mspart

Again, he is the chief executive. He can slow sdown payments to get a handle on what the payments are for. If they are not mandated by law, he can get rid of them. Very clear. mspart

Are you complaining about money not being spent right now, or that it will never be spent according to Congressional mandate in the law? If the former, yes, money is not being spent right now. If the former, you have no basis for making such conjecture. You just aren't happy that money has temporarily been stopped from being spent. On those things that Congress did not mandate, you have no valid position. Unless Congress mandated funding LGBT operas in Colombia or trans comics in Peru or circumcision in Africa, I think those things can be stopped easily. mspart

The executive branch is tasked with enforcing laws. The President is the head of the executive branch. The President saying all proclamations on the law by agencies must be coordinated with the AG and/or President is 100% within his Constitutional duties. Have you read the Constitution lately? Congress passes bills, The President signs them and then enforces them. It's very clear. mspart

So how is getting the messaging correct a bad thing? The executive branch should be in agreement. There should not be cases where an agency says one thing that is contrary to the Executive's understanding. Trump is trying to reign in bureaucrats doing what they want, a la USAID sending money to house illegals in hotels after Trump said to stop. Those guys that did that are now gone. mspart

Apparently not. mspart

On the contrary. The original point of this was made moot when he was confirmed. Then you jump to a conclusion that of course is wrong about what he is drinking at a conference. Who drinks bourbon or whiskey while in a working meeting, especially government representatives? Did you ever think of that? You didn't think to do a little more looking at it. You jumped to your conclusion, and I love to say this, without any evidence at all. You just said it. Bigbrog's attention span is on that. mspart

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/feb/18/trump-signs-executive-order-allowing-attorney-gene/ Trump signs executive orders limiting power of agencies, expanding IVF access President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order declaring that only the attorney general or the president, instead of federal regulators or bureaucrats, can speak for the U.S. when interpreting the meaning of laws carried out by the executive branch. This puts the issue in a different context. How is it a problem for agencies to defer to their boss before making a proclamation about the law? Honest question. mspart

But would you have? mspart

This is what I see with your fpds.gov link. Yep, nothing, white screen. Care to try again? mspart

So you don't care to back up your "facts"? Then you are correct, we have nothing more to talk about because you are not participating. I am simply asking you to back up your assertions but you can't or won't so they are not true. You don't know what you are talking about but you want everyone to think you do. Put up or shut up. My guess is you'll shut up or keep on yammering on like no one noticed your fraud. mspart

You have to read RV. That helps. I said, the sex traffickers need to be prosecuted. Apparently you don't think that butchers of youth should be prosecuted, or at the very least they are trafficking in sex predation. It's good to know where everyone stands on these issues. Selective outrage is what you are handing out. mspart

You still have not providing anything to support your specious claim, other than to say it seems pretty clear. I think it seems pretty clear that most liberal women in that age group are white women, of means and education. That shoots down a few of your "it seems clear" suggestions. And you saying Religion is for mental midgets is pure leftism like I said and yet you said it anyway. Proving the point. Bring some proof of your suggestions and then a more intelligent conversation can be held. mspart

It's not just liberal women who are not happy. Just take the win RV. It'll be good for you. mspart

No, he was pointing out your selective outrage. If these guys are sex offenders, they should be prosecuted. Where is the outrage for sex offenders masquerading as doctors who want to butcher youth for money, teachers that groom these kids to think that they may need surgery or puberty blockers, school systems that won't tell parents what is going on with their kids. Selective outrage indeed. And that is not a what about ism. That is exactly what voters rejected in the last election. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/11/democrats-dishonest-gender-conversation-2024-election/680604/ One of the mysteries of this election is how the Democrats approached polling day with a set of policies on gender identity that they were neither proud to champion—nor prepared to disown. Although most Americans agree that transgender people should not face discrimination in housing and employment, there is nowhere near the same level of support for allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sports—which is why Donald Trump kept bringing up the issue. His campaign also barraged swing-state voters and sports fans with ads reminding them that Kamala Harris had previously supported taxpayer-funded gender-reassignment surgery for prisoners. The commercials were effective: The New York Times reported that Future Forward, a pro-Harris super PAC, found that one ad “shifted the race 2.7 percentage points in Mr. Trump’s favor after viewers watched it.” The Harris campaign mostly avoided the subject. Since the election, reports of dissent from this strategy have begun to trickle out. Bill Clinton reportedly raised the alarm about letting the attacks go unanswered, but was ignored. After Harris’s loss, Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts went on the record with his concerns. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that,” he told the Times. The recriminations go as far as the White House, where allies of Joe Biden told my colleague Franklin Foer that the current president would have countered Trump’s ads more aggressively, and “clearly rejected the idea of trans women competing in women’s sports.” mspart

Oh, you knew there were 160 year olds on the SS rolls? And a 300 year old? You didn't know until this was discovered. I'm really surprised, I thought you would be overjoyed that they are on to SS now. Wonders never cease. mspart

Just because YOU want to gut it it must be fraud? Not seeing that. mspart

Musk has found 31 million people eon the social security rolls that are over 110 years old. https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/feb/17/are-150-year-old-americans-receiving-social-securi/ This website tries to explain this all away. But the fact remains that the SS database is not correct and it should be more correct. The listing seen above is not complete. It lists one person between 240-249 years old, and 1 person 360-369 years old. There is something seriously wrong with this. So this is a great find that RV should love. I'm not saying all these people get payments, but the article does say: Between fiscal years 2015 and 2022, which includes Trump’s first presidency, the Social Security Administration sent almost $71.8 billion in improper payments, according to a July 2024 agency inspector general report. The inspector general’s office called improper payments "a longstanding challenge." A November 2021 inspector general’s report found $298 million in payments after death to some 24,000 beneficiaries. (About $84 million was returned, the report said.) These are not huge numbers, but it sis concerning that so many people are on the rolls that are obviously dead. It will be interesting to see more on this. Hopefully they are just listed but not actively being paid. Assuming an average $2000/month per old person, that's around 63Billion that could be saved. Hopefully that is not the case but that is significant. mspart

Continually being obtuse is not working for you. msaprt

I couldn't have walked into it any better than this. Do you have anything that proves your point here. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. mspart

Excellent example of the media lying about Biden!! mspart

And at the bottom of that article is this: Why you can rely on the Guardian not to bow to Trump – or anyone They are advertising their opposition to Trump. Very clearly not a neutral outlet. mspart

Are you saying liberal women are not white, do not have money, are homeless, and are older? Did you not read the age of these women is 18-40? I would agree that they are not men and probably do not belong to any organized religion. Religion is fairly antithetical to being liberal. mspart

Jack Webb was ahead of his time with his Just the Fax ma'am. Jack Lord constantly said Bookem Dano in the awesome Hawaii 5-0 show. I lived in Hawaii for 4 years, and I can say that everyone associated with that show is revered there. Dano was still alive at that time and was held as a hero. Jim Nabors as well. My guess about liberal women is that they are so bitter no one wants to be around them. mspart

https://singjupost.com/full-transcript-vp-jd-vance-remarks-at-the-munich-security-conference/?singlepage=1 VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE: Well, thank you, and thanks to all the gathered delegates and luminaries and media professionals, and thanks especially to the host of the Munich Security Conference for being able to put on such an incredible event. We’re, of course, thrilled to be here, we’re happy to be here, and one of the things that I wanted to talk about today is, of course, our shared values, and, you know, it’s great to be back in Germany, as you heard earlier. I was here last year as a United States Senator, I saw Foreign Secretary David Lammy and joked that both of us last year had different jobs than we have now, but now it’s time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective peoples to use it wisely to improve their lives, and I want to say that I was fortunate in my time here to spend some time outside the walls of this conference over the last 24 hours, and I’ve been so impressed by the hospitality of the people, even, of course, as they’re reeling from yesterday’s horrendous attack. And the first time I was ever in Munich was with my wife, actually, who’s here with me today on a personal trip, and I’ve always loved the city of Munich, and I’ve always loved its people, and I just want to say that we’re very moved, and our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and everybody affected by the evil inflicted on this beautiful community. We’re thinking about you, we’re praying for you, and we will certainly be rooting for you in the days and weeks to come. Security Concerns and European Values I hope that’s not the last bit of applause that I get, but we gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security, and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many great military leaders gathered here today, but while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it’s important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Now I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany, too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years, we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values, we must live them. Lessons from the Cold War Now within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. But thank God they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty. The freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, to invent, to build. As it turns out, you can’t mandate innovation or creativity just as you can’t force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe. And we believe those things are certainly connected. And unfortunately, when I look at Europe today, it’s sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War’s winners. I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be, quote, “hateful content.” I look to my own country, where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of, quote, “combating misogyny on the internet, a day of action.” I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friend’s murder. As the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden’s laws to supposedly protect free expression do not, in fact, grant, and I’m quoting, “a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief.” Concerns About Religious Freedom in the UK And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends in the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government’s new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person’s decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. Now I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. Censorship in the United States And in the interest of comedy, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe, but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation. Misinformation, like, for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leaked from a laboratory in China, our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth. So I come here today not just with an observation, but with an offer. Just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that. In Washington, there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree. Election Cancellation in Romania Now we’re at the point, of course, that the situation has gotten so bad that this December, Romania straight-up canceled the results of a presidential election, based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections. But I’d ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it’s wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage, even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few hundred thousand dollars of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn’t very strong to begin with. Now the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear, and I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still. Which of course brings us back to Munich, where the organizers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations. Now again, we don’t have to agree with everything or anything that people say, but when people represent, when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them. Now to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation who simply don’t like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid, vote a different way or even worse, win an election. Defense Spending and European Security Now this is a security conference and I’m sure you all came here prepared to talk about how exactly you intend to increase defense spending over the next few years in line with some new target. And that’s great, because as President Trump has made abundantly clear, he believes that our European friends must play a bigger role in the future of this continent. We don’t think, you hear this term, burden sharing, but we think it’s an important part of being in a shared alliance together that the Europeans step up while America focuses on areas of the world that are in great danger. But let me also ask you, how will you even begin to think through the kinds of budgeting questions if we don’t know what it is that we’re defending in the first place? I’ve heard a lot already in my conversations, and I’ve had many, many great conversations with many people gathered here in this room. I’ve heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that’s important. But what has seemed a little bit less clear to me, and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe, is what exactly it is that you’re defending yourselves for. What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important? And I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people. Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump. You need democratic mandates to accomplish anything of value in the coming years. Have we learned nothing that thin mandates produce unstable results? The Importance of Democratic Mandates But there is so much of value that can be accomplished with the kind of democratic mandate that I think will come from being more responsive to the voices of your citizens. If you’re going to enjoy competitive economies, if you’re going to enjoy affordable energy and secure supply chains, then you need mandates to govern, because you have to make difficult choices to enjoy all of these things, and of course we know that very well in America. You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail, whether that’s the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news. Nor can you win one by disregarding your basic electorate on questions like who gets to be a part of our shared society. The Challenge of Mass Migration And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. Today, almost one in five people living in this country moved here from abroad. That is, of course, an all-time high. It’s a similar number, by the way, in the United States, also an all-time high. The number of immigrants who entered the EU from non-EU countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone, and of course it’s gotten much higher since. And we know the situation, it didn’t materialize in a vacuum. It’s the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent and others across the world over the span of a decade. We saw the horrors wrought by these decisions yesterday in this very city. And of course, I can’t bring it up again without thinking about the terrible victims who had a beautiful winter day in Munich ruined. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and will remain with them. But why did this happen in the first place? It’s a terrible story, but it’s one we’ve heard way too many times in Europe and unfortunately too many times in the United States as well. An asylum seeker, often a young man in his mid-twenties, already known to police, rams a car into a crowd and shatters a community. How many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take our shared civilization in a new direction? No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants. But you know what they did vote for? In England, they voted for Brexit, and agree or disagree, they voted for it. And more and more all over Europe, they’re voting for political leaders who promise to put an end to out-of-control migration. Now I happen to agree with a lot of these concerns, but you don’t have to agree with me. I just think that people care about their homes, they care about their dreams, they care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children. And they’re smart. I think this is one of the most important things I’ve learned in my brief time in politics. Contrary to what you might hear a couple of mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don’t generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy. And it’s hardly surprising that they don’t want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders. It is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box. I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process, protects nothing. In fact, it is the most sure-fire way to destroy democracy. And speaking up and expressing opinions isn’t election interference, even when people express views outside your own country and even when those people are very influential. And trust me, I say this with all humor, if American Democracy can survive ten years of Greta Thunberg’s scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. The Importance of Listening to the People But what no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don’t. Europeans, the people, have a voice. European leaders have a choice. And my strong belief is that we do not need to be afraid of the future. You can embrace what your people tell you, even when it’s surprising, even when you don’t agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty and with confidence, knowing that the nation stands behind each of you. And that, to me, is the great magic of democracy. It’s not in these stone buildings or beautiful hotels. It’s not even in the great institutions that we have built together as a shared society. To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice. And if we refuse to listen to that voice, even our most successful fights will secure very little. As Pope John Paul II, in my view, one of the most extraordinary champions of democracy on this continent or any other, once said, “Do not be afraid.” We shouldn’t be afraid of our people, even when they express views that disagree with their leadership. Thank you all. Good luck to all of you. God bless you. I decided to post the video and the transcript so everyone can easily listen or read. This is a major speech and sorely needed. mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/02/18/the-american-moment-critics-prove-vances-point-on-the-threat-of-the-anti-free-speech-movement/ Below is my column in the New York Post on the unhinged response to Vice President J.D. Vance’s historic defense of free speech in Europe. The chorus of criticism from press and pundits was immediate. Literally speaking through tears, German diplomat Christoph Heusgen responded to VP Vance: “It is clear that our rules-based international order is under pressure. It is my strong belief that this more multipolar world needs to be based on a single set of norms and principles.” Indeed, it is and that is a good thing. Vance was speaking truth to transnationalists who view free speech as a threat to the “international order” that they maintain. The response from the American left was even more bizarre. Not only did CBS’s Margaret Brennan suggest that free speech caused the holocaust, but Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) said that Vance, in defending free speech, used “some of the same language that Hitler used to justify the Holocaust.” Here is the column: On Friday, Vice President JD Vance gave a historic defense of free speech at the Munich Security Conference. In front of a clearly hostile assemblage of European diplomats, Vance confronted our allies with their systemic censorship as they demanded more support to “defend democracy.” For the free speech community, it was akin to Ronald Reagan’s call: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Vance questioned how our allies could claim to be the bastions of freedom while denying free expression to their citizens. He then delivered this haymaker: “If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you. Nor, for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people that elected me and elected President Trump.” Not surprisingly, the Europeans sat on their hands while glaring at Vance for calling them out for their hypocrisy. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius declared Vance’s remarks were “not acceptable.” An unnamed German official in attendance declared, “This is all so insane and worrying.” The outrage of the Europeans was only surpassed by our own anti-free speech voices in government, the media and academia. Commentator and CNN regular Bill Kristol called the speech “a humiliation for the US and a confirmation that this administration isn’t on the side of the democracies.” It appears that free speech is no longer viewed as pro-democracy. Indeed, it could be outright fascism. In one of the most bizarre attacks, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan confronted Secretary of State Marco Rubio over Vance’s support for free speech given the fact that he was “standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide.” In other words, it was free speech that brought Hitler to power and caused the Holocaust. Brennan’s statement is completely detached from history and logic. Germans did enjoy free speech protections after World War I, though the Weimar Constitution was more limited than the First Amendment. However, one of the first things that the Nazis did in coming to power in 1933 was to crack down on free speech and criminalize dissent. Censorship is the harbinger of authoritarianism and Germany is the ultimate example of how no censorship system in history has ever succeeded in killing one idea or stopping a single movement. Brennan could not have picked a better country to utterly destroy the point that she was trying to make in favor of limits on free speech. Germany continued to censor and criminalize speech after World War II, targeting the neo-Nazi movement and other prohibited viewpoints. Authorities charged citizens for everything from wine labels to ringtones with banned content. The government has sought to force figures like X owner Elon Musk to censor Americans and others to combat anything that it deems “fake news” or “disinformation.” Of course, Germany’s massive censorship effort has done little to deter the thriving neo-Nazi movement. What it has done is chill the speech of ordinary citizens. One poll of German citizens found that only 18% of Germans feel free to express their opinions in public. Only 17% felt free to express themselves on the internet. Other nations joined in the harrumphs with equally disingenuous statements, including the United Kingdom. British diplomats expressed shock despite their systemic suppression of free speech, including arresting citizens for simply praying to themselves near abortion clinics. The British have doubled down on censorship with sweeping new laws. Hundreds have been arrested recently for speech crimes like spreading “fake news” or disinformation that could lead to “non-trivial psychological or physical harm.” Previously, British citizens were arrested for criticizing religious groups or opposing homosexuality or immigration. In one case, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire. In 1963, John F. Kennedy went to Germany to declare “Ich bin ein Berliner” to express solidarity with those who were fighting for the right to live and speak freely behind the Iron Curtain. More than 60 years later, Vance returned to essentially declare “Ich bin ein Amerikanischer,” affirming our commitment to a right that not only defines the United States, but once defined Western civilization. He argued that if we are to defeat our foreign adversaries, we must first protect those rights that distinguish us from them. The response of our press and pundits only proved Vance’s point. We have returned to the moment described by Tom Paine during our Revolution, a time that would “try men’s souls.” Those opposing free speech today are like “the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” who, Paine warned, would “shrink” from the defense of our values. The anti-free speech movement that has swept over Europe has finally reached our shores. Vance drew a bright line in Europe and we will all have to decide on which side to stand. Some obviously have made the decision to stand with Europe. For the rest of us, we will stand with free speech. Vance called out Europe and it was a measure of tough love. Democracies, by their very name, is power by the people. When the rights of the people are stifled, it is no longer power by the people. Europe is very much stifling the rights of their constituents. Jonathan Turley calls it right here. JD Vance spoke truth to power, something that has not been done in decades. It was not an angry speech, it was not done with attitude or snark. He simply laid out the issues that confront both Europe and the US and noted that the US chose free speech over censorship. When governments are afraid of their voters, they no longer are a democracy. I urge all to read his remarks. I may post them here for your convenience. mspart