Field Trip Permission Form English Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

No psych:Hmmm:This is a question I have been hearing so much nowadays, and it seems like so many people are worried about this. The possibility of this would certainly spark and inspire lots of conversation and would make for great TV ratings, both on the right and on the left, as they would beat that topic to death. And given the fact that Donald Trump and his PR team seems to be better at spinning, since they have no qualms about lying, and pretending the truth does not matter, I suspect they would get away with http://it.So to the question : can Trump pardon his children if they are charged with crimes- the law might have something to say about that . But will he? most likely. Why do I believe that? well, I will explain it by leading with this exampleUnder the spell of Jim Jones:And:And:I was a young girl when this happened, but minus the tragedy which everyone was concentrating on, my biggest take away from this tragedy was a question; “How was Jim Jones able to get all these people to give up everything and follow him on this mission”?How did he- what form of psychology did he use to get all these people to self-terminate?. Now the world has seen tsunami’s that have killed numberless people, wars that have taken so many lives, brutal dictators that mowed down (collectively)millions of lives at their whims and terrorism that killed thousands, but this is the one incident that has me in a kerfuffle to no end, and still leaves me baffled. (slavery to a lesser degree- I still can’t understand, how the different tribes, had the temerity to sell their brothers and sisters into slavery). This still puzzles me I guess, because it deals with the mind, and being able to mesmerize and use psychology on someone’s mindset.Now, I know that there are many who would take issue with what I am saying, but I am not saying that Trump is giving folks poisoned kool-aid to drink, but I am saying that he is using psychology that is very similar on the people who support him, to keep them committed. Never forget that Trump himself said :Donald Trump: 'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters'This article is more than 3 years oldThe Republican frontrunner is so supremely confident that he believes he could commit murder and maintain his lead over his opponentsReutersSun 24 Jan 2016 08.24 GMTFirst published on Sun 24 Jan 2016 01.21 GMTDonald Trump: 'I could shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters'This article is more than 3 years oldThe Republican frontrunner is so supremely confident that he believes he could commit murder and maintain his lead over his opponentsReutersSun 24 Jan 2016 08.24 GMTFirst published on Sun 24 Jan 2016 01.21 GMTDonald Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose votes – videDonald Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose votes – videoUS Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is so confident in his support base that he said he could stand on New York’s Fifth Avenue “and shoot somebody” and still not lose voters.Speaking in Iowa, Trump claimed he could withstand any attempt by his political rivals to knock him off his top perch.His typically inflammatory comments come as Trump’s Republican rival Marco Rubio won the endorsement Saturday from the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s biggest and most influential newspaper. The Register picked Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, nine days from the first nominating contest in Iowa.The endorsements were big developments for both Rubio and Clinton. Rubio, a Florida senator, has been running third behind Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz in Iowa, while Clinton has struggled to fend off a challenge to the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders.Trump and Cruz, Trump’s chief obstacle to a victory in Iowa, held competing for rallies across the state while in New Hampshire, other candidates battled for votes in that state’s 9 February first-in-the-nation primary for the 8 November election.Trump, the New York billionaire and former reality TV star who has been virtually impervious to attacks from his opponents, pushed the limits of his political rhetoric again in Sioux Center, Iowa.“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters,” he said.Can Trump's top operative in Iowa help the frontrunner live up to his polls?Read moreFor his rivals, Trump has become a hard target to criticize because not all of his supporters are conservatives and many are most interested in his projection of strength, not where he stands on a particular issue.The latest Reuters-Ipsos tracking poll had Trump pulling in 40.6% support of Republican voters nationally. A CNN/ORC poll has Trump up in Iowa with 37% to 26% for Cruz, who has led in some other Iowa polls.Trump did not repeat the “shoot somebody” line at a later rally in Pella while stressing to the crowd there that he would tone down his rhetoric as president.Cruz responded to Trump at an event in Ankeny, where he picked up the endorsement of conservative firebrand Glenn Beck, a counterweight of sorts to Trump’s endorsement by 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.“Listen, I will let Donald speak for himself. I can say I have no intention of shooting anybody in this campaign,” Cruz said.Danny Freeman on TwitterSo, don’t blame me- this is the words of Donald Trump. You know who had this kind of confidence in his people?- Jim Jones. I challenge you to find one Trump supporter, even those on TV who you can point out any of Trump’s wrongdoing, and they would agree. Have you ever seen Rick Santorum, Lindsay Graham, and today we saw William Barr? I am not going into conducts and spin here, because I am most interested in the psychology of it all- and so to bring you clarity of my arguments, I give you Jim Jones, and the Jonestown story:Nearly 40 Years Later, Jonestown Offers A Lesson In DemagogueryTERRY GROSSA 2010 memorial service for the Jonestown massacre in Oakland, Calif., featured photographs of the victims.Eric Risberg/APOn Nov. 18, 1978, an itinerant preacher, faith healer, and civil rights activist named the Rev. Jim Jones led more than 900 of his followers to kill themselves by drinking cyanide-laced Flavor-Aid at their Jonestown settlement in the jungle of Guyana. Nearly 40 years later, questions still linger regarding the Jonestown massacre and the man who inspired it.Journalist Jeff Guinn details how Jones captivated his followers in his new book, The Road to Jonestown. He calls Jones a "tremendous performer" who exhibited "the classic tendencies of the demagogue."Guinn says Jones, who founded Peoples Temple church, would take current events and exaggerate them to create a sense of fear and urgency. He drew his followers to Guyana by convincing them that America was facing imminent threats of martial law, concentration camps, and nuclear war.NEWSFather Cares: The Last Of JonestownAfter claims of abuse in Jonestown surfaced, Rep. Leo Ryan, D-Calif., came to Guyana to investigate. A number of Jonestown residents sought to return to the U.S. with Ryan, but others opened fire on the delegation, killing the congressmen and four others. The mass suicide followed.Guinn says the lessons of Jonestown still resonate today. "Jim Jones epitomizes the worst that can happen when we let one person dictate what we hear [and] what we believe," he says. "We can only change that if we learn from the past and try to apply it to today."Interview HighlightsOn the idealistic side of Jones' Peoples Temple churchJim Jones originally organized Peoples Temple as a storefront church in Indianapolis in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It became one of the first major mixed-race churches in that part of the country, and Jones was instrumental in integrating Indianapolis, which had been one of the most segregated cities in America. They later moved to California.The purpose of Peoples Temple, as stated, was to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, ostensibly to try to raise up all the people who had been left out by society. Privately, within their organization, within their meetings where no outsiders were allowed, they also talked about what they were trying to do was set a "socialist example," everyone treated the same, where race, money, nothing mattered. Human dignity was at a premium.On how Jones tricked people but also appealed to their interest in social justiceInstinctively he understood the things that he would need to do in front of a crowd, not just to get their attention, but to hold it and be remembered by them. ... He would [fake] being able to summon cancers from people's bodies, which were actually rotten chicken parts that he would have planted earlier.And even then, as he starts to gain a following through these apparent miracles, he has a number of followers who are well aware [that] it's a trick. But they tell themselves Jim is doing what he has to do to bring people in for the greater good because at the same time he's ... tricking people, he's also out there working for integration, for civil rights, for women's rights, and that is his argument: "I need to do whatever is necessary to get people into the cause. After that, we can all accomplish great things."On how Jones targeted poor people to join his followingThe whole idea was that they would distribute these fliers, not in the well-to-do parts of town; they would go into the ghettos, into the public housing, where people have absolutely nothing. He understood that when you believe life is almost hopeless, that's when you're almost ready to buy into some miracle that might lift you up. ...A 2010 memorial service for the Jonestown massacre in Oakland, Calif., featured photographs of the victims.Eric Risberg/APOn Nov. 18, 1978, an itinerant preacher, faith healer, and civil rights activist named the Rev. Jim Jones led more than 900 of his followers to kill themselves by drinking cyanide-laced Flavor-Aid at their Jonestown settlement in the jungle of Guyana. Nearly 40 years later, questions still linger regarding the Jonestown massacre and the man who inspired it.Journalist Jeff Guinn details how Jones captivated his followers in his new book, The Road to Jonestown. He calls Jones a "tremendous performer" who exhibited "the classic tendencies of the demagogue."Guinn says Jones, who founded Peoples Temple church, would take current events and exaggerate them to create a sense of fear and urgency. He drew his followers to Guyana by convincing them that America was facing imminent threats of martial law, concentration camps, and nuclear war.NEWSFather Cares: The Last Of JonestownAfter claims of abuse in Jonestown surfaced, Rep. Leo Ryan, D-Calif., came to Guyana to investigate. A number of Jonestown residents sought to return to the U.S. with Ryan, but others opened fire on the delegation, killing the congressmen and four others. The mass suicide followed.Guinn says the lessons of Jonestown still resonate today. "Jim Jones epitomizes the worst that can happen when we let one person dictate what we hear [and] what we believe," he says. "We can only change that if we learn from the past and try to apply it to today."Interview HighlightsOn the idealistic side of Jones' Peoples Temple churchJim Jones originally organized Peoples Temple as a storefront church in Indianapolis in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It became one of the first major mixed-race churches in that part of the country, and Jones was instrumental in integrating Indianapolis, which had been one of the most segregated cities in America. They later moved to California.The purpose of Peoples Temple, as stated, was to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, ostensibly to try to raise up all the people who had been left out by society. Privately, within their organization, within their meetings where no outsiders were allowed, they also talked about what they were trying to do was set a "socialist example," everyone treated the same, where race, money, nothing mattered. Human dignity was at a premium.On how Jones tricked people but also appealed to their interest in social justiceInstinctively he understood the things that he would need to do in front of a crowd, not just to get their attention, but to hold it and be remembered by them. ... He would [fake] being able to summon cancers from people's bodies, which were actually rotten chicken parts that he would have planted earlier.And even then, as he starts to gain a following through these apparent miracles, he has a number of followers who are well aware [that] it's a trick. But they tell themselves Jim is doing what he has to do to bring people in for the greater good because at the same time he's ... tricking people, he's also out there working for integration, for civil rights, for women's rights, and that is his argument: "I need to do whatever is necessary to get people into the cause. After that, we can all accomplish great things."On how Jones targeted poor people to join his followingThe whole idea was that they would distribute these fliers, not in the well-to-do parts of town; they would go into the ghettos, into the public housing, where people have absolutely nothing. He understood that when you believe life is almost hopeless, that's when you're almost ready to buy into some miracle that might lift you up. ...The people who followed Jim Jones, many of them, [were] intelligent, socially conscious, ready to work hard to make the world better, and ultimately he sacrificed them to his own ego and his own belief in himself. That is unforgivable.On Jones orchestrating a mass suicide of his followersBy the end in November 1978, Jones' attitude towards his followers had changed. In the early stages of his ministry, when actually great things were often being accomplished, he thought of himself as the shepherd guarding his flock. More and more over the years, as his paranoia increased, as his drug use increased, he began to think of himself at war with almost everyone in the outside world — the United States government, all kinds of secret forces. ...In the end, he saw himself as a general, and his followers were his troops, and ... Jones made the decision that there must be one last great gesture so that his name would live in history ... [and that it] would require the deaths of his followers. ...If Leo Ryan, the congressman, had not come to Jonestown there still would've been some event at this point that would've triggered Jones' order to everyone to commit a "revolutionary act," as he called it. He tried to convince them it wasn't suicide, it was something much grander than that.MOVIES'Jonestown': Portrait of a Disturbed Cult LeaderOn trying to understand how 900 victims agreed to the suicideOne of the things that are hardest for us to understand now, looking back almost 40 years, is now almost 900 people ... could have followed what appeared to be ridiculous orders from an obvious demagogue to kill themselves — but it's much more complicated than that.First of all, not everybody in Jonestown that day did agree to die, to drink the poison. ... Out of over 900 human beings, 300 children, many of them infants, they have no choice. Their parents are making the choice for them.Then, we have another third, who are elderly people, who aren't in the best of health, who if they don't follow Jim Jones' orders are going to be left out in the deepest, densest, most dangerous jungle in the world. Their choices essentially are dying quickly or die long, lingering deaths.In the middle, you have the adults, the younger people, and even among them, there's no unanimity. Some do believe that Jim Jones is God or something close to God and they worship him and if he says "do this" they're going to. Others don't believe Jones is a god, but they believe in their cause, and they have bought into his preaching that the rest of the world is coming in to get them.On the day that the Guyanese troops came to Jonestown and saw what happenedAUTHOR INTERVIEWSBio Credits Manson's Terrible Rise To Right Place And TimeThe Guyanese troops that came in the next morning thought they were going to be facing armed revolutionaries. They guessed there might be 100 or more Jonestown men armed with rifles waiting for them, so they're coming through the jungle cautiously.It's the hot season in Guyana. There's been a torrential downpour the day before and steam is coming up from the floor of the jungle. It's almost like a fog. And so they're coming into Jonestown in the perimeter expecting to be attacked any minute. They've got their guns up and ready, the fog, the steam is in front of them, they can hardly see.All of a sudden they start to stumble and they think that maybe these revolutionaries placed logs on the ground to trip them up, and now they're going to start shooting from ambush — and then a couple of the soldiers look down and they can see through the fog and they start screaming, because there are bodies everywhere, almost more than they can count, and they're so horrified.Radio producers Sam Briger and Mooj Zadie and web producers Bridget Bentz and Molly Seavy-Nesper contributed to this story.Please take note of the people who were Jim Jones followers. And I quote:“The people who followed Jim Jones, many of them, (were) intelligent, socially conscious, ready to work hard to make the world better and ultimately he sacrificed them to his own ego, and his own belief in himself. that is unforgivable”And this:Instinctively, he understood the things that he would need to do in front of a crowd, not just to get their attention, but to hold it and be remembered by them. He would fake being able to summon cancers from peoples bodies, which was actually rotten chicken parts that he would have planted earlier.Trump has made over 10,000 false or misleading claims, according to reportPresident Donald J. Trump waves following his remarks at the 2019 White House Easter Egg Roll on April 22, 2019.WASHINGTON — According to the Washington Post's Fact Checker, President Trump has hit the dubious milestone of 10,000 false or misleading claims since he started his presidency. That comes out to an average of 12.2 claims per day, or 10,111 total claims in the 828 days of the Trump presidency covered by the Fact Checker so far."The President continues to say false or misleading statements at an unbelievable pace," said Glenn Kessler, the lead fact checker, on CNN this morning.According to The Post, the largest issue area of false or misleading claims has been immigration. The most-repeated claim is that the border wall is currently being built, something that Congress has not allocated funding for or authorized construction of. The Post points out that there are portions of the border wall being repaired.US President Donald Trump speaks to a crowd of supporters at a Make America Great Again rally on April 27, 2019, in Green Bay, Wisconsin. (Photo: Darren Hauck, Getty Images)Trump's campaign rallies are the largest venues for false or misleading claims, constituting 22 percent of all of the claims covered by the Fact Checker. Trump's rally in Green Bay, Wis.last Saturday spawned 61 claims. For example, Trump said he had cut the estate tax to "zero," or that he was one vote away from repealing the Affordable Care Act — both claims are untrue.See some similarities yet? Another thing that jumps out at me from this article, is that I am not the only one perplexed by this strange psychology- so many others are. Because it was not only Jones’s followers who are confused- look who else was hoodwinked by him:Unlike most other figures deemed as cult leaders, Jones enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the united statesIn the heat of the 1976presidential campaign, he met with vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale on his campaign plane. Likewise, first lady Rosalyn Carter personally met Jones for a private dinner at the Standford Court Hotel- later she called him personally. At the 1976 grand opening of the San Francisco Democratic party headquarters, Jones packed the audience with temple members and garnered louder applause when he spoke than Mrs. Carter.Governor Jerry Brown, lieutenant governor Mervyn Dynally and Assemblyman Willie Brown, among others, attended a large testimonial. Willie Brown referred to Jones as a “combination of Martin King, Angella Davis, Albert Einstein, and Chairman Mao”. Both Willie Brown and Governor Jerry Brown attended temple service.The President...shall have the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1Teacher's Companion Lesson (PDF)The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases) and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.The presidential power to pardon was derived from the royal English Prerogative of Kings, which dated from before the Norman invasion. The royal power was absolute, and the king often granted a pardon in exchange for money or military service. Parliament tried unsuccessfully to limit the king's pardon power, and finally, it succeeded to some degree in 1701 when it passed the Act of Settlement, which exempted impeachment from the royal pardon power.During the period of the Articles of Confederation, the state constitutions conferred pardon powers of varying scopes on their governors, but neither the New Jersey Plan nor the Virginia Plan presented at the Constitutional Convention included a pardon power for the chief executive. On May 29, 1787, Charles Pinckney introduced a proposal to give the chief executive the same pardon power as enjoyed by English monarchs, that is, complete power with the exception of impeachment. Some delegates argued that treason should be excluded from the pardon power. George Mason argued that the President's pardon power "may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt." James Wilson answered that pardons for treason should be available and successfully argued that the power would be best used by the President. Impeachment was available if the President himself was involved in the treason. A proposal for Senate approval of presidential pardons was also defeated.The development of the use of the pardon power reflects its several purposes. One purpose is to temper justice with mercy in appropriate cases, and to do justice if new or mitigating evidence comes to bear on a person who may have been wrongfully convicted. Alexander Hamilton reflects this in The Federalist No. 74, in which he argues that "humanity and good policy" require that "the benign prerogative of pardoning" was necessary to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code. The pardon power would provide for "exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt."Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Wilson (1833) also commented on the benign aspects of the pardon power: "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though the official act of the executive magistrate...." Another purpose of the pardon power focuses not on obtaining justice for the person pardoned, but rather on the public-policy purposes of the government. For instance, James Wilson argued during the Convention that "pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices." The public-policy purposes of the pardon were echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Biddle v. Perovich (1927): "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme."Pardons have also been used for the broader public-policy purpose of ensuring peace and tranquility in the case of uprisings and to bring peace after internal conflicts. Its use might be needed in such cases. As Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 74, "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterward to recall." Presidents have sought to use the pardon power to overcome or mitigate the effects of major crises that afflicted the polity. President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesties to those involved with the Confederates during the Civil War, and Presidents Gerald R. Ford and James Earl Carter granted amnesties to Vietnam-era draft evaders.The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."The possibility of a President pardoning himself for a crime is not precluded by the explicit language of the Constitution, and, during the summer of 1974, some of President Richard M. Nixon's lawyers argued that it was constitutionally permissible. But a broader reading of the Constitution and the general principles of the traditions of United States law might lead to the conclusion that a self-pardon is constitutionally impermissible. It would seem to violate the principles that a man should not be a judge in his own case; that the rule of law is supreme and the United States is a nation of laws, not men; and that the President is not above the law.The pardon power has been and will remain a powerful constitutional tool of the President. Its use has the potential to achieve much good for the polity or to increase political conflict. Only the wisdom of the President can ensure its appropriate use.Rejected Presidential Pardon Bids02/20/2009 05:12 am ET Updated Dec 06, 2017So I have presented lots of information to look at and think about, and also the scope of the presidential pardon. I presented the story, of Jim Jones, to show you that even the smartest, brightest, and well-meaning among us can get taken in by those who seek to manipulate and use what would seem almost like magical powers to keep them under their spell. How different are Trump supporters in their fanaticism to Jones supporters, who believed enough to put that poisoned kool-aid to their lips? Just try engaging them in a conversation, and you would be surprised at the response. I swear to God, the conversation could be about birds and it will come back to Trump- amazing.So again, would Trump Trump pardon his children- I think yes. Can he? - I would also say yes. Why do I say so? , because the rules have changed. Since Trump came into office, the goalpost for what a president can do has changed. Now it seems like everything he does is within his presidential power- the word of the day is yes, he can:In 2018, of course, scholars’ views don’t mean much. The current constitutional rule is Donald Trump can do anything he can get away with. The president operates by hotel-burglar logic: If people don’t want to be robbed, they ought to lock their doors; if the Founders didn’t want Trump to do something, it’s their own fault for not writing “the president can’t do this.”Also, never forget that the very same people who condemned Obama for everything, who called him “emperor” and “King”, and wanted to impeach him for wearing this suitNow think that everything That Trump does is okay. These are the same people who would watch Trump pardon children for having committed a crime, and say as they are wont to and say “he is the president and he can do what he wants”. They will say that and go about their business with a smile- the Jones effect