If one limits their memberships of humanity to small worldly organizations to spear head their desired policies for the purpose of making them more powerful, more important, wealthier, or safer (from other groups) then we of America can most certainly accomplish that goal as we (the American Federal Government) have the resources, the might, the anxieties, the predjustist and the ignorance (of the rest of the world) to most assuredly take over the entire world. And even if we did, the current model is only serving the needs (or wants and desires) of about 30% of the population with the rest in a rather static mundane life style costing hundreds of times more to maintain than the citizens of the United Nations. And even if we reorganized the funding and services to be distributed more fairly, and even if we had leaders (and corporate officers) that were concerned for the people of America, the world, and cared about the Earth, the model of capitalism, democracy (a republic of well to doers vs. an educated populace of high morals and sound believes in a God or higher power), these principles could not be proliferated across the planet to states and countries that do not have them.

But even if we could, there would be a major set of people, possibly more than half of the world, that would be worst off than they are now and half better off than they are now.
And this is how the power and resources would continue, redistributed among fractions of organized memberships of fear based, advantage motivated, and dogma indoctirenated ideals.

So one needs to step out of the world into the spiritual realm where there is no death and life continues on forever, even to the point where we may be on another physical place from life to life, and ask one self to which organized membership does one really belong.
One can then see that anything less than the Grandness of scale is nothing but our weakness showing through in the form of fear. Fear being the denial of the truth of what's bigger than our minds can comprehend.

I have no President, no representatives, and no politics that engage in anything less than what I can comprehend. I comprehend much, I fail to comprehend much more, but I can say without a doubt, war and its practice is a very low tech method of the development of humanity and serves a small fraction of the people of this planet.

It would be better to flood Iraq will solar power and TV's than bombs and armies.
In a few years the people of Iraq would want so much more than Saddam or any other self-absorbed lunatic. In that way, Bush is exactly like him. But it is we that are the problem. We are very fearful and ignorant and lack the faith to comprehend the truth beyond our little windows. One guy with a gun has paralyzed the East Coast with fear. How much denial do you need? Two buildings fall down and everyone stops working.
One TV commercial and everyone runs out and eats tacos. And we are supposed to tell other countries how to live?

Love and Beyond,
Darwin

hi Darwin...its all such a horrible sad state of affairs. Today the news showed/interviewed many service men and women ready to ship out...I just wanted to cry as I felt the energy of so many not returning.

However..Im sorry I had to crack right up with your last comment there..thanks~needed the laugh!!

If we weren't sleepwalking we wouldn't need to wake up.

Love,
Greg

Hi Donna

I doubt you'll be seeing me within the hallowed walls of ivy teaching Poly Sci anytime soon My view of the world is anathema to the pseudo academic establishment currently in power in academia.

I'm not surprised you like George W Bush. He has high approval ratings and most people do, including lots of Democrats and that scares the hell out of the Democrat establishment types. I would say its W who's refreshing.

I'm with you Donna and usually try to avoid political discussions.

jwhop

Hey Darwin

You may have something there. Perhaps we're trying to do this the hard way. Maybe we should be offering a free TV and satellite service for every Iraqi. American capitalism would soon bring them to their knees.

Either that or load those B-1, B-17 and B-52 bombers with Taco Bell tacos and let them fly. Oh yeah, extra hot sauce, of course.

jwhop

Jwhop I'm far from a "Democratic establishment type" but Bush scares the hell out of me! Iraq aside, we have seen more of our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights fall by the wayside under the guise of the "war on terrorism" under this administration than any any other in the history of our nation, whether left-leaning paternalistic or right-leaning "pro-business"/militaristic. We have seen the introduction of vast new bureacratic secret police powers under the sole direction of the executive branch of government -- one of the deepest fears of America's founding fathers -- along with secret arrests and interrogations and indefinite detainments of "suspects" on grounds that need not be revealed to ANYONE, without legal representation or access to legal appeal whatsoever. We have seen the Freedom of Information act effectively gutted, with basically ALL presidential communications sealed from public review. We have seen the issuance of soul-stirring declarations of "national mission" that effectively amount to the assertion of unilateral US right to "compel" all foreign governments to embrace "freedom" (remember when freedom and compulsion used to mean different things?), including the "globalization" schemes first touted by Bush the Elder under the name "New World Order" (although no one in power uses that term any more because it has bad PR connotations) which purport to foster "free trade" but which actually establish a technocratic mercantilism in which select multinational corporations are granted governmental charters to "develop" underprivileged countries in a thinly-veiled scam to gain control of their natural resources and economic systems.

All of this amounts to a lot of patriotic-sounding WORDS that sound as good to me as they do to you or to ANYONE who values the genuinely decmocratic traditions of America -- but which in fact are profoundly antithetical to everything our founding fathers and constitutional traditions genuinely stand for.

This is the classic "doublespeak" of Orwell's "1984" where words no longer have any objective meaning but are used simply as propaganda tools to ease acceptance of Big Brother's agenda.

Yes, you bet he scares the hell out of me. But it's not a partisan fear, I'm under no illusions that the Democrats would be any less opressive, they'd just couch their furtherance of the same agenda in different terms with different emphasis to make us feel like there's a real choice in the matter. Clinton's usurpation of civil rights and expansion of Federal power was nearly as frightening as Bush's, it just wasn't quite as visible because he didn't have the grand theater of this war on terrorism to operate within. The fact is that this country is now largely in the hands of a group of folks who are dominated by multinational corporate and financial interests supported by an interlocking network of intelligence agencies and "global planning" institutions, whose aim is to establish an authoritarian world government, pure and simple. Getting caught up in the "politics" of it and arguing about Republicans versus Democrats, or thinking that this is all about whether "Bush" is an effective leader or a scoundrel, just distracts our attention from what's really going on. And they are doing a great job of that distraction.

Love,
Greg

Its great to see it all being put together that way Greg..thanks.

And while people are debating whether they are for or against Bush,not to mention getting suckered in by other events taking place..did anyone notice he signed a declaration today "authorizing" him to go to war with Iraq. Nothing much left to do now but start the war game.
As you said Greg...they are doing a wonderful job with distractions.

---------
Bush signs war resolution

Associated Press


Washington: U.S. President Bush on Wednesday signed Congress' war-making resolution and told wary world leaders to "face up to our global responsibility" to confront Saddam Hussein.

-------
Heres CNNs version..
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/bush.resolution/index.html

-----
And on another note...ALL the population of Iraq (11 million) voted in Saddam as their leader for another ..*gulp*..7 year term. Mind you, he was the soul candidate!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.elections.ap/index.html

Greg

The Democrats aren't overly concerned about the President's policy on Iraq or the war on terrorism. What scares the hell out of them is the likely loss of the Senate in the coming election coupled with the likely list of possible Democrat candidates for President in the 2004 elections and the fact they are no match for George W. Bush. None of their ideas are getting any traction with the voting public and the President has far higher job approval ratings than the House Minority Leader and the Majority Leader of the Senate combined, both of which are probable candidates for the Presidency in 2004.

What we are seeing is a reorganization of security functions already in place in the Federal Government. Elements of several departments will be combined into a Homeland Security Dept.

I'm not aware any US citizen has lost any civil rights as a result of the Bill to authorize the Homeland Security Dept.

What civil rights do US citizens not have now that they had prior to President Bush taking office in 2001?

The INS has always had the authority to arrest and hold people in the United States illegally for what ever reason, whether they had snuck into the country, failed to return home when their visa expired or were not enrolled in school when on an educational visa. They also have and have had the authority to hold without bail, counsel or resort to the courts those aliens in the country for the purpose of making war on the US. So, what do you think has changed?

The United States has the right to set immigration policy and enforce immigration laws. It's indisputable there are millions of persons in the US illegally, some of them have proven to be terrorists themselves or are here specifically to funnel money and information to terrorist organizations.
These people are not covered by the usual civil rights accorded citizens of the US. They have been a source of information on terrorist organizations. Some are here on legal visas and some have been arrested and questioned. Some have been released and others are in the process of having charges brought against them. Even a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked if they obtained it under false pretenses--such as gaining citizenship to help other nations or groups make war on the US.

In contrast, John Walker Lindh is a US citizen with all his civil rights intact. He was indicted and prosecuted under our laws, had all his rights observed including counsel, his day in court etc.

I'll be interested to see which civil rights citizens of the US have lost as a result of George Bush's policies.

jwhop

ho jwhop..I did a real quick search..typed in "loss of civil rights since sept 11" and the first site that came up had this to say...(and its all true,as anyone will know whos been following the news)

Relax restrictions on information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence agencies
Authorize "roving wiretaps"
Allowing detention of non-citizens for up to seven days without charges
Expand police access to e-mail records
Increase government monitoring of financial transactions
Permit law-enforcement access to library and bookstore records -- and forbid the disclosure of such inquiries
from..
http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa082902a.htm

you may want to start sticking your earnings in a sock in the back yard before they start to take it all in the guise to "fight terrorism"..as thats coming to a bank near you very soon..The army doesnt have a lot of money left. You may also want to kiss your pensions and rrsps goodbye. If you've already signed up for direct deposits,bank cards,etc, you're half way there...congratulations!!
But thats ok,as it sounds like you support war and B***...

Aries
These are the amendments to the US Constitution.
Your arguments lack merit. The Constitution can only be changed by amendment. Not the President, not the Congress and not the Supreme Court can alter or abolish a single word or a single civil right contained therein.

There is nothing violative of civil rights in the items you mentioned. Here are the major parts of the Act.

Major provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, include:

-- Relaxed restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officers about suspected terrorists. -- Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist. Law enforcement and intelligence services should share information. Nothing else makes sense given that intelligence services are not authorized to conduct intelligence operations on American soil.

-- Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. The provision was needed, advocates said, with the advent of cellular and disposable phones. Notice the provision for court orders to wiretap. Wiretaps are always pursuant to court orders

-- Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely. Non citizens are not now and never have been covered by the array of civil rights available to US Citizens nor should they be and especially those in the country illegally. The law of Habeas Corpus applies to US citizens.

-- Allowing law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects. The subpoena power has always been available to prosecutors and litigants as an extension of the civil and criminal courts

-- Tripling the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and providing $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada. So what? The US has the right to inspect, control and monitor the borders of the United States and always has had.

-- Expanding measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders. What's new here? The government has always had the right to inspect bank records of account holders pursuant to a court order.

-- Eliminating the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintaining the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years. Statute of limitations are set by different states as well as the Federal Government and lengthening or shortening them has nothing to do with civil right



Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XVIPassed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XVIII
Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

Section 1.
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XIX
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3.
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4.
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXI
Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2.
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXII
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXIII
Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXIV
Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXV
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

I support the President's efforts to curtail terrorism and if that means going after the nations and their leaders who fund, train, arm and harbor terrorists then so be it.

jwhop

Hi jwhop, Aries, Greg, and all,:)

What you say about those adjustments are correct but what law enforcement and prosecutors are doing are on thin ice. And the legal entanglements caused for, yes, a citizen of the US has become a nightmare.

I sincerely question the legality of the existence of the FBI and CIA. They are and always have been part of the armed forces. Which when used to enforce local population (control) is against the IV. Amendment. It has continued only because of the cold war and the Vietnam War and so called Drug War. It should have been abolished in 1978 at the latest. It is doing the job of the ATF. The ATF has become part of the FBI. It's all Federal Government. I hope you and others have not become so desensitized that you have forgotten the very distinct and separate 13 colonies and the reasons they existed. Different stokes for different folks. The same is true for the 50 Sates. Each State has a Governor, a Senate, a House of Representatives. Each State has State Police. Each State has local Chief of Police or Serifs. These are elected people and often the citizens of the Sate know there names, where they live and some remember them from school. There are no elections for the FBI, the CIA, or the ATF.

Case in Oregon about the 5 Muslims arrested for terrorists connections.
They were citizens born and raised less than 5 miles from my house. Arrested a couple of miles from a community collage. Their biggest crime was the words they spoke (I. Amendment) and the association with Afghanistan( Because they went there.) The proof may or may not come out in a count of law. But these people and a whole apartment complex closed down, people could not come and go, roads were blocks. They don't do that much for escaped convicts here. Well, all of this was done not only by State, County, and local Police but the FBI, the ATF and even federal troops. This is completely unconstitutional no matter what the spin Washington comes up with.

Before this case, a Sheik Muslim who was the leader of a Musk in Portland was arrested at the airport when one of the new anti-terrorists machines detected traces of TNT on his briefcase. It was later, much later, that the airport confessed that the machine was malfunction; later tests found no TNT traces. In the mean time, the Government just instilled hate, predjustice, and fear in several neighborhoods and laid the groundwork for some very tense times and some very scared Mulums girls walking around colleage campuses. After much jail time, no bail, and intense investigation of this Muslim leader the Feds finely got him on having multiply social security numbers.
I am sure there are thousands of people that do that. It is a crime, but it is a civil crime not a criminal crime and there are laws in place to handle it accordingly, mostly electronically, with a warrant for arrest coming only after the failure to comply with the counts.

My point is that in the current state of interruption, if I were to get a traffic ticket for not wearing my seat belt, which I never do when I am along as it is an unconstitutional law also, and if the Fed read what I have said on this site, and interviewed people about what I have said about the Federal Government, the FBI and federal troops could storm my house, tear it apart, and put me in jail for 70 day without a trail date if they wanted too.

And as the girl sang, "It's only just begun."

I'm not arguing, I am only saying that the law enforcement theme is way to HOT in American and needs to be drenched with some cold constitutional law suites.
Only very ignorant people can feel safe in America right now.

TTYL, maybe
Darwin

P.S. I don't know my Muslims from my Muslems, or my Sheiks from my Shakes, or Masks from Mosks but "Yea know what I mean, Harry."

The next post is the Associated press on the Oregon and New York terrorists off ABSNEWS.com search words Oregon Muslim terrorists.
I believe these 5 in Oregon are no more of a threat than 5 collage kids of the 60's, or the environmentalists, or the animal rights activists. They didn't do anything.

Scholars: Terror Conspiracy Charges May Allow Use of Weaker Evidence

P O R T L A N D, Ore., Oct. 14 — Two key exceptions to general criminal law may allow prosecutors to use even weak evidence to build a case against a dozen suspected terrorists charged in Oregon and New York, legal scholars say.

Unlike most crimes, proof of conspiracy does not require an actual crime and hearsay is allowed.

"In the legal world, conspiracy is called the 'darling' of prosecutors," said Robert Precht, a University of Michigan law professor and a defense attorney in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

"It's the closest American law comes to a 'thought crime' because the paradox of conspiracy law is there need not be any crime at all," he said.

Instead, all that is needed is evidence that two or more people agreed to commit a crime and took at least one step called an "overt act" — however trivial and even perfectly legal — toward planning that crime or carrying it out.

"There have to be overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy but those overt acts can be perfectly innocuous things, like getting on a plane at JFK, so you don't need a lot," said Abraham Sofaer, a Stanford law professor, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and former legal adviser to the U.S. State Department.

Also, the nearly ironclad legal principle that bars hearsay — testimony by one person who was merely told what another person said — does not apply to coconspirators, said Phil Heymann, a Harvard law professor.

"Any statement by any conspirator is treated as a statement by all of them and is an exception to hearsay," said Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general.

The six people indicted earlier this month in a terrorism investigation in Oregon faces charges of conspiracy to levy war against the United States, conspiracy to provide support to al Qaeda, and conspiracy to contribute services to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In New York, the five suspects arrested last month in the steel town of Lackawanna and a sixth arrested in Bahrain — all U.S. citizens of Yemeni descent — are awaiting indictment under the same conspiracy law, according to the FBI.

Attorney General John Ashcroft called the Oregon arrests "a defining day in America's war against terrorism," claiming the government has "neutralized a suspected terrorist cell within our borders."

But Heymann argued that facts disclosed so far show a group of disenfranchised young people, mostly black Americans who have converted to Islam. Some in the group went target shooting at a gravel pit in Washington state, then tried to go to Afghanistan but failed to get into the country, and exchanged some e-mail about their travels and some cash.

"They look like very small potatoes, like full-time losers," Heymann said. "That doesn't mean that losers can't do damage, but to claim this is a defining moment?"

An attorney for one of the Oregon suspects says the government has no case. Defense lawyers say the men arrested in New York days after the Sept. 11 anniversary are victims of misinformation who pose no danger.

The New York case may have more serious implications because all six are accused of training at a terrorist camp in Afghanistan, said Todd Gaziano, director of the Heritage Foundation center for legal and judicial studies in Washington.

Even though all the suspects may have traveled legally and committed no actual crimes or violence along the way, the group mentality is considered the greatest threat under conspiracy law, Gaziano said.

"The reason the criminal law makes an exception for conspiracy is that once the conspiracy is formed, the participants aren't free to back out," Gaziano said. "Normally, you're not guilty of a crime until you attempt it, but in a conspiracy, once you've formed the agreement, you've taken that step."

Gaziano said prosecutors may be withholding much stronger evidence in the Oregon case at this point for fear of harming other anti-terrorism efforts.

"It's a special dilemma that prosecutors face in conspiracy cases with intelligence sources," he said.

If convicted, all 12 in Oregon and New York could feel the full weight of federal criminal sentencing guidelines even though no actual violence may have been committed, said Frank Zimring, a University of California at Berkeley law professor.

"It's not a question of whether we're going to lock them up," he said. "The question is, are we going to lock them up and toss away the key,"


—The Associated Press

JWhop,

I've read that brief "2-line summary" of each of the major provisions of the Patriot act ... it is from the press release issued by the White House announcing the signing of the bill. Phrased in that way it DOES sound innocuous, but it is a superficial gloss that ignores many of the serious usurpations of power.

In reply to:

---

Major provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act, passed in October 2001, include:

-- Relaxed restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officers about suspected terrorists. -- Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist. Law enforcement and intelligence services should share information. Nothing else makes sense given that intelligence services are not authorized to conduct intelligence operations on American soil.

---

"Relaxed restrictions on information sharing" sounds so benign, doesn't it? What the reorganization actually does is to put in place a large centrally-controlled federal bureaucracy fully empowered to spy on American citzens. There is good reason the CIA is prohibited from spying on Americans - such domestic spying is anathema to American ideals and was specifically prohibited by law. The new organization effectively nullifies that prohibition.

The second big problem is the extreme centralization of this power. Prior to the 9/11 attacks there were MANY warnings transmitted to the central FBI office by field agents, and these warnings were pointedly ignored by central administrators. In a supreme twist of irony this failing was used as justification for taking ALL terrorist investigative initiative OUT of the hands of field offices and putting it in the hands of central authorities. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

As for it now being a crime to "harbor a terrorist," the patriot act defines a terrorist as "an attempt to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or change "the policy of the government by intimidation or coercion." The American Civil Liberties Union says that definition is so broad it could cover political dissent by activists involved in protests against world trade, animal rights or environmental concerns. The fact that in several high-profile incidents in the past few months environmental activists and student protestors have been detained at airports or denied the right to air passage is good indication that the justice department take a VERY broad view of who might be a "terrorist."

In reply to:

---

-- Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court orders to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. The provision was needed, advocates said, with the advent of cellular and disposable phones. Notice the provision for court orders to wiretap. Wiretaps are always pursuant to court orders

---

Ah, the court order issue. Sounds comforting that court orders are still required, doesn't it? What this gloss fails to mention is that it is now at the discretion of Justice Department bureaucrats to determine if any case requires a "secret" court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This is not a court in the sense that we think of it, but is rather a seven member panel created in 1978 that sits secretly in the basement of the Justice Department. Until now, law enforcement agencies had to present evidence of clear need for secrecy in a publicly accessible court before seeking warrants and court orders from this secret body. Now they need merely "assert" that there is a national security need. About the only thing pubicly known about this secret panel is that since its creation in 1978 it has NEVER - not even once - rejected an FBI request for a secret warrant! And there is no further judicial oversight, nor any way for anyone to force this body to reveal the "secret" evidence on which any warrant is based. In short, the feds can now get a secret search and seizure warrant against anyone they want at any time without revealing any of their reasons or grounds for suspicion. If this is not a violation of the fourth amendment then words have no meaning at all.

In addition there are a large number of circumstances where warrants are not needed at all, specifically with regard to email spying. The patriot vastly extended the power to use the "Carnivore" system of tracking both email and telphone conversations WITHOUT warrant. This system monitors the communications of large numbers of people indiscriminately, with no prior suspicion whatsoever, in hopes of discovering "suspicious" activity by computer-tracking the presence of key phrases in messages. When the system does identify such phrases, a secret warrant is then obtained to target the communicators in depth specifically and individually.

Another such provision allows confidential attorney-client conversations to be monitored and recorded if they occur within prisons or jails ... EVEN IF THOSE IN CUSTODY HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OR EVEN CHARGED with a crime. One more clear violation of the fourth amendment.

In reply to:

---

-- Allowing the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely. Non citizens are not now and never have been covered by the array of civil rights available to US Citizens nor should they be and especially those in the country illegally. The law of Habeas Corpus applies to US citizens.

---

Yes it is true that the constitution does not protect non-citzens from abuse of their human rights - but does that mean it's okay? The constitution doesn't prohibit torture of non-citizens either, so should we do it? That may sound "ridiculous," but in fact there was serious discussion about whether post-911 detainees could be tortured to force them to reveal what they knew of about terrorist activity, and Attorney General Ashcroft asserted the appropriateness of using "moderate coercion" to extract information from detainees ... and some evidence collected by amnesty international indicates that torture was actually used in some instances. Further, although the constitution does not demand it, international law that the US is signatory to DOES demand basic legal rights for all prisoners even prisoners of war. But our administration sidestepped that by declaring that these detainees are not prisoners of war, therefore not entitled to even Geneva convention protections. These are not the actions of a government that cares about human rights.

In reply to:

---

-- Allowing law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects. The subpoena power has always been available to prosecutors and litigants as an extension of the civil and criminal courts

---

Again, subpoenas issued by courts of law are a valid part of our legal system and rightly so - subpoenas issued by "secret" courts base on assertion and undisclosed evidence are NOT. Er, excuse me, thay haven't been until now.

In reply to:

---

-- Expanding measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders. What's new here? The government has always had the right to inspect bank records of account holders pursuant to a court order.

---

Actually the government has NOT "always had the right" to inspect bank records. It was not until the progressive income tax and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that Federal inspection of personal financial records began, amid much protest and constitutional argument that has never been resolved. In 1934 Congressman Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years, filed suit against the Federal Reserve system challenging the constitutionality of numerous provisions of that act (including Federal spying on individual finances) ... his suit was buried in committee where it still sits today. Even leaving the constitutionality issue aside, however, once again Federal inspection of financial records has until now required publicly demonstrable "reasonable cause" and court order. With the passage of the Patriot act, it can now be accomplished by unsubstantiated executive or administrative order.

And these are just the most blatant changes in the assertion of Federal authority over individuals in that one act - there are many others in various executive orders and administrative "policies." Among the most frightening of these is the establishment of domestic concentration camps - yes, you read right, American concentration camps for US citizens, which were requested by Ashcroft (after having been authorized by executive order during the Reagan administration). There are currently 600 such camps intended to inter American "dissenters" in the event of widespread rebellion or civil disorder, under the control of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration). They are currently unoccupied but fully staffed and operational. The only requirement for initiating the use of these camps is the imposition of martial law, which the President at his sole discretion is empowered to declare - and under the relaxed "legal" requirements of martial law, any citzen deemed to be disruptive or dangerous may be incarcerated there BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER without habeus corpus or any of the other constitutional requirements of the legal system. It is not known what the total capacity of this appalling system is, but at least one of these facilities is equipped to handle as many as 100,000 prisoners!

I ask you, what is the need for such preparations in a government which trusts its citizens and has no reason to fear massive civilian protests? Hmmmm? Here is documentation for these facts: Ashcroft's plans for concentration camps for US Citizens

I could go on and on, but there is no need (although I'll be happy to supply additional information to anyone interested). The bottom line is that there is MASSIVE evidence that a clique of individuals and organizations within (and without) the United States has clear designs on curtailing individual liberties and substituting authoritarian state control for the sovereignty of the individual fought for by our forefathers and guaranteed by our constitution. This clique includes, but is by NO means limited to, the current executive administration.

BTW, please do not think that these observations are intended to be "argumentative," and certainly not personal insults to you, Jwhop, or anyone else who does not share my views on this subject. I do understand and respect the patriotic point of view. In fact it is because of my love for America and the democratic principles this country was created to uphold - and that we THINK we are exporting to the rest of the world - that I feel it is important to offer the results of my own research into this issue to others. I believe strongly that we are headed toward a very repressive future if significant numbers of us do not "wake up" to these facts and trends and begin taking active steps to spread the awareness and oppose the trends ... so I'm doing everything in my limited power to "wake up" whoever will listen! I do suggest that those who have any concerns in this area, do your own research and make up your own minds about it. It is quite important to our future!

Love,
Greg

jwhop,

I haven't been back here for a while, because I didn't feel like getting a headache. So, it was with great pleasure that I read your posts. I like you.

At times, I feel like I am in a time-warp here - I would put the year around 1977, with all of the talk about alien abductions, government coverups, shadow experiments, CIA plots, and mind control. Guess there was a lot of new technology going on, plus Cold War mentality and post-watergate distrust of government. But most people who have stayed alive the last 2 decades no longer think like that. Society no longer embraces those thoughts.

This is typical of e-mail and flyers I get stuffed in my mailbox:

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the
coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to
kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for
you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from.

Major companies that do import Middle Eastern oil (for the period 9/1/00 -
8/31/01).

Shell................ 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco....... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil......... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon............. 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco................ 62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Citgo 0 barrels
Sunoco 0 barrels
Conoco 0 barrels
Sinclair 0 barrels
BP/Phillips 0 barrels
Hess 0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and can
be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state
where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a
monthly basis.

Keep this list in your car; share it with friends. Stop paying for
terrorism.............

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers.
It's really simple to do!!

Now, don't wimp out at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple
it is to reach millions of people!! .

I'm sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at
least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more
(300 x 10 = 3,000) .. and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth
generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers!
If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each,
then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level
further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! .

Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people.

How long would all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten
more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could
conceivably be contacted within the next 8 days!!!



You can see that people here have had it. The talk at work, in the neighborhood, the salon, grocery store, etc is that the sniper shootings in Washington, D.C., and VA are terror related. This is a summary of the arguments I hear daily:

1. Shootings occur near nation's capitol
2. Random shootings, representing a cross section of US
3. Someone described one of the suspects as having an olive complexion Would that be Italian ?
4. What is the probability of several Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) types coming together and working together at the same time?
5. The fact that the sniper chose to kill the wife and not the husband outside of the Home Depot. The husband got to watch her die. Disrespect of Women

People are terrified. My sister-in-law just moved to Alexandria, VA, and works in D.C. She said that people run in zig-zag formation to their cars after work. No one goes out. The only business that aren't suffering are food home delivery - pizza, hoagies, etc.

The media has been doing a good job in keeping the panic down. Sniper related stories are not always on the front page. Terrorism is not mentioned. Home Grown Looney - different theories on profiling that kind of person only.

So, I am with you, jwhop. I don't know if the weapon's inspectors can even do that much good. They can find and destroy things, but they can't destroy the people and knowledge or the intent to use weapons of mass destruction.

As far as my son goes, Aries. He was proud to serve his country and he did a good job. He spent months in POW training and survival training. He was assigned as support (providing coverage and transportation) to a small Navy Seal team. He would disappear for months and I wouldn't know anything. He tells me he is 100% behind President Bush.

This is probably me longest post ever.
Joyce

Thanks for the suggestion and info about oil importers, Joyce! That's good information, and at least it is some small practical thing we can actually DO something about on an individual level!

I'm wary about leaping to the conclusion that the sniper shootings are terrorist related. I certainly don't deny that they COULD be ... but to leap to that conclusion before there's adequate evidence can't really help the process of clarity, and boy do we all need clarity in this welter of fears, stresses and uncertainties! I'm praying that the culprit(s) will soon be found and brought to justice, whoever they might be.

Love,
Greg

hi joy!

cool information about the oil! if you are interested, better yet . . . avoid using oil products and by-products all together!!!

Seventh Generation

Seventh Generation produces environmentally friendly household products with no petroleum oil by-products. such as recycled paper products, laundry detergents, dish soaps, cleaners, etc. etc. and it's non-toxic!



amy

Hello Joyce

I enjoyed reading your comments and I know what you mean about the time warp. Seems lots of people have a propensity for ascribing sinister motives to every action government takes. I have little time but when someone makes a far out allegation and references a web site, I check it out. Believe me, some of them accuse the President of everything from orchestrating the 9/11 attack and having personal knowledge it was going to happen to being in league with the Taliban and Al Queda through the CIA for the purposes of pacifying Afghanistan so his so called "big oil" friends can get an oil pipeline through the country. There's also sites devoted to a so called "expose" of the President's ties to big corporations who are supposedly pulling his chain. Funny to now see the Bush Justice Department prosecuting CEO's CFO's and other corporate executives for shady business dealings.

One of the things they all seem to have in common is a loathing for the United States, and this from US citizens. They accuse the government of meddling in the affairs of other nations when we intervene and ranting and raving that we are standing by and doing nothing to alleviate a problem when we don't. They also despise free market capitalism but I wonder what economic system they favor.

But the thing that is the most hysterical of all is that not a discouraging word was heard from these people during the Clinton administration and that administration was the most corrupt in American history. We now know all those accounting scandals had their roots in the 90's, the decade of greed. We also know, there would have been no 9/11 if Bill Clinton had taken the appropriate actions when the US was attacked by terrorists 4 times during his administration because they wouldn't have been around to attack in 2001. Instead, he pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists who had actually killed because Hillary needed the Puerto Rican vote to win her Senate seat in NY.

Yes, alien abductions, black painted UN helicopters buzzing motorists in the desert, Area 51 in New Mexico where some really far out aliens are being held and others too numerous to mention are bandied about on various websites and they all have their adherents. But most of us have moved on from the 60's and 70's without losing sight of the fact that there are problems in the US government and always will be when people seeking power for power's sake run and are elected to high office. Not to mention the power struggles between departments of government. The various intelligence agencies had their little fiefdoms and refused to share information with each other, let alone local law enforcement and the INS. Now when the President proposes to take the terrorist intelligence gathering sections out of these services and combine them into an effective department----he's accused of attempting to establish a juggernaut designed to strip citizens of their civil rights.

Which brings us back to George W Bush, the most powerful man on the planet but accused by some of attempting to overthrow the Constitution and install a dictatorship. The notion is laughable when you think of the steps dictatorships must take when seizing power. First they have to take control of all information services, including the press and all means of communications, education, transportation and the means of production of manufactured goods and agricultural production. But the number one thing that is essential to a dictatorship is to disarm the citizenry.

First, the American press despises the President, the education establishment despises the President and the unions who move the goods despise the President These are the power bases of the Democrat party.

The most telling thing that puts the lie to these allegations was the Attorney General marching into court and declaring that the 2nd Amendment grants to US citizens the right to keep and bear arms Period...Period...Period.

I doubt Saddam is going to permit the kind of inspections necessary to find the weapons he's been building the last 4 years or so or the one's not found and destroyed during the last inspection period prior to 1998. But if he doesn't, then there will be war and some here are alleging the President wants to install a puppet government in Iraq and divide up Iraq's oil resources amongst his oil company buddies. He's even been accused of planning to use nuclear weapons on Iraq.

I think there will be a regime change in Iraq and Iraq's citizens will have a chance to form a representative form of government. I think the sale of oil from Iraq will fund the government and build the infrastructure of the country to raise the standard of living in the country and will be sold at market prices to which ever oil companies want it---the same as oil from other oil producing nations.

My regards to your son, he sounds like a fine young man.

jwhop

RE:.."First they have to take control of all information services,(they are working on this).. including the press and all means of communications, education,(this,along with our medical plans IS happening where I live now).. transportation and the means of production of manufactured goods and agricultural production.(This is what Free Trade of the Americas is all about..will be in full force in 2005,and is a base combined with banks,etc for the New World Disorder) But the number one thing that is essential to a dictatorship is to disarm the citizenry (again..happening..stay tuned..unfortunately the only way this all can slip by everyone,or most everyone is by whats happening now with "terrorism"..how else could it happen?)

As I said earlier..Bush <----- number one candidate for the Anti-christ. The major clue to this mystery is just how the citizens are being fooled.(just as was written)

Ummmm, Jwhop ...

I went to a fair amount of time and trouble to respond to your questions courteously and directly ... and to be clear that I respect where you are coming from although I disagree. But then you come back on and talk about my ideas to Joyce, characterizing them as "laughable" among other insulting evaluations, without addressing me at all! That's not very polite, and politeness and mutual respect are things we ask for on this site as I'm sure you know. Disagreements are great, they stimulate creative thinking, but rudeness and insults aren't. I'd appreciate it if you keep that in mind while communicating with folks here ... even me!

Love,
Greg

jwhop -

I agree with every word that you wrote, especially the following: "One of the things they all seem to have in common is a loathing for the United States, and this from US citizens." It sickens me, as well.

This is how great the Navy has been to my son:

He was a few months short of his 4 years, and they were trying to get him to go to the Middle East for the next several years. He said, No, I don't think I am going to make a career out of this. I think I'd like to go to school now. Could you let me out a couple of months early, so that I could start in September? They did that. They also gave him 5 college courses and great letters of recommendation. They are also paying for a big chunk of his education. Everytime I talk to him, he starts the call with, "Mom, I owe this all to the Navy. I would never be in this spot without their help."

So it bothers me to hear the military knocked.

Hang in, jwhop.

Joyce

Hi Jwhop

I must say, I read your post and wish so much that I COULD agree with you, that what you are saying could be backed up by more than just belief and hope. I am 100% confident that if I had a spare hour or two this morning I could refute all of your arguments, well reasoned though they might be, with news sources and articles from CREDIBLE, MAINSTREAM publications/websites, such as The Washington Post, the Globe & Mail, The National Post (Canada's two national daily newspapers), CNN, Time, various economic and scientific journals etc. But that would be a waste of my time to write, and your time to read - wouldn't it?

It frustrates me that here, of all places, I have become branded a freedom-hater, when the sincere motivation behind all my thoughts and actions on these topics is actually FREEDOM-LOVING! I want so much for my children and your children to live in a free and peaceful society. I want so much for them to have a planet to leave to their kids. I am certain, that if we have anything in commen, it's that we both are striving for the same things. The difference is the road we are taking to get there.

I empathisize with Greg and his feeling of being insulted by how you presented your arguments. I hadn't even posted on this thread and I felt the sting in some of your comments. I think it's important for people to be able to talk about this, and I want to understand where you and Joy are coming from, becuase it gives me a greater insight into what I am sure are very mainstream views. I'd like to understand that view-point better, even though I doubt I'd agree with it. But it helps me to feel more understanding and compassionate when I can see how other people think, and it helps me to learn beter ways of presenting my own ideas. That's why I consider these dialouges very important, and that's why it's always a shame to see it get very personal.

Anyway, it's not going to be productive for me to strip your post down and point-by-ponit refute it - but I have to say just two things.

#1 - It was Donald Rumsfield, who on Sept 24, was the first person in the government to broach the topic of using nukes in Iraq. I did post a link to a longer article on the topic, but it seems to have expired, still I have this quote:
"You're not going to be able to deal from the air with weapons of mass destruction," Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told legislators last week. "It would take deep penetrators and would require capabilities that would have some effects that would not be nice."

Rumsfeld's allusion was to nuclear weapons, which would be needed to blow up deeply buried bunkers."

On it's own, I admit that quote isn't terrribly powerful, however when it's read witht he knowledge that on Sept 19, Bush unveiled a new White House defense stratgy that for the first time ever, allows for PRE-EMPTIVE strikes, including the use of nukes (as opposed to the Cold War doctrine of stockpiling nukes as a DETERRENT) then, personally, I feel that's enough direct evidence to say that 'YES' the current administration would use nukes in a war with Iraq. (The link to the defense paper is here President Bush's National Security Strategy )

Also, I would love to say a million and one things about the oil industry, and their role in all of this, except that it's a moot point. If all this fighting is about oil, then it's supremely ironic that conservative estimiates by mainstream scientists suggest a maximum of 30 year oil supply left in the planet anyway. <scratching her head> So there's alot more to this than just oil rights anyway....which is probably a discussion for another thread.

Love,
Terri

Hello Greg, Aries, Terri, Dani, Proxy et al.

First, let me apologize for not being more clear about which websites I was referring to in my post(s). I sometimes visit these sites if for no other reason than to confirm for myself they have either taken the most radical view of events or misquoted officials or have added their own interpretation to what was actually said.

It was not my intention to show anyone here disrespect, either on a personal or intellectual level.

Please reread my post(s) and hopefully you will find I liberally sprinkled the word sites throughout my comments referencing other places.

You have raised a point about respect and so, I would say to you that respect begets respect. Posts on this thread, no matter how firmly h