27 August 2021

UN Claims Damages for Assassination of Count Bernadotte

Presented here is the link for a letter to the United Nations in its Section "The Question of Palestine", which reveals more than may meet the eye - initially.  It is dated two years to the day after Israel declared that Palestine had become the  modern day nation of Israel:

"Assassination of Count Bernadotte – UN claim for damages from Israel – Letter from Israel"

LETTER DATED 14 JUNE 1950 FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL CONCERNING A CLAIM FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE UNITED NATIONS BY THE ASSASSINATION OF COUNT FOLKE BERNADOTTE AND A REPLY THERETO FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (Capital letters are original to the UN description.)

There is interesting and vital history revealed in the letter in response to the UN claim for damages on account of the assassination of Count Bernadotte.  The letter is diplomatically articulate with, imho, some fancy side-stepping that seems less than authentic, given the resolution; and given more knowledge that has come to light about the assassination in the 70+ years since it was carried out.  Also, imho, it seems to establish what looks like the framework for the template the modern day nation of Israel has used since that time in refusing to cooperate with U.N. Resolutions.

If not inclined to read the entire letter, below is the reiterated list of eight Findings presented in the claim to Israel, also the Resolution Israel extends to the UN.

Findings


1.Failure to take immediate steps for the apprehension of the criminals;

2.Failure immediately to cordon off the scene of the crime;

3.Delay in carrying out a thorough examination of the scene of the crime;

4.Failure to examine the leading vehicle of the Mediator's convoy; and delay in carrying out complete examination of the Mediator's own  vehicle.

5.Failure to collect evidence from four members of Count Bernadotte's party;

6.Failure to take steps to examine the weapons taken from the "Stern Group" bases in Jerusalem, and ineffectual examination of the cartridge cases found;

7.Inactivity regarding the apprehension of the jeep used by the assailants, and failure to make any attempt (with the help of eye-witnesses) to identify it from among the vehicles taken in the "Stern Group" bases in Jerusalem;

8.Failure to hold an identification parade.

Resolution

"Having regard to all the circumstances, the Government of Israel has decided, without admitting the validity of all the legal contentions put forward on behalf of the United Nations, to take the action which you requested in your letter. You will find enclosed a remittance of United States $54,628.00 as reparation for the monetary damage borne by the United Nations in connection with the death of Count Bernadotte."

Below are a few sources of additional details from later decades.

1. Excerpt from the Los Angeles Times, 11 September 1988:
 
"2 Ex-Stern Gang Members Admit Murdering U.N. Aide"
 
"Two former members of a militant Jewish group that was led by now-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir have admitted they took part in the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden 40 years ago while he was serving as U.N. mediator in Palestine, according to Dan Margalit of Israel’s state-run Educational Television.

It was the first time that members of the underground group, Lohamei Herut Yisrael (Israel Freedom Fighters), widely known as the Stern Gang, openly admitted to the killing, Margalit said."

2. From the Independent, a brief passage from the article published Sunday 23 October 2011: 

I must note that it is a headline contradictory to reality, given that Count Bernadotte was far from being considered a hero of Israel which was displeased with his recommendations in his position as the Mediator for the Mandate. 

"Israel's forgotten hero: The assassination of Count Bernadotte - and the death of peace"

"Although it would be 30 years before any of its personnel admitted it, the "madness" was perpetrated by the most extreme of the Jewish nationalist underground groups, Lehi, more commonly known to the British as the Stern Gang, ordered by a three-man leadership which included the future Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir. What cost the life of the count who ran the Swedish Red Cross during the Second World War and was the nephew of King Gustav V, was not the two Arab-Jewish truces he had managed to negotiate – the second of which was close to collapse when he was killed. It was the longer-term peace plan which sought, however vainly and perhaps naively, to tackle the very issues which still lie at the heart of the world's most intractable conflict today: borders, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem. It was on the last point that Bernadotte had most incensed Israeli opinion, by recommending first that the city should be in Arab territory, and then, in a report heavily influenced by Britain and the US and submitted to the UN Security Council the very day before his death, that it should be under international supervision."

3. From the Jewish Virtual Library,
some pertinent background prior to the assassination two months later:

I must note that although "the Arabs" are commonly blamed by Israel for rejecting the Mediator's plan, the brand new government of the newly self-declared nation of modern Israel quickly did the same, being said to have hated the plan.  They each had different reasons, alluded to in the bolded passage below. 

"The Assassination of Count Bernadotte"

"A diplomat fluent in six languages, Bernadotte was appointed mediator of the UN General Assembly on May 20, 1948, and was immediately faced with the volatile situation in the Middle East. Arabs and Jews had been fighting over Palestine for decades and the conflict escalated after the adoption of the UN partition resolution on November 29, 1947. When Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies invaded Israel.

On June 11, Bernadotte succeeded in arranging a 30-day cease-fire. After visiting Cairo, Beirut, Amman and Tel Aviv, he came to the conclusion that the UN partition plan was an “unfortunate” resolution and proposed his own plan to unite the two feuding peoples. Instead of establishing individual states, he suggested that Arabs and Jews form a “union” consisting of a small Jewish entity and an enlarged Transjordan. Haifa and Lydda (Lod) airport would become free zones. Israel would receive the Western Galilee and unlimited immigration for two years, after which the UN would take control of the issue. Between 250,000 and 300,000 Arab refugees would be permitted to return to Arab territory with compensation and Transjordan would control the Negev and, despite Israeli claims, Jerusalem.

The Arab world rejected the Bernadotte plan on the grounds that, as Syrian officer Muhammad Nimr al-Khatib said, “Most of these mediators are spies for the Jews anyway.” The Israeli government, hating the idea of giving up Jerusalem and bent on military victory, quickly followed suit. Fighting resumed on July 8 and the Israeli army gained strength and succeeded in pushing back the Arabs until a second UN cease-fire was declared on July 18, this time with no time limit and a threat of economic sanctions against any country that broke it."

4. From U.S.A. State Department, Office of the Historian, the urgent telegram from Jerusalem of 17 September 1948 informing of the assassination:


"The Consul General at Jerusalem (Macdonald) to the Secretary of State"


15 June 2021

Is YOUR Opinion Based on Merit and Character . . . or Something Else?

I have watched a few reports from SKY News Australia - its political agenda seems similar to FOX News, which is not my priority go to news station.  Even so the brief SKY News video, below, about Kamala Harris conveys a lot of useful, though unpleasant, information.

What I understand the American who is being interviewed in the video to be conveying to people in other nations about the people in our nation, and the U.S.A. in general is, those who disagree with Kamala Harris about anything are considered to be racist and/or sexist.

Drawing that conclusion is the same as accusing those who selected her, and accusing her of having agreed to the appointment, because the purpose was for her to fulfill some type of quota because she is Black, Asian, and a Woman; not because of her proven merit, skills, and abilities as an individual.

I see . . . however if that was the case there would have been transparency associating that with her selection. Right?  Am I being sarcastic, here?  Yes, a little, but about the transparency problems of our government, in general.

What the American who was interviewed conveys to me is an effort to blame Americans for being sexist and/or racist when they are not in lock step with the stated views of someone in government who is considered to be qualified to fill the position.  As far as I am concerned if Kamala Harris was not capable of filling that position, she would not have been appointed to fill it by someone who was also appointed to fill that position in a past administration, and knows the responsibilities of it, well.

If anyone wonders who is trying to keep racism and sexism "alive", to give it an increasingly destructive life of it's own, consider that the news interview at the end of the video is representative of the thinking of those who are actively working at doing so.

Who wants to make up the rules that if you aren't a stanch fan of Kamala Harris it is because you are racist and/or sexist? If that isn't YOU, then it must be someone else, right? But who and why?

Live there if you want to, but don't expect me to join you.  It is not good for our nation.  It is also not my own reality - not the one I have been part of working to keep alive and healthy so that it thrives, since before I was an adult - that being the reality that it is the content of character of people that matters most, and how we apply it to the work we do and our personal lives.

We are all entitled to our political opinions without being considered to be racist and/or sexist because of our opinions, when they have nothing to do with race or gender.

05 June 2021

Are you "woke" yet?

Are you “woke” yet? You all do realize don't you that being "woke" has become one of the most hilarious topics that is currently generating creative humor and comedy? There is no denying that woke humor is hilarious!

However, allow me to also connect being woke in ways it is not usually connected - given that being woke is all about connectedness and our responsibility to being connected in ways we know. More importantly it is in ways we have not known - which is primarily what being woke is about on an individual basis - the ways in which we were unaware of connectedness, though they have always been obvious.

You all do realize don't you that biological, chemical, and electromagnetic frequency warfare (whether foreign or domestic or a combination of both, in origin) are all intended to reduce the population; and psychological warfare (including cyber warfare) is intended to create unresolvable divisiveness among us because it is dedicated to creating obstacles and limits that result in frustration, anger, and desperation? These are never a good mix for an individual.  They are an even worse mix for entire communities of any size because they lead to anarchy - not necessarily in name or intention, but in action.

You do realize don't you that, all together, biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare are intended to create an attitude of widespread anarchy type behavior which is intended to lead to acceptance of organized anarchy where a charismatic leader or a a charming bully (we've seen both types in politics) seems to rise our of nowhere to lead the charge.  Yeah, it sounds like conspiracy theory doesn't it. In fact it sounds a lot like topics folks have been dancing around wanting to talk about, openly, the entire time the world has been dealing with covid.  So what is being promoted in MSM to talk about openly, instead, as covid winds down as the main topic?  UFOs of course - actually UAPs.  New name, same thing.  Talk about redirecting attention!  Go figure . . .

Another label for the problem of those wanting to superimpose organized anarchy, is "organized crime" (no matter whether or not biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare are the methods used). Organized crime starts at the level of gangs . . . and in worst case scenarios, over time, leads to corrupt, dictatorial governments that do not serve the people, but instead serve the collusion of folks who support the self-serving interests of the gang leaders who have been propelled into power by the collusion.

As long as our public servants take their oath seriously to defend our constitution, thus our nation, from foreign and domestic enemies, and expect all other public servants to do the same, then it is possible for government to be functional, instead of resembling what is the "any means to an end" ideology - the self-interest collusion that is the hallmark of organized crime at any level of management.

Even though it has become a thing to poke hilarious fun at being woke, I'm just sayin’, here, that being woke is not always about woo woo people and their stuff.  Nor is it always about snowflake people and their desire for special treatment mollycoddling.  In fact, there is nothing more valuable to individual freedom than being woke on an individual and community basis when it comes to cause and effect common sense.  If people aren't woke in any other way, that type of  woke is enough.  Bet on it.

Of course we are all woke to some extent, in some way or another. If I'm not mistaken, religion has traditionally been considered a matter of being woke to those who are dedicated to practicing religion - beyond embracing a philosophy that has been organized into a somewhat unique set of tenets of belief that underlie any religion. If religion is not a matter of being woke for some, then it is a matter of in-name-only identifying with religion.  Commonly in-name-only labels are intended to satisfy the demands of others - perhaps to try to minimize efforts to be "converted" from who we are when we know who we are, have chosen to make self into who we are, instead of allowing other people to mold us into who they want to acknowledge us as being in relation to themselves.

imgflipdotcom meme
The role others want to assign to us in their life is not always a role we want to be molded into being inextricably stuck in for the purpose of making the life of someone else fulfilling. The same protective motivation applies to defining ourselves in other ways, for example politically and/or philosophically.  When we define ourselves we are better able to protect what we know that others do not know which makes us unique, because of how we know it, also because of how and when we choose to share it, and under what circumstances. Context is  important.  So, some of the labeling of ourselves we do can be considered being woke in practical ways. although they may seem incongruous or hypocritical, on the surface, to those who do not know us well.  Bottom line is that one who is woke does not allow room for ill-intention.  Whatever else it also is, being woke is unique to each individual.

Thing is what being woke has in common, across the board, is the recognition and understanding of connectedness which means  a recognition that doing damage (either intentionally or out of ignorance) creates problems for everyone.  How can anyone woke not also be civic woke?  That means willingly taking responsibility to respect applicable rules, ordinances regulations, and laws, applicable by virtue for where we each live.  They are all intended to keep the least thoughtful and the least knowledgeable among us (which includes the youngest) from doing damage because of ignorance and/or ill-intention.

When these agreed upon standards among people are not fitting, or not just, or not appropriate to time and place, then we are empowered, collectively, to revise them. Being empowered, collectively, in this way, is one of our most valuable freedoms.  It requires patience and diplomacy, which some of us learn the hard way while we make improvements in our own times for the benefit of posterity - future generations far into the future. 

Posterity is why thoughtful patience and diplomacy are both a requirement when collectively considering revisions.  The opportunities for the best quality of life possible are what we are able to provide for posterity.  We learn, collectively, as we go through life, unfortunately through painful trial and error, about what works and does not work that provides quality of life for all, and better opportunities for everyone, far into a future that will be happening without any of us.

When we arrive at that place in life of knowing we are responsible for the quality of life of subsequent generations, it is accompanied by wondrous gifts.  It does not require being a mother or a father, literally, even though it is commonly believed that only people who become parents will arrive at that place in life.  It requires embracing a parental attitude of responsibility as a way of life, though, toward all others - not the type of parenting that is being an owner of others, but the sacred guardian type of parenting that recognizes and protects the sacred in everyone, whether or not it is yet realized.  As such it is a place at which one can arrive, at any age.  Knowing you have arrived at that place is also a gift, in and of itself.

Fact is we are all also ignorant in some way or another about a variety of things that other people know.   What we know we are ignorant about increases the more we choose to eliminate our known ignorance.  Those who we consider to be intelligent have done a lot of eliminating of their own ignorance and are humbled by the increase in their ignorance because of having done so.  Thus, the value to everyone of sharing what we know, and earnestly listening to, questioning, and understanding what others know also, when making collective decisions based on individual judgments, like voting, for example.

Consider that a candidate who throws the most money into the pot to buy "vote for me" advertising would not necessarily be the most honest or dedicated public servant. The candidate who purchases the most advertising, in the most diverse media, has the most name-recognition. The ads intend to encourage us to associate the candidate's name with the stellar good character and values presented in their "vote for me" ads; and in some cases they are intended to lead us to associate several bad characteristics, also or instead, which some candidates like to assign to those who they consider to be their competition.

Unfortunately, being a passive consumer of subliminal advertising is the extent of the “research” some of us do before we vote - as we absorb incessantly repetitive political ads (actually, ads in general but that is a whole other story).  We do not always take time to pay attention, wonder, and question who the candidates actually are. Some of us never do.  How else would it be possible for unacceptable candidates to be elected to office - other than lemming-like behavior of voters based on not so subliminal advertising messages?  The quality of our candidates is in direct proportion to the number of us who are paying attention, wondering, and asking questions for which we are willing to seek answers.  That is also how we maintain or create the quality of the representation we need in government once individuals have been elected or appointed.

Sure, I've been guilty of being a passive unwilling consumer of subliminal ads in the past, but not much after having realized I am an unwilling consumer.  When I vote, I actually go to more than one source to read, watch, listen to what type of experience the candidates have, and what they say about themselves. When they are into disparaging the competition I almost always cross them off my list as a candidate who is not viable.  Does that mean they do not have what it takes to be good public servants? Not necessarily, except that resorting to ill-intended truth-twisting which is the intention of most rancor, is a creative form of lying that intends to cheat and thieve from those who are targeted.  So I do not consider the mud-slingers to be trustworthy.  In question is why a candidate resorts to talking about the competition when it is an opportunity to promote the reasons a candidate has for wanting to serve.

The fact is that if something unfavorable is in the record of a candidate, if what is unfavorable does not make the candidate ineligible to serve then the candidate should be the one to disclose what is unfavorable and should be asked to do so.  Another fact - there need to be more stringent qualifications applied to serving the public as elected or appointed government officials.  What matters is that candidate eligibility is a collective decision of us all - a debated voting issue so that our candidate choices are not arbitrary choices based on nepotism of any type.  That includes the nepotism of large or small "created families" of people who gravitate toward one another through something they all have in common, considered important to them all.  Our political parties exemplified that while they turned into ideological political enemies - which was also because of divide and conquer divisiveness. 

Being woke to participating in our civic responsibility is priceless, and hard work - paying attention to cause and effect over time, our advising of those who represent us, and our voting.  We make bad choices when we collectively trust a scammer who scams millions of us, and good ones when our common sense is woke; woke in a way that leads us to hone and temper our cause and effect sensibility to the point that it is personally reliable in ways that lead us to find answers for what we have sense enough to question, when we make decisions. That way ill-intention does not reign supreme when the powers-that-be are promoting situations that create anarchy - whether they find opportunity or create it through narcissistic any-means-to-an-end philosophy that does not consider posterity (using biological, chemical, electromagnetic frequency, and psychological warfare, also, or not).

12 February 2021

"Green Run"

A good friend told me, yesterday, there is a name for something that I know happened: a 1949 event referred to as "Green Run".  So I looked it up to read a little about it.   I still have more read.  A few online sources are  listed below, including the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments' (ACHRE) created in Clinton's administration, which is a more detailed technical report. 

The first article I read said Green Run was a Washington State "event", however it also affected the Idaho panhandle, and every where else in a huge circle where  monitors had been placed for measuring radiation, which would have been Washington, into Oregon also, most of Idaho, perhaps into Montana and further south too, depending on how many monitors there were at what variety of distances.  

I knew about the event because mother told me about a study long after it was finished, and showed me the booklet she had completed as part of the study she joined.  I don't know if Dad also joined.  I would have because of having lived in the affected area until age 9, and also having lived only a short distance from Camp Hanford when Dad was called back to active duty during the Korean Conflict.  I was age 3-4 that year, one year after the December 49 "Green Run" event spoken of in the article.  I was not informed of the study until long after it was completed.  From what I understand it was something in which everyone living in the monitored areas for any length of time should have participated.  I don't know if any of the extended family who lived in the area most of their lives also participated.   

The first article I read at Gizmodo, The Secret 1949 Radiation Experiment That Contaminated Washington,  states "Hanford’s plants routinely released small doses of radioactive material into the air" through out the years, which is why there were monitors placed in several different sized concentric circles throughout the region. The article also states the incident of 1949 was because the "Air Force wanted to fly planes behind a radioactive test plume, to test out their own instruments."

One of the effects of Green Run and the releases was cluster thyroid problems.  I remember my mother having been diagnosed with a thyroid problem.  It was within two years after the year we lived in Pasco, because I was older than four at the time.  And when mother was in the hospital for tests, that was one of the few times I was allowed  to stay with my paternal grandparents, alone, and overnight.

Was the study I learned about always a part of the original plan . . . to track the lives and health of those exposed to the releases who were living in the monitored area, for the purpose of collecting statistical data about exposure?  Supposedly, the intention of the many periodic releases through the years, according to how the study was explained, had been to learn about how the wind carried contamination - to what extent and intensity, and how long lasting it was.  According to the ACHRE Report, Part II Chapter 11, "An interim aerial sampling network was in place in early September 1949 that detected radioactive debris from the first Soviet nuclear test."   That was three months before Green Run.

According to the Gizmodo article "Green Run was a secret Air Force experiment that released Hanford’s largest single dose of radioactive iodine-131. On the night of December 2, 1949, at the behest of the military, scientists at Hanford let 7,000 to 12,000 curies of iodine-131 into the air, where it rode the wind as far as 200 miles. For a sense of scale, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident released an estimated 15 to 24 curies of iodine-131 and the Chernobyl accident 35 million to 49 million curies. "

After the Air Force debacle of 49, once it became known in the mid 80s, over 35 years later, with  government responsibility and accountability insisted on, it may be that data about those who had lived in the monitored areas was considered to be useful to those who mandated the releasing during Eisenhower's administration.  I have no idea if there was intention to also eventually look for cluster health problems in 49 when the network of monitors was put in place.  Given what we know of government resistance to taking responsibility and to being accountable, it seems doubtful.  Although no doubt the study did look for correlations once the proverbial "cat was out of the bag".

There are "downwinders" in New Mexico, also. There is one location in particular where people live as downwinders from White Sands Missile Range where the first nuclear blast was fielded.  It was the Project Trinity test of the device known as "Gadget", according to the Trinity Site page of the National Park Service.  Many have suffered from serious and fatal obvious cluster ailments - and worse suffered from official denial that the downwind problem existed.   There are a number of downwinder communities within the intermountain region.  According to Wikipedia the communities are  "primarily in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah but also in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho." These downwinder issues are among the issues that need Erin Brockovich type action and results - in the form of tenacious investigating with a strong harsh light shined on the problem; also court cases won. 

Currently, it has been on the news that water at numerous military bases is knowingly contaminated, most often with chemicals, often fuel.  It is not necessarily known to many living on base who drink the water, unless the taste tells them; or unless cluster illnesses create suspicion and questions that are eventually researched and addressed with persistence.  Costly advanced filtering is required to render the water potable, along with putting an end to the continuing contamination and doing successful clean up. 

And of course anywhere there have been military conflicts there are contamination problems.  Contamination is a universal problem, so is taking responsibility and being accountable for a problem that requires tenacity to solve it.  Humanity can not continue to horrendously and relentlessly knowingly do damage to the environment and all that it supports.  There is no where else to go once humanity's nest is fouled.

We have a local problem, too, with fuel contamination that threatens (only "threatens" we are told) local water wells near to the local Air Force base.  A lot of work was required from dedicated people to get the process of admitting there was a problem, initiated, then also to enlist the city to get on board with negotiating the taking of responsibility and being accountable for putting an end to the problem and cleaning it up.

Having said all that has not been only for the purpose of reciting unresolved and past problems.  It is also about doing better to address current problems.  The answer is simple: if you do it, then own it.  That includes all aspects of government.  Allow me to remind everyone that government needs to be driven by the needs of "we, the people" - nothing more nothing less.  Not lobbyists, not big business and corporate conglomerates, not political parties.  Yes, really - none of those.  

We can not do anything about the past except to do our best to prevent the same problems from continuing to occur and reoccur in the future.  And we must require repair of as much damage as possible.  However to be successful at prevention and recurrence requires consequences - not retribution, not revenge, but functional consequences - whatever is required in each individual situation.

For example there must be accountability for ill-intent and carelessness that is obviously too intentional to be assumed a lack of foresight and/or greed, or any other poor excuse it is not possible to buy into believing, when a problem is being attributed to "merely" careless words.  Really? Careless words, only? Anyone who can honestly buy into imagining that supposedly well place calculated "careless words" could possibly be unintentional, when they were intended to be a means to motivate an unacceptable end result, has a problem with living in reality, and with condoning and becoming part of the corruption that motivates those words and resultant behaviors.

There are current issues we can and must do something about as soon as possible rather than discovering cumulative problems over 40 years later and much more damage that could have been prevented. To that end I urge people to please contact your Senators, and Congressmen, about wrong-doing which has occurred when it is our collective Legislative body's responsibility to adequately address it.  We are obligated to inform them of their need to do right by "we, the people", and to thank them when they do. 

There must be consequences commensurate with intention, regardless of claims there was no ill-intent, when a clear case of ill-intent has been made about what our Legislative body experienced directly on 6 January 2021.  It was an obvious intent to create instability in government and our entire nation to which some of us have been witness the entire past four years.  Don't kid yourselves into imagining it was anything different.  People who innately see the big picture knew it.  

Currently, we are all required to excel at seeing the small picture, innately so or not, which is required to appropriately address what was the culminating "event" - more precisely to encourage our Legislative body to appropriately do so.  Of course, in the event there is any doubt to what I refer, of course it is the proceedings of the current, ongoing U.S.A. impeachment process.

Clearly there was, is, and will continue to be many occurrences in our lives when government oversight is lacking or entirely absent and should not have been.  However, it is up to us - "we, the people" - to BE that oversight, and it always has been.  There is no excuse for us being silent about obvious corruption while we witness it happening.  YOU are responsible.  We all are.  Better for you and everyone else that we all take responsibility sooner, than later.  Our government is only as good and as responsive to our collective needs as we responsibly insist on it being.  Those are the facts.  That is our collective reality.

See also:

Sarah Zhang, Sarah. The Secret 1949 Radiation Experiment That Contaminated Washington
(Gizmodo, Website: 6/03/15)

ACHRE ReportChapter 11:  What We Know.  (Georgetown University Bioethics Archive: January 1994 - October 1995). note:  the chapter is specific to Green Run 

The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) Website

Cornwall, Warren. Hanford downwinders get their day in court. (The Seattle Times: 25 April 2005)

Pinnaz. Green Run Map Location Information & Much More! (Call of Duty Zombies, website: 26 December 2012)

"The Downwinders", Whitman Magazine. (Whitman College, website: Summer 2015)

Senators of the 117th Congress
- contact information for all Senators

Directory of Representatives - contact information

United States Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121.  A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the office you request.
  

05 January 2021

Before, During, and After the Vote

Campaigning is the time when candidates try to persuade people to vote for them rather than someone else, not AFTER there has been a vote which has been carefully counted, accepted, and registered. If there is suspicion of corruption, then it needs to be addressed BEFORE the vote.

BEFORE the vote is the time to make sure that if machines are used they are working properly; and to be sure there are no irregularities in the registration process or the records of those registered to vote.

DURING the vote election officials are sworn to be on the look out for irregularities and to prevent possible fraud through standard procedure that applies to all; so too are watchers present to keep eyes on process and voters. Those sworn to process the votes are also sworn to look for irregularities then process possible problems separately.

AFTER everything is said and done and the vote is certified, is NOT the appropriate time to be back-pedaling because of wondering about proper procedure when there has been oversight every step of the way.

AFTER the vote is the time for peaceful transition from one administration to the next - as a celebration of the functionality of our system of government.  Our system of government is structured in such a way within our Constitution that it is a blueprint for our nation's dedication to peaceful transitions from one administration to the next.

When there are ethical and legal concerns about those serving, those running, and party processes, it is the Secretary of State in individual states who needs to be consulted about effectively addressing the problems at the appropriate times - before, during, and after voting. 

Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887 challenges to state electors who were certified before the “safe-harbor deadline”, are prohibited in Congress.  That deadline is six days before the Electoral College votes.  This election the "safe harbor deadline" was 8 December 2020.  So the occasion of Congress tallying state votes, is not the appropriate time to be raising objections that should have been raised at the appropriate time before the electoral college certified the election results, IF there were concerns to be resolved. 

Common sense is rarely complicated.  Applying it appropriately prevents unnecessary complexity that creates unnecessary confusion about relatively simple procedures.  Election schedules include actions before, during, and after the vote.  The timeline needs to be respected.  It really is that simple.