Archive for November, 2011

EMERGENCY BREAKING NO MORE EMAILS FROM WORK NEWS, 30MINS. AGO, 11-29-2011. A COMPANY BANS ALL EMPLOYEES FROM SENDING EMAILS. SAY WHAT. YOU READ US. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

Www.lobbyistsorfficesofgrw.com has learned that employees of tech company Atos will be banned from sending emails under the company’s new “zero email” policy.

CEO Thierry Breton of the French information technology company said only 10 percent of the 200 messages employees receive per day are useful and 18 percent is spam.  That’s why he hopes the company can eradicate internal emails in 18 months, forcing the company’s 74,000 employees to communicate with each other via instant messaging and a Facebook-style interface.

Caroline Crouch, a spokeswoman for the company, told ABC News the goal is focused on internal emails rather than external emails with clients and partners. Atos has already reduced the number of internal emails by 20 percent in six months.

When asked how employees have responded to the policy, Crouch told ABC News the overall response “has been positive with strong take up of alternative tools.”

Breton,  the French finance minister from 2005 to 2007, told the Wall Street Journal he has not sent an email in the three years since he became chairman and CEO of Atos in November 2008.

“We are producing data on a massive scale that is fast polluting our working environments and also encroaching into our personal lives,” he said in a statement when first announcing the policy in Feburary. “At [Atos] we are taking action now to reverse this trend, just as organizations took measures to reduce environmental pollution after the industrial revolution.”

Atos had revenue last year of of EUR 8.6 billion, or $11.5 billion, and has offices in 42 countries, according to the company website.

The company says by 2013, more than half of all new digital content will be the result of updates to, and editing of existing information. Middle managers spend more than 25 percent of their time searching for information, according to the company.

Crouch said Atos is evaluating a number of new tools to replace internal email including collaborative and social media tools. Those include the Atos Wiki, which allows all employees to communicate by contributing or modifying online content, and Office Communicator, the company’s online chat system which allows video conferencing, and file and application sharing.

EMERGENCY BREAKING BABY LISA IRIWN NEWS, 20MINS. AGO, 11-29-2011. BABY LISA IRIWN’S SEARCHERS & POLICE ARE RIGHT NOW GATHERING THE RESOURCES TO SEARCH THE WELL UNDER THE CASINO THAT CLOSED 14YRS. AGO. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that the Kansas City police indicated they hope to search that well soon. According to the Examiner, Kansas City police spokesman Steve Young indicated that numerous resources were necessary for the well search.

Last Prayer Vigil

The prayer vigils for baby Lisa are coming to an end, according to a post by organizer Edith Fine on the “everyone” wall of the Baby Lisa Irwin Updates Facebook page. But it’s not for lack of public interest. Deborah Bradley, mother of the missing baby, made the decision that Tuesday’s 7 p.m. prayer vigil will be the last one held in front of her house on North Lister St., the post said.

On the Facebook wall, some of the past vigil participants, displeased by Bradley’s decision, discussed a possible 1,000 mom march to the Bradley-Irwin home where they say they could pray all they want on public property outside.

Bradley’s and Irwin’s lawyer now denies the couple are suspects in baby Lisa’s disappearance despite telling ABC Nov. 11 that the police “absolutely” considered the couple suspects. At that time he said the police “…told them as much, Debbie in particular.”

EMERGENCY BREAKING BABY LISA IRWIN NEWS, 10MINS. AGO, 11-29-2011. BABY LISA IRWIN’S PARENTS WILL HOLD THE LAST PRAYER VIGIL FOR BABY LISA IRWIN TODAY. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that the prayer vigils for baby Lisa are coming to an end, according to a post by organizer Edith Fine on the “everyone” wall of the Baby Lisa Irwin Updates Facebook page. But it’s not for lack of public interest. Deborah Bradley, mother of the missing baby, made the decision that Tuesday’s 7 p.m. prayer vigil will be the last one held in front of her house on North Lister St., the post said.

On the Facebook wall, some of the past vigil participants, displeased by Bradley’s decision, discussed a possible 1,000 mom march to the Bradley-Irwin home where they say they could pray all they want on public property outside.

Blake Irwin Custody Hearing

Fox 4 reports that the custody hearing involving 8-year-old Blake Irwin will occur today. The boy’s father Jeremy Irwin has had custody of the boy since 2008. Blake Irwin has been living with Irwin, his live-in girlfriend Deborah Bradley, Bradley’s 5-year-old son Michael, and, until her Oct. 4 disappearance, baby Lisa, the biological child of Bradley and Irwin. But Blake’s mother, Rasleen Raim, filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and a Motion to Modify Child Custody/Visitation Nov. 14, with her attorney saying she’s concerned about Blake’s safety, comfort and peace of mind. The next day, www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com reported that Irwin and Bradley moved the family back into their Lister St. home despite having said previously they’d never return.

Bradley’s and Irwin’s lawyer now denies the couple are suspects in baby Lisa’s disappearance despite telling ABC Nov. 11 that the police “absolutely” considered the couple suspects. At that time he said the police “…told them as much, Debbie in particular.”

The final decision on the custody and visitation petition is expected to be issued Dec. 7.

EMERGENCY BREAKING BABY LISA IRIWN NEWS, 5MINS. AGO, 11-29-2011. SEARCH FOR BABY LISA AT A CLOSED CASINO UNCOVERS A WELL THAT POLICE DIDN’T KNOW WAS THERE, THANKS TO PSYCHIC STEPHANIE. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that the search by volunteers of a closed casino, undertaken during the weekend at the behest of a psychic, didn’t turn up baby Lisa but did uncover a well not previously known or searched.

Kansas City police indicated they hope to search that well soon. According to the Examiner, Kansas City police spokesman Steve Young indicated that numerous resources were necessary for the well search.

Last Prayer Vigil

The prayer vigils for baby Lisa are coming to an end, according to a post by organizer Edith Fine on the “everyone” wall of the Baby Lisa Irwin Updates Facebook page. But it’s not for lack of public interest. Deborah Bradley, mother of the missing baby, made the decision that Tuesday’s 7 p.m. prayer vigil will be the last one held in front of her house on North Lister St., the post said.

On the Facebook wall, some of the past vigil participants, displeased by Bradley’s decision, discussed a possible 1,000 mom march to the Bradley-Irwin home where they say they could pray all they want on public property outside.

Blake Irwin Custody Hearing

Fox 4 reports that the custody hearing involving 8-year-old Blake Irwin will occur today. The boy’s father Jeremy Irwin has had custody of the boy since 2008. Blake Irwin has been living with Irwin, his live-in girlfriend Deborah Bradley, Bradley’s 5-year-old son Michael, and, until her Oct. 4 disappearance, baby Lisa, the biological child of Bradley and Irwin. But Blake’s mother, Rasleen Raim, filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and a Motion to Modify Child Custody/Visitation Nov. 14, with her attorney saying she’s concerned about Blake’s safety, comfort and peace of mind. The next day, www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com reported that Irwin and Bradley moved the family back into their Lister St. home despite having said previously they’d never return.

Bradley’s and Irwin’s lawyer now denies the couple are suspects in baby Lisa’s disappearance despite telling ABC Nov. 11 that the police “absolutely” considered the couple suspects. At that time he said the police “…told them as much, Debbie in particular.”

The final decision on the custody and visitation petition is expected to be issued Dec. 7.

EMERGENCY BREAKING BABY LISA IRIWN NEWS, 1MIN. AGO, 11-29-2011. BABY LISA IRWIN’S MOTHER GETS BIT BY A PITBULL OVER CUSTODY BATTLE. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that the Blake Irwin custody hearing and the last prayer vigil to be held for baby Lisa at the Irwin home both will take place today.

Last week, Kansas City police shut down its dedicated command center for the missing baby Lisa Irwin investigation, www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com reported, as fewer tips are coming in as the search approaches the two-month mark.

The search by volunteers of a closed casino, undertaken during the weekend at the behest of a psychic, didn’t turn up baby Lisa but did uncover a well not previously known or searched. Kansas City police indicated they hope to search that well soon. According to the Examiner, Kansas City police spokesman Steve Young indicated that numerous resources were necessary for the well search.

Last Prayer Vigil

The prayer vigils for baby Lisa are coming to an end, according to a post by organizer Edith Fine on the “everyone” wall of the Baby Lisa Irwin Updates Facebook page. But it’s not for lack of public interest. Deborah Bradley, mother of the missing baby, made the decision that Tuesday’s 7 p.m. prayer vigil will be the last one held in front of her house on North Lister St., the post said.

On the Facebook wall, some of the past vigil participants, displeased by Bradley’s decision, discussed a possible 1,000 mom march to the Bradley-Irwin home where they say they could pray all they want on public property outside.

Blake Irwin Custody Hearing

Fox 4 reports that the custody hearing involving 8-year-old Blake Irwin will occur today. The boy’s father Jeremy Irwin has had custody of the boy since 2008. Blake Irwin has been living with Irwin, his live-in girlfriend Deborah Bradley, Bradley’s 5-year-old son Michael, and, until her Oct. 4 disappearance, baby Lisa, the biological child of Bradley and Irwin. But Blake’s mother, Rasleen Raim, filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and a Motion to Modify Child Custody/Visitation Nov. 14, with her attorney saying she’s concerned about Blake’s safety, comfort and peace of mind. The next day, www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com reported that Irwin and Bradley moved the family back into their Lister St. home despite having said previously they’d never return.

Bradley’s and Irwin’s lawyer now denies the couple are suspects in baby Lisa’s disappearance despite telling ABC Nov. 11 that the police “absolutely” considered the couple suspects. At that time he said the police “…told them as much, Debbie in particular.”

The final decision on the custody and visitation petition is expected to be issued Dec. 7.

EMERGENCY BREAKING LIFE SAVINGS DONATION LOST BY AN 80YR.OLD MAN NEWS, 1HR. AGO, 11-29-2011. MAN ACCIDENTALLY DONATES HIS LIFE SAVINGS SEWN IN A SUIT TO GOODWILL. NOW HE WANTS HIS MONEY BACK TO CARE FOR HIS WIFE WITH CANCER. HOW MUCH DID HE ACCIDENTALLY DONATE? WATCH THIS VIDEO (LINK BELOW) & READ THIS POST. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-accidentally-gives-away-life-savings-hidden-away-165333331.html

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that a 80 yr.old man donated his life savings of $13,000 cash to goodwill by accident.

There’s a cynical old saying that “no good deed goes unpunished.” That adage has proved true for an elderly Illinois man who accidentally gave away his entire life savings when making a clothing donation to his local Goodwill.

The 80-year-old man, who didn’t trust banks, had kept his life savings of $13,000 sewn inside the lining of one of his suits. He is currently appealing for the money’s return so that he can care for his wife, who has Stage 4 cancer

Goodwill spokeswoman Dana Engelbert said the charity has searched the Moline store where the man made his donation but could not find the suit in question. “We’re sorting through the donations that came in at the time,” Engelbert explained. Goodwill employees are also searching through bins of donated clothes transported from the Moline facility to a regional warehouse in Iowa City.

“We’re hoping it’s still there and we can find it for them,” Engelbert said, “It’s their life savings. It’s important.”

The man’s daughter, who says he is remaining anonymous because he is “devastated and embarrassed” by the story, is offering a $1,000 reward for the suit’s new owner to return the cash.

EMERGENCY BREAKING AMERICA HAS LIED TO THE U.S. CITIZENS NEWS, 11-29-2011. IF YOU DON’T READ ANY OTHER POST FROM THIS BLOG READ THIS ONE. AMERICA IS NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. THE FIRST SIX PRESIDENTS SAY SO & THEY SIGNED A TREATY CALLED “TREATY OF TRIPOLI” SAYING AMERICA IS NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISITANITY. SEE THIS TREATY BELOW. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

Barbary Pirates

For three centuries up to the time of the Treaty, the Mediterranean Sea lanes had been preyed on by the North African Muslim states of the Barbary Coast (Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco and Tunis) through privateering (government-sanctioned piracy). Hostages captured by the Barbary pirates were either ransomed or forced into slavery, contributing to the greater Ottoman slave trade (of which the Barbary states were a segment). Life for the captives often was harsh, especially for Christian captives, and many died from their treatment. Some captives “went Turk”, that is, converted to Islam, a choice that made life in captivity easier for them.[4]

Before the American Revolution, the British colonies in North America were protected from the Barbary pirates by British warships and treaties. During the Revolution, the Kingdom of France formed an alliance with the colonies and assumed the responsibility of providing protection of U.S. ships against the Barbary pirates.[5] After the U.S. won its independence with the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783), it had to face the threat of the Barbary pirates on its own. Two American ships were captured by Algerian pirates in July 1785 and the survivors forced into slavery, their ransom set at $60,000. A rumor that Benjamin Franklin, who was en route from France to Philadelphia about that time, had been captured by Barbary pirates, caused considerable upset in the U.S.[6] Without a standing navy, much less a navy capable of projecting force across an ocean, the U.S. was forced to pay tribute monies and goods to the Barbary nations for the security of its ships and the freedom of its captured citizens. As General William Eaton informed newly-appointed Secretary of State John Marshall in 1800, “It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that ‘The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.’”[7] Soon after the formation of the United States, privateering in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean from the nations of the Barbary Coast prompted the U.S. to initiate a series of so-called peace treaties, collectively known as the Barbary Treaties. Individual treaties were negotiated with Morocco (1786), Algiers (1795), Tripoli (1797) and Tunis (1797), all of them more than once. The United States consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis was Joel Barlow, who dealt with the text of various treaties (including the Treaty of Tripoli) and supported U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Barbary Coast. Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States, David Humphreys, was given the right to establish a treaty with Tripoli and assigned Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson to broker it. It was Joel Barlow who certified the signatures on the Arabic original and the English copy provided to him. Later, Captain Richard O’Brien established the original transport of the negotiated goods along with the Treaty, but it was the American Consul James Leander Cathcart who delivered the final requirements of payment for the treaty.

Signing and ratification

President George Washington appointed his old colleague David Humphreys as Commissioner Plenipotentiary on March 30, 1795, in order to negotiate a treaty with the Barbary powers.[8] On February 10, 1796, Humphreys appointed Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson as “Junior Agents” to forge a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship”.[9] Under Humphreys’ authority, the treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and certified at Algiers on January 3, 1797. Humphreys reviewed the treaty and approved it in Lisbon on February 10, 1797.[9]

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress. Miller says, “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.”[10]

The Treaty also had spent seven months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by officials at each stop along the way. Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it, and there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified. However, there is a statement made by President Adams on the document that reads:

President Adams’ signing statement

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification recommendation.[11]

However, before anyone in the United States saw the Treaty, its required payments, in the form of goods and money, had been made in part. As Barlow declared: “The present writing done by our hand and delivered to the American Captain OBrien makes known that he has delivered to us forty thousand Spanish dollars,-thirteen watches of gold, silver & pinsbach,-five rings, of which three of diamonds, one of saphire and one with a watch in it, One hundred & forty piques of cloth, and four caftans of brocade,-and these on account of the peace concluded with the Americans.”[1] However, this was an incomplete amount of goods stipulated under the treaty (according to the Pasha of Tripoli) and an additional $18,000 dollars had to be paid by the American Consul James Leander Cathcart at his arrival on April 10, 1799.[12]

It was not until these final goods were delivered that the Pasha of Tripoli recognized the Treaty as official. In Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America by David Hunter Miller, which is regarded as an authoritative collection of international agreements of the United States between 1776 and 1937,[13] Hunter Miller describes, “While the original ratification remained in the hands of Cathcart… it is possible that a copy thereof was delivered upon the settlement of April 10, 1799, and further possible that there was something almost in the nature of an exchange of ratifications of the treaty on or about April 10, 1799, the day of the agreed settlement.”[12] It is then that the Pasha declares in a Letter to John Adams on April 15, 1799, “Whereby we have consummated the Peace which shall, on our side, be inviolate, provided You are Willing to treat us as You do other Regencies, without any difference being made between Us. Which is the whole of what We have, at present, to say to You, wishing you at the same time the most unlimited prosperity.”[12]

Article 11

Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[12] that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation,[7] or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[14]

Article 11

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.” Lambert writes,

“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The Senate’s ratification was only the third time in history the Senate had voted unanimously. It was the 339th time that the Senate decided to require a recorded vote. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.[16] This quiet assent to the Treaty of Tripoli is all the more remarkable because evidence of the erroneous character of the translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since approximately 1800. It is a mystery why no one made any notice of the defects in the translation or comparison of the English translation with other translations prior to 1930.[17]

Translation and Article 11

Miller’s Investigation and Notes

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been questioned, and it has been disputed whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.[18]

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States’ treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States’ legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[19] According to Hunter Miller’s notes, “the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic” and “Article 11… does not exist at all.”[12]

After comparing the United States’ version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.[12]

From this, Miller concludes: “A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic… yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts…”[12] It is important to note, though, that as Miller said:

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[12]

However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented by the President and ratified unanimously in 1796 by the U.S. Senate following strict Constitutional procedures.

Barbary Wars

The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson‘s refusal to pay the Pasha’s demands for increased payments. In the course of negotiating with the Barbary nations, each of the Barbary rulers continuously demanded increased payments to maintain peace, even while occasionally capturing U.S. ships. The Pasha of Tripoli was jealous of the ships the U.S. had recently given to Algeria, and demanded similar payment be made to him. On September 25, 1800, Tripoli captured the U.S. ship, Catherine, robbed the crew and plundered its cargo. The Pasha said this was a mistake and the captain responsible for the capture had been punished. Even so, the Pasha warned Cathcart that either the U.S. send additional payments, or the Pasha would declare war on U.S. vessels within six months.

The Pasha then commenced thus: “Counsul there is no Nation I wish more to be at Peace with than yours, but all Nations pay me & so must the Americans.” I answered “we have already paid you all we owe you & are nothing in arrears.” He answered that for the Peace we had paid him it was true, but to maintain the Peace we had given him nothing. I observed that the terms of our Treaty were to pay him the stipulated stores [and the] cash and in full of all demands forever…. The Pasha then observed that we had given a great deal to Algiers and Tunis…. he hoped the United States would [not] neglect him as six or eight vessels of the value of his would amount to a much larger sum than ever he expected to get from the United States for remaining at Peace.[20]

Meanwhile, the U.S. was quickly losing patience with the Barbary nations, and had been building up its Navy in preparation for armed confrontation. On May 15, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet again advised him to send a squadron to the Mediterranean, but only as a retaliatory force. On May 20, 1801, Commodore Richard Dale was commissioned to lead three frigates and a schooner to patrol the Mediterranean sea lanes. They set sail on June 2, 1801. However, unknown to Jefferson, the Pasha of Tripoli declared war against the United States on May 10, 1801.[20][21][22][23] In sending the Navy squadron to the Mediterranean, Jefferson declared,

“To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean.”[24]

Soon after Commodore Dale sailed into a neutral British port near the Straits of Gibraltar, he discovered that Tripoli had declared war on the United States. Commodore Dale’s commission only authorized him to blockade adversarial ports and capture hostile ships, so he could not attack Tripoli directly. However, he notified the Pasha of Tripoli that he could negotiate terms of surrender.

Through subsequent battles, Tripoli eventually agreed to terms of peace with the United States. Tobias Lear negotiated a second “Treaty of Peace and Amity” with the Pasha Yusuf on June 4, 1805.[25] To the dismay of many Americans, the new settlement included a ransom of $60,000 paid for the release of prisoners from the USS Philadelphia and several U.S. merchant ships. By 1807, Algiers had gone back to taking U.S. ships and seamen hostage. Distracted by the preludes to the War of 1812, the United States was unable to respond to the provocations until 1815, with the Second Barbary War, thereby concluding the encompassing Barbary Wars (1800–1815).

EMERGENCY, EMERGENCY BREAKING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEWS, 2MINS. AGO, 11-29-2011. THE FIRST 6 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHERE NOT CHRISTIANS. THEY SIGNED A TREATY SAYING AMERICA IS NOT FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. SAY WHAT? YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED & LIED TO THINKING AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY. DON’T BELIEVE US. THE TREATY (TREATY OF TRIPOLI) IS POSTED BELOW FOR YOUR REVIEW. WAKE UP DAMM IT AMERICA WAKE THE FUCK UP. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in America.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

Barbary Pirates

For three centuries up to the time of the Treaty, the Mediterranean Sea lanes had been preyed on by the North African Muslim states of the Barbary Coast (Tripoli, Algiers, Morocco and Tunis) through privateering (government-sanctioned piracy). Hostages captured by the Barbary pirates were either ransomed or forced into slavery, contributing to the greater Ottoman slave trade (of which the Barbary states were a segment). Life for the captives often was harsh, especially for Christian captives, and many died from their treatment. Some captives “went Turk”, that is, converted to Islam, a choice that made life in captivity easier for them.[4]

Before the American Revolution, the British colonies in North America were protected from the Barbary pirates by British warships and treaties. During the Revolution, the Kingdom of France formed an alliance with the colonies and assumed the responsibility of providing protection of U.S. ships against the Barbary pirates.[5] After the U.S. won its independence with the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783), it had to face the threat of the Barbary pirates on its own. Two American ships were captured by Algerian pirates in July 1785 and the survivors forced into slavery, their ransom set at $60,000. A rumor that Benjamin Franklin, who was en route from France to Philadelphia about that time, had been captured by Barbary pirates, caused considerable upset in the U.S.[6] Without a standing navy, much less a navy capable of projecting force across an ocean, the U.S. was forced to pay tribute monies and goods to the Barbary nations for the security of its ships and the freedom of its captured citizens. As General William Eaton informed newly-appointed Secretary of State John Marshall in 1800, “It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that ‘The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well.’”[7] Soon after the formation of the United States, privateering in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean from the nations of the Barbary Coast prompted the U.S. to initiate a series of so-called peace treaties, collectively known as the Barbary Treaties. Individual treaties were negotiated with Morocco (1786), Algiers (1795), Tripoli (1797) and Tunis (1797), all of them more than once. The United States consul-general to the Barbary states of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis was Joel Barlow, who dealt with the text of various treaties (including the Treaty of Tripoli) and supported U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Barbary Coast. Commissioner Plenipotentiary of the United States, David Humphreys, was given the right to establish a treaty with Tripoli and assigned Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson to broker it. It was Joel Barlow who certified the signatures on the Arabic original and the English copy provided to him. Later, Captain Richard O’Brien established the original transport of the negotiated goods along with the Treaty, but it was the American Consul James Leander Cathcart who delivered the final requirements of payment for the treaty.

Signing and ratification

President George Washington appointed his old colleague David Humphreys as Commissioner Plenipotentiary on March 30, 1795, in order to negotiate a treaty with the Barbary powers.[8] On February 10, 1796, Humphreys appointed Joel Barlow and Joseph Donaldson as “Junior Agents” to forge a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship”.[9] Under Humphreys’ authority, the treaty was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and certified at Algiers on January 3, 1797. Humphreys reviewed the treaty and approved it in Lisbon on February 10, 1797.[9]

The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress. Miller says, “the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.”[10]

The Treaty also had spent seven months traveling from Tripoli to Algiers to Portugal and, finally, to the United States, and had been signed by officials at each stop along the way. Neither Congress nor President Adams would have been able to cancel the terms of the Treaty by the time they first saw it, and there is no record of discussion or debate of the Treaty of Tripoli at the time that it was ratified. However, there is a statement made by President Adams on the document that reads:

President Adams’ signing statement

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification recommendation.[11]

However, before anyone in the United States saw the Treaty, its required payments, in the form of goods and money, had been made in part. As Barlow declared: “The present writing done by our hand and delivered to the American Captain OBrien makes known that he has delivered to us forty thousand Spanish dollars,-thirteen watches of gold, silver & pinsbach,-five rings, of which three of diamonds, one of saphire and one with a watch in it, One hundred & forty piques of cloth, and four caftans of brocade,-and these on account of the peace concluded with the Americans.”[1] However, this was an incomplete amount of goods stipulated under the treaty (according to the Pasha of Tripoli) and an additional $18,000 dollars had to be paid by the American Consul James Leander Cathcart at his arrival on April 10, 1799.[12]

It was not until these final goods were delivered that the Pasha of Tripoli recognized the Treaty as official. In Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America by David Hunter Miller, which is regarded as an authoritative collection of international agreements of the United States between 1776 and 1937,[13] Hunter Miller describes, “While the original ratification remained in the hands of Cathcart… it is possible that a copy thereof was delivered upon the settlement of April 10, 1799, and further possible that there was something almost in the nature of an exchange of ratifications of the treaty on or about April 10, 1799, the day of the agreed settlement.”[12] It is then that the Pasha declares in a Letter to John Adams on April 15, 1799, “Whereby we have consummated the Peace which shall, on our side, be inviolate, provided You are Willing to treat us as You do other Regencies, without any difference being made between Us. Which is the whole of what We have, at present, to say to You, wishing you at the same time the most unlimited prosperity.”[12]

Article 11

Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Some religious spokesmen such as David Barton claim variously that — despite unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate in English — the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arabic text of the treaty,[12] that though the English phrase is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government, a number of the founders described America as a Christian nation,[7] or that the quotation is based on an incomplete reading of Article 11.[14]

Article 11

Article 11 reads:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were “intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.” Lambert writes,

“By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[15]

The Senate’s ratification was only the third time in history the Senate had voted unanimously. It was the 339th time that the Senate decided to require a recorded vote. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.[16] This quiet assent to the Treaty of Tripoli is all the more remarkable because evidence of the erroneous character of the translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since approximately 1800. It is a mystery why no one made any notice of the defects in the translation or comparison of the English translation with other translations prior to 1930.[17]

Translation and Article 11

Miller’s Investigation and Notes

The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been questioned, and it has been disputed whether Article 11 in the English version of the treaty ratified by the U.S. Senate corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.[18]

In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States’ treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States’ legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.[19] According to Hunter Miller’s notes, “the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic” and “Article 11… does not exist at all.”[12]

After comparing the United States’ version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.[12]

From this, Miller concludes: “A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic… yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts…”[12] It is important to note, though, that as Miller said:

It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.[12]

However the Arabic and English texts differ, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented by the President and ratified unanimously in 1796 by the U.S. Senate following strict Constitutional procedures.

Barbary Wars

The treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson‘s refusal to pay the Pasha’s demands for increased payments. In the course of negotiating with the Barbary nations, each of the Barbary rulers continuously demanded increased payments to maintain peace, even while occasionally capturing U.S. ships. The Pasha of Tripoli was jealous of the ships the U.S. had recently given to Algeria, and demanded similar payment be made to him. On September 25, 1800, Tripoli captured the U.S. ship, Catherine, robbed the crew and plundered its cargo. The Pasha said this was a mistake and the captain responsible for the capture had been punished. Even so, the Pasha warned Cathcart that either the U.S. send additional payments, or the Pasha would declare war on U.S. vessels within six months.

The Pasha then commenced thus: “Counsul there is no Nation I wish more to be at Peace with than yours, but all Nations pay me & so must the Americans.” I answered “we have already paid you all we owe you & are nothing in arrears.” He answered that for the Peace we had paid him it was true, but to maintain the Peace we had given him nothing. I observed that the terms of our Treaty were to pay him the stipulated stores [and the] cash and in full of all demands forever…. The Pasha then observed that we had given a great deal to Algiers and Tunis…. he hoped the United States would [not] neglect him as six or eight vessels of the value of his would amount to a much larger sum than ever he expected to get from the United States for remaining at Peace.[20]

Meanwhile, the U.S. was quickly losing patience with the Barbary nations, and had been building up its Navy in preparation for armed confrontation. On May 15, 1801, President Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet again advised him to send a squadron to the Mediterranean, but only as a retaliatory force. On May 20, 1801, Commodore Richard Dale was commissioned to lead three frigates and a schooner to patrol the Mediterranean sea lanes. They set sail on June 2, 1801. However, unknown to Jefferson, the Pasha of Tripoli declared war against the United States on May 10, 1801.[20][21][22][23] In sending the Navy squadron to the Mediterranean, Jefferson declared,

“To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, one only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, and had permitted itself to denounce war, on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but one answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean.”[24]

Soon after Commodore Dale sailed into a neutral British port near the Straits of Gibraltar, he discovered that Tripoli had declared war on the United States. Commodore Dale’s commission only authorized him to blockade adversarial ports and capture hostile ships, so he could not attack Tripoli directly. However, he notified the Pasha of Tripoli that he could negotiate terms of surrender.

Through subsequent battles, Tripoli eventually agreed to terms of peace with the United States. Tobias Lear negotiated a second “Treaty of Peace and Amity” with the Pasha Yusuf on June 4, 1805.[25] To the dismay of many Americans, the new settlement included a ransom of $60,000 paid for the release of prisoners from the USS Philadelphia and several U.S. merchant ships. By 1807, Algiers had gone back to taking U.S. ships and seamen hostage. Distracted by the preludes to the War of 1812, the United States was unable to respond to the provocations until 1815, with the Second Barbary War, thereby concluding the encompassing Barbary Wars (1800–1815).

EMERGENCY BREAKING 1940s STOLEN CASH NEWS, 1HR. AGO, 11-29-2011. MAN WHO STOLE MONEY FROM SEARS, PAYS IT BACK WITH INTEREST, 71YRS LATER. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011

File photo of a Sears store (AP)

An elderly man haunted by a decades-old crime drops off a surprise at a Seattle store.

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that an elderly man in Seattle has repaid — with interest — cash the man says he stole in the late 1940s.

KING-TV reports that the man hand-delivered an envelope Monday addressed to “Sears manager.” Inside were a note and a $100 bill.

The note said the man stole $20 to $30 from a cash register decades ago and wanted to pay back $100.

Manager Gary Lorentson says he thinks the man’s conscience “has been bothering him for the past 60 years.”

Store security cameras recorded the man, but Sears officials said they don’t know who he is and they won’t release the video.

The store plans to put the money toward helping needy families in the holiday season.

 

EMERGENCY BREAKING SHOCK THAT WAS HEARD AROUND THE SOUTHERN UNITED STATES NEWS, 1HR. AGO, 11-29-2011. YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS VIDEO (LINK BELOW) OR THIS POST. BUT ITS TRUE, SHOCKINGLY SO. A AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN PRAISING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG ( SEE HIS PIC BELOW). SAY WHAT. YOU’VE GOT TO BE JOKING. ABSOULUTELY. WATCH THIS VIDEO & READ THIS POST NOW. FROM LOBBYIST & MINISTER A.W. KHABIR

November 29, 2011
 
I WILL NOT Take My Confederate Flag DOWN!!!
 

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-709533?hpt=hp_bn2

Www.lobbyistsofficesofgrw.com has learned that a black student in the south by the name of GoGreen58 says he loves the South and is proud that one of his ancestors may have been a private in the Confederate Army.

He says he started flying the Confederate battle flag two months ago in his dorm room at the University of South Carolina Beaufort. He says had to take it down before the Thanksgiving holiday. He says he has an attorney who is helping him try to get permission to fly the flag again. He sees the flag as a symbol of states’ rights, not racism.

“The flag isn’t racist only an ignorant person can make it racist,” he told me.

My college has forced me to take my confederate Flag down becuase they said I am violating a “Racism Code”. They can’t do that to me because it is a public college and i have my right to freedom of speech. The Sons of Confederate Veterans are on my side and i have an attoney. If they housing department does not allow me to put it back up, after the letter has been sent. Then a HUGE LAWSUIT will take place, becuase the university is violating my right of Freedom of Speech. I’m Black NOT African American and I Dont see the Confederate Flag as a RACIST SYMBOL!!!

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers