How Corporations Captured US Government
Apr/1025
Vote? for?? TYT?? Once A??????? Day:? vote.streamys.org (3/22/10???? -?? 4/11/10)???? Hartmann’s Article: tinyurl.com
How Oppressive Is The Government Of Singapore? w/ Dr Chee Soon Juan
Apr/1025
Vote for TYT every day at www.podcastawards.com (through 11/30/09) & www.mashable.com (through 12/13/09) For more details visit www.TheYoungTurks.com and follow us on Twitter at twitter.com
Government Officials Voting Fraudulently: Lawmakers Breaking the Law – Texas Legislature
Apr/1025
What would happen to you if police caught you on video fraudulently voting? Would cops quickly arrest you and throw you in jail, only to have the District Attorney immediately charge you with fraud? What would happen to elected government officials if they were caught doing the same? Absolutely nothing? In fact, our representatives in the US government have become so brazen, that they commit fraud in plain view, on a daily basis, while at the same time trying to pass laws that would further restrict and criminalize the public for doing the same. This is a clear sign of excessive government, when the government is so large and overwhelmingly powerful that it’s agents can abuse the civilian population without any sense of guilt, remorse, or fear – when government officials deny charges of illegal conduct made against themselves as a matter of semantics, and when agents of the government expect and get immunity from any of their actions; actions that would be criminally prosecuted upon any other citizens. The few standing up for freedom, liberty, and the Constitution, such as Congressman Ron Paul, who has been called the Thomas Jefferson of our day, are the only hope for America; the only hope for returning our empire-sized government to it’s proper Constitutional levels of national defense, upholding the law, and protecting the rights of the people and individual liberties. There’s been a lot of debate at the State Capitol on bills relating to voter integrity. Some …
Electronic Voting For Local And Federal Government
Mar/100
Electronic voting is essential for diplomacy technology in both local and federal level government meetings. There are various electronic voting solutions for council chambers, legislative office buildings, and executive boardrooms. Using the electronic voting solution, participants can cast their vote on various agenda items, with the results to be shown to the public and archived immediately.
There are various features to consider when choosing the right electronic voting solution:
Reliability
When the resolution is up on the screen and the vote is in process, the participants are pressing Yay/Nay/Abstain all at the same time. The voting solution should recognize each input and confirm them, at a very fast speed, back to the device. The data processing method should be secured and robust. The other factor in the reliability of a system is redundancy on the system. Should any of the components fail, there is a back up in the system to replace automatically for continued operation without any interruptions.
Scalability
The voting solution should be modular and scalable. So the components are off-the-shelf and could be replaced, upgraded, and expanded when needed. Ordering custom designed solutions would limit us to only one vendor. There will be restrictions if any changes are needed in the room configuration, voting member addition, or service and repair.
Hardware vs. Software
Electronic voting solutions are either hardware based or PC/Software based. There are pros and cons for each solution. The hardware solutions are more robust and not dependent on the PC network and usually windows operating system, however the software based solutions are less expensive when there is an existing PC/laptop available per voting member.
Flexibility
For various applications, the voting solution should be adaptable and flexible depending on the requirements. We should be able to setup the pass rate and voting weight. The vote result can be shown in various formats depending on the meeting, agenda, and number of audience. The various formats available are bar chart, pie chart, summary, and individual votes.
Ballot vs. Nominative
Depending on the resolutions and application for the electronic voting solutions, there should be an option to cast the vote as either ballot or nominative. A ballot vote is similar to secret vote or anonymous; there will be no record of individual votes in the system. On the nominative vote, all the individual votes are being recorded. The vote result can be displayed for the public in a name list format. Also the system can print out the vote result based on the resolution number or the name of the voting member.
Security
The security is also an important feature. The vote results should be stored in secured database. During the vote, the latest voting solutions use an IC card per voting member as verification for the participant. The voting rights, voting weights, and all the personal information are recorded in the IC card for the voting process to be secure.
The most reliable electronic voting solutions are the ones that are hardware based within a private network, expandable, yet standard off the shelf.
Fardad Zabetian is founder, president, and CEO of Media Vision USA, the Diplomacy Technology Solution provider in North America including audio conferencing, electronic voting, and simultaneous interpretation solutions for council chambers, courtrooms, boardrooms, and videoconferencing applications
Japan’s government under pressure
Mar/100
Less than six months after taking power, Japan’s government is grappling with a budget blowout, financial scandals, and falling voter support. Yukio Hatoyama, the prime minister, says he will quit if it is proved that he lied about political donations from his mother. Meanwhile, prosecutors are about to question the second-ranking official in his Democratic Party of Japan over property purchases. Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett reports from Tokyo. (22 Jan 2010)
parliamentary system of government Nigeria`s best hope for democratic stability
Mar/100
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT –NIGERIA`S BEST HOPE FOR DEMOCRATIC STABILITY
It is almost 10 years of democratic rule in Nigeria. There is no better time than now to assess the suitability of the 1999 constitution than now. It is even more compelling in the light of recent happenings in the country-the 2007 elections, which a lot of people expected to cement democracy proved clearly that we are not yet in civility. The 2009 budget is more on recurrent expenditure than capital projects. The recurrent expenditure is to maintain political office –holders and their numerous aides. In fact, since the advent into civil rule the cost of running government has been on the high side. These amongst others shows that there is a need to review the 1999 constitution which is the guardian angel of this republic .This paper will focus one aspect of the constitutional review .I t will address the present model of government under the 1999 constitution. The model of government under the 1999 constitution is called the presidential system of government. The presidential system of government is a system of government where the President has strong powers to function as head of government independent of the legislature .Here, the President has executive powers which he can exercise directly or indirectly through his ministers .Section 5 of the 1999 constitution provides as follows:” Subject to the provisions of this constitution, the executive powers of the Federation @shall be vested in the President and may subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of any law made by the National Assembly, be exercised by him either directly or through the Vice-President and Minister of the Government of the Federation; and [b ] shall extend to execution and maintenance of this constitution, all laws made by the National Assembly and to all matters with respect to which the National Assembly has, for the time being, power to make laws.”
The sweeping powers of the President is limited by section 5[4][a]&[b].The President by the aforesaid sections cannot declare a state of war between the federation and another country except by the sanction of a resolution of both houses of the National assembly or deploy any member of the Armed Forces of the federation for combat duty outside Nigeria without the sanction of the National Assembly in the form of a resolution.
The President is also the Commander-in –Chief of the armed forces of the federation .By section 218 of the 1999 constitution ,he is to determine the operational use of the armed forces of the federation .These are sweeping powers indeed! Although section 218[4] provides that the national assembly shall have power to make laws for the regulation of the powers exercisable by the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the federation .This is not enough to limit the enormous powers conferred on the president by the said section. Acts or laws can not envisage every human scenario that might crop up so effective regulation of that power is really out of it .In principle ,though, the 1999 constitution has checks and balances. This can be gleamed from some of the sections cited above. An active National Assembly can check the enormous powers of the president but there is a limit to what the national assembly can do in the face of these enormous powers .Our experience has brought this question to the front-burner-can we afford to give enormous powers to one man ?The framers of the 1979 constitution which introduced the presidential system of government for the first time in our political history which later changed to the 1999 constitution did not anticipate a president that could transform into a civilian dictator. We and them have since been woken up from that ignorance! The proponents of strong powers for the president ,a main feature of the presidential system of government, believes that such powers is needed for strong and united leadership especially in times of crisis and because of the diverse ethnic composition of the country .These are good reasons to give strong powers for the president but it is the reverse that we have seen as a people .We are living witnesses to what transpired in the last administration. We had a President that was surreptitiously removing governors, senate presidents through the instrumentality of state ,a President that was disobeying court orders and a President that rigged a lot of his party-men into office. Obviously these are the dangers inherent in a presidential system of government or better still points to the fact that the presidential system of government might not be compatible with our clime as a people .Every constitution however good it might be is premised on one fact that the operators would be gentlemen ,men of honour . Our experience has shown that we might not always have men of honour in office and we should not wait till another autocratic leader spring up before we realize our mistake .We need to switch gears. A country where political patronage is the major source of livelihood and a President that controls the disbursement of funds and all governmental structures, extremes that should not exist side by side, there is no way everybody will not be at the beck and call of the President.
We need to go back to the parliamentary system of government that we operated in the first republic under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions .The parliamentary system of government that we practiced then offers some bright lessons for a time such as this .In this discuss, I will enumerate the good side of the 1960 and 1963 constitutions and the provisions that need not be adopted again as it relates to model of government.
The parliamentary system of government under the 1960 and 1963 constitutions was characterized by four main features.[1]the separation of the head of state and head of government.[2] the plurality of the executive.[3]parliamentary character of the executive .[4] The responsibility of the ministers to the legislature.
The plurality of the executive : The executive is plural in the sense that the prime-minister is the head of the council of ministers. It is plural in the sense that the prime-minister has more than one vote in council meetings deliberations .In cabinet, all other members stand on equal footing – one man, one vote .It is the prime-minister that is primus interpares .The council of ministers derive its authority from the prime-minister because they leave office when his tenure ceases .He chooses his ministers from among his colleagues in the parliament.
The separation of head of state from head of government: The head of state was the governor-general which later turned into the president[under the 1963 constitution)while the head of government was the prime-minister .It is the prime-minister with his cabinet members that coordinate the government while the governor –general plays a titular role.
Parliamentary character of the executive: Members of the executive are also members of parliament .It is the political party that has the largest number of votes that forms the cabinet.
The responsibility of the executive to the legislature : Here, the legislature has greater control of the cabinet. They are actually fused. The legislature could pass a vote of no confidence on any of the ministers including the prime-minister.
Now let us go to the relevance of the above features of 1960 and 1963 constitutions to our present situation.
One complaint that has been recurring from the National assembly in this present Republic is the non-implementation of the budget which has led to infrastructural decay and the absence of the dividends of democracy .This cannot happen in a Parliamentary system of government where the legislature has greater control of the executive. The executive of the First Republic was described thus:”the major task of the cabinet is not to lead the party, to manage the parliament or think out policy, but to coordinate administration, ensure that legislative proposals are acceptable to the departments concerned, to keep senior minister in touch with the various lines of activity and to give the work of government a measure of unity”[1]. Proponents of the presidential system of government might argue that under the 1999 constitution the legislature has the power to investigate government ministries and parastatals ( section88 of the 1999 constitution). That it is because the National Assembly has not bee
Toyota Recall – Government Motors exploits
Mar/1025
Toyota announce one day a massive recall, the very next day General Motors is airing on television commercials exploiting the recall. Coincidental? Hmmmmm? Chrysler and General Motors are basically owned by the US government which is currently controlled by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party and the Obama administrating beholding to the unions. The United Auto Workers union has Toyota in their cross-hairs because Toyota factories in the United States are not unionized. This contributes to two reasons the Democrats in Congress are exploiting the Toyota recall. Toyota is a Government Motors competitor, and to please the United Auto Workers union. This is nothing but exploitation by the Democrats and the UAW. Toyota’s President Akio Toyoda and Toyotas chief executive of North America Yoshimi Inaba have been called before Congress. This is an attempt to increase the sales of General Motors and Chrysler automobiles while hurting Toyota sales. According to the following website: auto-recalls.justia.com American made automobiles have more recall incidents than Toyota. Yet the Democrats are show-boating Toyota. It stinks. Toyota produces reliable automobiles and Japan and Toyota are owed an apology for this shameful attack upon their honor by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party. Toyota recall General Motors GM Chrysler Japan Japanese House Committee Oversight and Government Reform Edolphus Towns Democrat New York Akio Toyoda Yoshimi Inaba Tony propagandabuster propaganda buster safety NHTA Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki-gaisha Government Motors
Singapore Democratic Party letter to Malaysian Government
Feb/1025
17 December 2007, Members of the Singapore Democratic Party call on the Malaysian Government to respect human rights.