the framers, seem to suggest that the clause in question, does represent their prevailing thoughts at the time, rather than just a skewed statement, made in haste, to serve the purpose of the moment, as the right seems to believe.

Whatever the truth may be, this is a very interesting subject, and pertinent to the issues of the day, and the future social unrest which I fear we are heading toward.

Gayle in Md.<font color="red">

Deeman3
09-27-2007, 09:56 AM
You really have to reach for this one.

Of course, there is no documentation in our history that might be counter to this document?

wolfdancer
09-27-2007, 10:18 AM
Do we know if Bush talked to God.....or Jesus?
I heard this line on TV last night..."I need to talk to God, himself...this ain't no problem for a child to handle."
Seriously, most of us are guided through life be our religious
beliefs, even though many of us have strayed from the Church. It's when you use those beliefs to justify something that is insane in it's concept, like this war.
I think the framers wanted religious tolerance, and also wanted the religious, to tolerate those who didn't believe.
For too long Bush, and the like, have been cloaking themselves in this "we are Christians" mantle, with the implication that then what we do is right. (it might be "right", but it sure ain't correct)

Wally_in_Cincy
09-27-2007, 10:30 AM
John 8:12 -- Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life."

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. — John 3:16 (KJV)

moblsv
09-27-2007, 11:43 AM
History is very clear on this. This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, specifically including the removal of the idea that our leaders obtain their legitimacy through divinity. It is specifically stated that our government is legitimate only through the consent of the governed, a population which is informed and has individual moral autonomy.

These lessons spread not only through the U.S. but also into the French revolution and eventually Britain and the rest of Europe. What we are failing to remember is that the U.S. did, at one time, set the moral example and this example did spread throughout the civilized world. If we truly want to spread Democracy, we need to fix it here at home first and the example will spread. It is the Enlightenment values we need to be spreading, not Christianity. IMO, the problems in the Middle East are more a function of missing the Enlightenment than a function of their specific religion and we are starting down that same road here at home in this current age of the American Disenlightenment.

Deeman3
09-27-2007, 12:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
Seriously, most of us are guided through life be our religious
beliefs, even though many of us have strayed from the Church. It's when you use those beliefs to justify something that is insane in it's concept, like this war. <font color="blue"> That's where we have to part company as I don't know why you would critique GWB for saying his faith helps lead his decisions when Bill Clinton has said the exact same thing about God helping him in moments of crisis or in decisions. Hillary may to your dismay do the same but she will never come under your ire for that same stance. You are picking and chosing based on party affiliation, not on principal or you and the others would be lamblasting all the candidates on both sides for gling to church near election time or, as now, the Democrats reaching out to the evangelical churches. No, no outrage there.

GWB never, ever said, "God told me to invade Iraq." any more than Hillary said, "God told me to forgive Bill."

I agree that the separation of church and state is correct but using it to degrade a man for political reasons is false just as singling out Christianity for ACLU cases while defending other faiths rights is disenginuous. Outrage and lawsuits over techers wearing crosses while defending Muslim headscarves is bigotry, just from a newer angle.

Wasn't it 1933 the Nazis banned crosses from classrooms in Germany? and that was a Christian country. Who are the Nazis and real fanitical extreamists today? </font color>

I think the framers wanted religious tolerance, and also wanted the religious, to tolerate those who didn't believe.
For too long Bush, and the like, have been cloaking themselves in this "we are Christians" mantle, with the implication that then what we do is right. (it might be "right", but it sure ain't correct) <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> What would you prefer? that they cloak themselves in an atheist group then say, "We are right?" One thing has nothing to do with the other. You disagree because you disagree with hsi policy. If he were doing what you want, his faith woulod not be under question. If he was WHO you want, his faith would get the usual pass.</font color>

wolfdancer
09-27-2007, 12:20 PM
Good post!!! Sounds like you did get that education...hope your Mom was satisfied with the sheepskin...
"let's see now $400k, and all I got was this piece of paper"

wolfdancer
09-27-2007, 12:56 PM
The point of my post may have been unclear....just because you
(GWB) are a Christian, does not mean that all your decisions are correct....just as non-Christians are not always wrong in their protests.
I for one, do not believe that he was guided by God, in starting a war through deceit, untruths, outright lies,etc.
I also believe that a growing majority of Republicans are now seeing this guy as the weak, shallow person that he is.
I don't dislike GWB because he is a Republican,I think he has even deceived the party that elected him.
As for the Christian thing....I'm probably more of a Christian then he is...
What I really object to is justifying this war on the strength of one's religious beliefs.
I'd hate Bush if he was a Democrat.
I'm not sold on Hillary, or any candidate to date....however if the elections were to be held tomorrow...she would have my vote
We don't have to part company over religion, ...however...if GWB is your man...we can never agree on that. BUT, that's why they still hold elections...

Deeman3
09-27-2007, 01:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> The point of my post may have been unclear....just because you
(GWB) are a Christian, does not mean that all your decisions are correct....just as non-Christians are not always wrong in their protests. <font color="blue">Agreed </font color>
I for one, do not believe that he was guided by God, in starting a war through deceit, untruths, outright lies,etc.
I also believe that a growing majority of Republicans are now seeing this guy as the weak, shallow person that he is.
I don't dislike GWB because he is a Republican,I think he has even deceived the party that elected him.
As for the Christian thing....I'm probably more of a Christian then he is... <font color="blue">YOu may be. </font color>
What I really object to is justifying this war on the strength of one's religious beliefs. <font color="blue"> I stil don't think he used his faith to justify the war, he used intellegence reports as did the members of the armed services committee and the English and so on, not God. </font color>
I'd hate Bush if he was a Democrat. <font color="blue"> I don't think so but I'll not quible over it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif</font color>
I'm not sold on Hillary, or any candidate to date....however if the elections were to be held tomorrow...she would have my vote <font color="blue"> I am all over Hillary and will vote in the primary for her. </font color>
We don't have to part company over religion, ...however...if GWB is your man...we can never agree on that. BUT, that's why they still hold elections... <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> I did support GWB in both elections but he's not my man. If he was, he would have been much more aggressive and quick about ending this war but not in the terms you would end it. He would have done things much more agressively up front and not had all this drawn out pain and controversy. As well, I may not have attempted to set up a democracy as the people don't understand, appreciate nor even deserve one. I may have considered a policy of attacking anyone with a weapon for the first 60 days and destroying all weapons our soldiers came across. The bloodshed would have been isolated, short-termed and gotten the only message across understood in the Middle East, intimdation through force. However, after a few weeks of this, we could leave them with almost all infrastructure intact and let them "develop" their new country. Out troops could have sat on the borders in relative safety to keep all out for that period and carpet bombed anyone who attempted to invade, Syria, Iran, Hollywood.

Engagement rules would be a might different than they are now and no torture would be allowed or needed.

Now, that was my "soft" strategy. Wanna hear my aggressive one? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

wolfdancer
09-27-2007, 01:51 PM
That's a fair reply...but we only had to remember what happened when the Soviet Union broke up, and the power struggle and ethnic cleansing that took place....it was folly to think that wouldn't be the case in Iraq as well...
"I'd hate Bush if he was a Democrat. I don't think so but I'll not quible over it. "
I liked Lincoln...just haven't seen another Republican Candidate that I'd vote for since....

Deeman3
09-27-2007, 02:29 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DickLeonard
09-28-2007, 07:10 AM
Wally the bible is my foundation for believing that GWB is nor more a Christian than Stalin.

What you do for the least of my Brethen you do for me. Passed a tax bill that benefited less than 1% of the people. While blocking any bill that would provide relief to the other 99%.

Making War not Peace with Lies. I am still waiting for one Christian Act.

Katrina victims Stillll WAAAAiting. 911 promises sttttilll waaaaiting.####

Bobbyrx
09-28-2007, 01:29 PM
I'm for sure not a fan of GWB, however, " Passed a tax bill that benefited less than 1% of the people. While blocking any bill that would provide relief to the other 99%" What specific bill(s) are you talking about?

DickLeonard
09-28-2007, 06:36 PM
Bobbyrx the same bill he signed, then took us to war and stuck everyone with a Giant Bill.####

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 08:35 AM
If you can find any documentation that states that religious philosophy should be the guide of and base of democracy, american interests, and governing policy, or our legal system, I'd be happy to review it.

As for reaching, quite a few books have been written since Bush took office which refer to this document, and also the organized Republican inspired religious movement into the political aren in recent decades, and this document has been widely discussed in many lectures, and several book readings which I have attended recently. The fascist movement we are presently facing is of great concern to many historians, authors, attorneys and statesmen of note.
I fail to understand your comment regarding "Reaching." The "Shores of Tripoli" are noted in the anthem of our own United States Marines, are they not?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 08:37 AM
As always, you are a breath of fresh air, my dear friend.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 08:40 AM
I you have anything pertinent to the subject being discussed, I'd be interested in reading it.

Gayle in Md., Doesn't think this John signed our constitution.

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 08:42 AM
What a pleasure to read what an enlightened person writes on the subject of enlightenment!

Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
09-29-2007, 09:32 AM
Good post, Deeman, but you left out the part where Bush went beyond what our Congress gave him permission to do, and also his creation of false and misleading intelligence in order to do so, IOW, lies. He defended his illegal activity by stating that he consulted a higher power, when asked if he discussed his decision with his father. While this may not have been quite as disgusting and egotistical as his statements that it was God's wish that he crash into the White House through illegal election manueverings, compliments of the unlawful techniques employed by Catherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Rupert Murdoch, Porky Rove, and who knows how many others, the much rewarded new Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts included, Bush's many lies since, make it difficult to accept that anyone's God was involved in anything Bush.

However, our post is about the clause in the Treaty Of Tripoli, and its intended meaning regarding the wishes of the founding fathers, the prevailing philosophies at the time of the birth of our country, and its original aim of removing religious influence from our laws and government.

Since the religious right has obviously taken to creating itself into a political movement in order to use the Republican Party in its efforts to dictate to all Americans how they may live their lives, and in which personal, private choices are to be denied them, many are calling for them to be denied their tax exemption, for example.

Also, the issue of recent Supreme Court Rulings, obviously influenced by religious activist Republican appointed S.C. Justices, which discriminate against women's rights, and have already removed a woman's right to survive, and live, in the case of her life being threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term, do make such historical statements, an issue of our times, IMO.

Given that the Bush admiistration is the first administration in our history to install a Religious Office, in the official House of all Americans, and pay off their powerful religous right constituency, with those tax dollars collected from all Americans, albiet sometimes secretly used to finance Republican elections, many libertarians, and Democrats, athiests and agnostics, and even die hard Goldwater, true Conservative Republicans, are greatly concerned by such unamerican actions, as well we should all be, IMO. I assure you, that no blank check approval by myself, or my dear friend Wolfdancer, would be given to any political party who behaved in such a dishonest, illegal manner. Nor would either of us approve of atheists, or any other "Group" so bastardizing our constitution, elections, media, or foreign policy.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 08:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bobbyrx:</font><hr> I'm for sure not a fan of GWB, however, " Passed a tax bill that benefited less than 1% of the people. While blocking any bill that would provide relief to the other 99%" What specific bill(s) are you talking about?
<hr /></blockquote>

don't expect a coherent answer from him

he's all sound bites

he's a nice fella other than that

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 08:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As always, you are a breath of fresh air, my dear friend.

Love,
Gayle <hr /></blockquote>

Because he agrees with you?

If he's a breath of fresh air I hope I am a stink bomb.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 08:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I you have anything pertinent to the subject being discussed, I'd be interested in reading it.

Gayle in Md., Doesn't think this John signed our constitution. <hr /></blockquote>

Dear Ms. One Trick Pony,

If you can offer anything pertinant to any discussion other "I hate George Bush" I would be happy to listen.

Go wallow in your hate and misery, I choose to be optimistic.

Dubya liberated 50 million people. That has to account for something.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-29-2007, 09:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Since the religious right has obviously taken to creating itself into a political movement in order to use the Republican Party in its efforts to dictate to all Americans how they may live their lives,
<hr /></blockquote>

If I were imprudent I might call that statement uninformed and misguided, but I will just say that it is wrong.

Please Gayle, enlighten us. When was the last time the big ol' scary Religious Right infringed on your ability to do what you want? Be specific please.

wolfdancer
09-29-2007, 11:57 PM
"Dubya liberated 50 million people. That has to account for something."
That has to be the most asinine ***** statement that I have read since I've been on this board.
Their Schools, hospitals, and churches have been bombed, roads destroyed, sewer and water supplies damaged, civil war now reigns, explosions occur daily in gathering places, hundreds of thousands killed so far, with no end in sight, mothers are burying their murdered children.....BUT they are free!!! ...free to live in terror...AND yes, Bush can take credit for that. Pardon me while I puke....
I trust that in the "final judgment"....that will account for something, and he will be held accountable.
We can't touch the ***** here in the USA, in his lifetime, with that "get out of jail" card he awarded himself.

Gayle in MD
09-30-2007, 09:36 AM
Oh, you mean Iraqis don't love Americans, hmmm, maybe that's why they say they want to kill us?

Wally has no interest in debate, only insults. A mark of an educated man, no doubt. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Iraqis are so greatful for our "Liberating" them from their evil dictator, originally installed by the Republican Party, that 70% of them want to kill us. But alas, facts have never been the basis for any of Wally's opinions. The right is full of cockeyed optimists, like Wally, who refuse to acknowledge the American Government documented, disasterous results of Bush's illegal occupation of Iraq, how could he possibly grasp the damage prosecuted against the Constitution Of The United States when he views this disaster as some kind humanitarian act by the Bush/Cheney theocratic, fascist regime?


When Bush gives the orders to bomb Iran, and a global war, based in the Middle East, results, it will be optimists like Wally who will no doubt save the day. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The right has already launched their new propaganda non- profit organization, (www.Freedom's Watch.com) to promote war with Iran, and of course, since it is non-profit, they won't have to identify their wealthy billionaire supporters. But, as with the illegal occupation of Iraq, I'm sure it would be only coincidental that the same, mostly jewish owned corporations, almost all of them war contractors, (corporate fascist pigs) will be hiding on the list, beyond public view, just as those who contributed to the American Enterprise Institute, just happen to be the same war profiteerers who have stuffed their pockets full of billions of dollars of blood money from the war in Iraq, came from the same group. And cheney's 38 million dollar bonus from Halliburton, certainly had nothing to do with his unprecedented efforts to occupy Iraq, or his secret meeting with the American Oil Cartel.

The fact that the price of oil goes up whenever a Bush is in the White House, also, purely coincidental.

Obviously, our resident mud slinger, has every right to further his furor's propaganda message, uh, now, is that meshish, (Bush speak) or message? Awe, never mind, as long as "Our childrens do learn" , there is always hope for righties like Wally. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
09-30-2007, 10:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are picking and chosing based on party affiliation, not on principal or you and the others would be lamblasting all the candidates on both sides for gling to church near election time or, as now, the Democrats reaching out to the evangelical churches. No, no outrage there.
<hr /></blockquote>

I haven't singled out any party, or candidate, as regards references to their speaking about their religious philosophy, but IMO, questions about, and even self serving statements about a candidates personal religious beliefs, have no place in the Presidential debates.

Separation Of Church And State, would never have been mentioned by the founders in the first place, if they had intended christianity to be involved in any way in our laws or our Government.

"The separation must be perfect and complete, or both are threatened."

James Madison

Clinton's wish was to avoid war, not root around for cherry picked excuses to start one, btw. I give both Clinton, and Eisenhower, high grades for keeping us out of war throughout their tenures.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 05:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Pardon me while I puke....
I trust that in the "final judgment"....that will account for something, and he will be held accountable.


<hr /></blockquote>

dUBYA'S ACTIONS WILL BE VIEWED THRU THE LENS OF HISTORY.

rEMEMBER nEVILLE cHANBERLAIN WAS A HERO AT ONE POINT.

sorry bout the caps

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 05:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Oh, you mean Iraqis don't love Americans, hmmm, maybe that's why they say they want to kill us?

Wally has no interest in debate, only insults. A mark of an educated man, no doubt. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

This coming from one who has never dished out insults

I debate and I am told I am an uneducated fool, because I have an actual job and a home and do not have time to read all the anti-Bush tomes.

Wally_in_Cincy
09-30-2007, 06:16 PM
“The tongue is the only tool that gets sharper with use”

Washington Irving

Bobbyrx
10-01-2007, 12:51 PM
Yeah, I think it was the Daily Kos/Huffington bill, but I wasn't sure what version.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

moblsv
10-01-2007, 01:35 PM
How can you defend the Constitution when you don't understand it?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/mccain.christian.nation/index.html

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 02:09 PM
Exactly! Maybe that was Bush's problem, also, since he has worked tirelessly to destroy the very fabric of our constitution. Bush said, "It's just a piece of paper." Great! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif He obviously swore an oath to protect something that didn't mean a damned thing to him.


From your link...

[ QUOTE ]
"Former maverick John McCain's statements were repugnant," the group's executive director, Ira N. Forman, said in a statement. "It's been sad watching him transform from political maverick to religious right mouthpiece."
<font color="red">Man, he surely nailed it with that statement! </font color>

Forman added, "Someone running for president ought to understand the Constitution a little better. Nowhere does it say the United States is a 'Christian' nation. How can we trust someone to uphold the Constitution who doesn't even know what is in it?"

<font color="red">Obviously Republicans don't have a clue about what is in the Constitution! You know, you'd think that any group that must continuously split hairs to try to manufacture a reason for their folly, would eventually wake up to their own faulty thinking methods, but NOOOOOOOO!

BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, have you read The Looming Tower? </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

moblsv
10-01-2007, 02:42 PM
"BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, have you read The Looming Tower?"

No, but it is on my list. Would you recommend that I bump its priority? I assume you asked because you think its worth reading.

Gayle in MD
10-01-2007, 02:54 PM
It is without a doubt, hands down, THE Pulitzer Prize winning and leading #1 authority on al Qaeda, the bible on al Qaeda And The Road To 9/11.... which is also the by-line. A remarkable piece of research. You'll be very impressed with this book. Let me know what you think after you read it.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
10-01-2007, 06:09 PM
The Battle of Tripoli:
"This action was largely forgotten by history, and usually only gets scant treatment in books of American history. But this engagement, and the Barbary War that it was part of, was significant in a number of ways:

* It was the first war declared on the United States since its successful bid for independence from Britain.
* It was the first time the United States waged war not on the American continent.
* The US Navy had only been formed a few years prior, so it was the first test of the Constitution class of warship in live fire conditions.
* It was the very first interaction between the United States and the Arab world, and would have long-term repercussions.
* The American flag was raised as a symbol of conquest over foreign soil for the very first time, in the Tripolitan city of Derne."
Ref:web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tripoli_Harbor)

Seems like we are still fighting this battle....

Gayle in MD
10-02-2007, 12:53 PM
Good link, and thanks....here's one for you, diffferent subject, but one I know you'll enjoy reading.

3.15pm update

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Murdoch's mother faces tax bill


Caitlin Fitzsimmons
Tuesday October 2, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk


Dame Elisabeth Murdoch: could be forced to pay up to $AUS100m.

Rupert Murdoch's mother has been left fighting a huge tax bill in the Australian courts after business dealings involving the Murdoch family trusts.
Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, who turns 99 in February next year, could be forced to pay up to $AUS100m (£43.5m) in tax on money she received from the family business and then mostly passed on to her son, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, in the mid-1990s.

In 1994, Dame Elisabeth received funds, believed to be a sum of £36.9m, from the family company, Cruden Investments. This was intended as compensation for breaches of trust by the trustees of four family trusts in which she has a life interest.

The trustees had invested the family trust funds almost entirely in News Corp shares, which - while delivering high growth - had a low dividend return.

Two Queens Counsel ruled this to be a breach of trust and the £36.9m payout, in a deed of settlement signed by Dame Elisabeth, Rupert and other trustees, was intended to make amends.

Most of the £36.9m ended up as a tax-free gift to her son Rupert, who was in the midst of buying out his sisters from the family shareholding of News Corp in a £260.8m deal. Dame Elisabeth also made gifts to other family members and donations to charity.

However, it is Mr Murdoch's mother, who still lives on the family farm on the outskirts of Melbourne that she inherited from her husband Keith in 1952, who has been left with the tax bill.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Australia upheld the judgment of the tax commissioner that the £36.9m was assessable income for tax purposes rather than capital, in a ruling on September 21.

Had it been capital, it would have been exempt from tax, since the investments predated Capital Gains Tax.

The original ruling suppressed the identities of the parties involved, but the names were revealed when Dame Elisabeth's lawyers filed an appeal to the Federal Court last Friday.

The Australian Financial Review reported the news today, in a story by Neil Chenoweth and Matthew Drummond.

The AFR report says the tax demand could reach as much as £43.5m, with general interest charges for late payment compounding on the top marginal rate.

If late payment is not charged, then the bill would total £18.6m.

A spokesman for News Corporation in New York said: "The company has nothing to say about what is a personal matter."

<font color="red">LMAO! </font color>

·

wolfdancer
10-02-2007, 01:07 PM
All that family infighting sounds pretty personal to me.
so Rupert left Mom holding the bag!!!
Well, if she won't pay....some prison time is in order...say
10 to 20 years for tax evasion.....

Gayle in MD
10-02-2007, 01:13 PM
LMAO, yeah, we should have know if he supported George Bush he had to be a real humanitarian, huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Kind of brings back memories of Barbara Bush, donating money in New Orleans, with the hitch that her son get the contract for the learning aids for the schools.

What a scumbag family! From Hitler, to Halliburton, such great generousity!

"Only the little people pay taxes" Leona Helmsley...she may have been a bitch, but atleast she told the truth, LOL.

Love,
Gayle