Love.

They are trying to demonstrate that love not war is ALWAYS the answer. They are just reminding everone of this.

They are courageous because they are willing to die for their convictions and willing to die trying to save the lives of others. They know they will probably die.

They know they can't just vote for love at this time on our planet.

Extremists? Yes, but at least they extremely love. This is the ultimate peace demonstration. They are heroes.

They are not selling secrets to the enemy or betraying anyone. They have no enemy. They are saviours.

Hi Piscesdreamer!

As I've already said before, I strongly disagree with your view on this subject.

War is not always the answer but sometimes it's the last resort, like probably in this case.

And if this war starts everybody who is involved directly at the front has to choose sides..

Those human shield people have involved themselves directly and voluntarily into that situation.. well, now if they choose Iraqi side and they fight (passively or actively) for Iraq, in my mind they're traitors. They're betraying their own countries. They are helping the dictator, they are helping the enemy.

They are definitely showing a lot of "LOVE" for Saddam. If they really love Iraqi people, they would not try to help Saddam's regime, on the contrary.

Many of those human shield people have probably nothing better to do and want some publicity... what a way!!! Some of them probably do honestly believe that they're going to stop the war.

Brave??? Maybe...maybe not.

Some people call the suicide victims cowards and the other call them brave... there are suicides resulting from mental and physical illness... there are suicides from despair and deep depression, some other suicides are the result of self-pity and revenge...our opinions are not necessarily based on facts or knowledge, but it's more about how we feel about certain things in life. And our feelings are very subjective.

If the human shield people in Iraq are ready to commit suicide I'm certainly not going to call them brave or heroes, but I would pray for them same as I would pray for the American and British soldiers, all the journalists and for all the innocent Iraqi people there.

Extreme love.... well, I would call their behavior extreme stupidity. Saviors??? I doubt it.

But than I'm a realist and you call yourself a dreamer.. I wish I could be more like you sometimes, maybe it would be easier to look at the world throught the rose-colored glasses.

Have a nice day

El

Goodmorning ladies!
PD, as both an activist AND a lover, not a fighter (lol) I can totally relate to your post.

I keep going back to the same statement...how many people does it REALLY take to oust one man????...and how many will die to do the deed.??????

War Games

Dear Eleonora,

I started this thread knowing there would be strong disagreement, and I am very glad you expressed yours. I do see your point. I was hoping we could all help each other keep learning to find that middle ground that is so necessary before all on this planet can achieve peace.

We have to start learning that when we take sides, we will not win. When we work together peacefully, we can all win.

War is the last resort. Yes. But have we come to the last resort, in this case, really? Or is this just a lot of hysteria about problems which will not really be solved by people dying in this war? I don't know the whole truth or the answer to this, but it seems there should be a little more time taken for diplomacy or less harmful solutions and more time taken to plan within the UN whether this solution is the best one for now and the future.

Have we thought this plan of war through, and its consequences? What is the rush? "Getting it over with" might end up being just the start of lots more trouble.

If these people merely wanted to commit suicide, they wouldn't have to travel to Iraq and die so horribly. I suspect there's more to it than suicide or attention grabbing. They are probably aware that their names will probably be forgotten except by a few. I do believe they see themselves as martyrs for a cause they believe in deeply. I agree with them this is not time for war, at least yet. They are not failures--even if they are vaporized their actions may have an impact on the consciousness of humanity. Whether or not they succeed in this remains to be seen.

Also, I think they are not choosing sides. They believe they are standing up for an America that believes in peace and want to demonstrate this. I don't think they are either helping Saddam nor do they wish to help Saddam. They merely wish to save lives of innocents, the Iraqi people who have had no choice but to submit to their leader and who have suffered. No doubt they would like the Iraqis to be free of Saddam as well.

I also want to let you know that if some of us are still hesitant about this war, it is not because we don't want to help you and your country. Of course, we do want to help. We just want to make sure we are really helping!

Thank you for your thoughts--I am learning that when people strongly disagree there seems to be a middle point we are all missing....

Love to you,

Good Morning Everyone

Pisces your post is something I have been thinking about since I heard about these peace protesters on the news. I have voiced my opinion about their protest but I also see your point.

I have no doubt in my mind that these protesters believe strongly in their cause. It does take a lot of courage to put yourself in dangers way like that, to risk being labled a traitor by your fellow citizens, and also risk being tried after the war by your country for acts of treason during a time of war. It definitely shows a strong and admirable conviction in your belief of peace. I totally agree with you on that. I heard on the news that one of the protesters sold his record store business to participate in this protest. I think that protester was from the U.S.

I have said before that I am real cautious about judging the motives and intentions behind the acts of others. We don't know the true motives of others and normally our acts are based on more than just one motive. Love could be a part of it, a strong conviction in their principles and philosophies of life may be another part of it. Only God truly knows those motives. We can only base our opinions of those motives by what they say and by the acts. Normally, it is the nature of the human beast, that we don't do anything unless there is something in it for us. That something can be based on anything from good to bad.

The protesters say they are there for the Iraqi people to try and prevent them from further suffering. Are their acts going to prevent that suffering? I agree with Eleanora concerning what she said about that. Even if ideally this small group of protesters should prevent the war, the Iraqi people will go on suffering under the tyranny of Hussein. Though I am against war myself unless it truly is the last resort, and like you, Pisces, I am not completely sure we have exhausted all the alternative options to war in Iraq, I think love would consist of what Eleanora spoke about. I think love of their fellow man would prompt a person to ease their suffering by winning for them their freedom from tyranny so that they can fulfill their human destinies. Even if the intention may be a good one, even if the motive may be love, love can be misguided, compassion can be misguided. Beyond that, love would consist in the desire to remove the threat of tyranny for the rest of the countries and peoples of the Middle East. It would be a just war if it achieved that goal as it was during WWll. Rather or not war achieves that goal or makes matters worse remains to be seen.

So, while I admire the protester's convictions, I think it is taking protesting a bit far and they are allowing themselves to be used by Hussein for propaganda purposes. He paid their way to Iraq, provided them with nice living quarters and well stocked refrigerators. Now why would Hussein do that? This is not the nicest guy in the world we are dealing with here. One of the protesters said he is not there for Hussein, but for the people of Iraq and he would not allow himself to be used by Hussein. It's my opinion that he already has allowed that when he accepted the invitation.

We have the history of the Viet Nam protesters to teach us something. The protesters spoke of love and peace at that time as well. Yet when our soldiers came home after fighting in one of the most brutal wars in history, and seeing the horrors first hand of that war, where was the love and peace for our returning soldiers? Many of them were spat on and called "murderers" by these protesters. Where was the love in those acts? When love and peace is true it is there for all of mankind, not just for the cause of the day. Love is how we treat each other on a daily basis and is not limited to just a cause. Before I made the judgment that these protesters are there for love, I would have to know more about each indivdual and how they consistently conducted their lives on a day to day basis in their dealings with others.

Love, Connie

Hello PD

Saviors? Hardly PD, the actions of these people are clearly treason as defined by our Constitution which is a crime. And not only a garden variety crime committed against another citizen, business, or group but rather a crime against the United States and every American citizen.

Article 3, Section 3 USC defines Treason:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Clearly, this is the effect and intent of this "human shield" group, no matter the high sounding rhetoric coming out of the antiwar circles.

Lenin's term "useful idiots" finds a perfect application here along with those marching in support of A.N.S.W.E.R., the Workers World Party, Jihad, Hammas, FARC, et al., the people clearly identified as the groups behind the antiwar movement, groups tied to the concept of communism and terrorism, which are neither antiwar or compassionate.

Their actions may also have the effect of prolonging the war and causing the deaths of American and coalition forces personnel as well as Iraqi citizens and soldiers. If they really want to assume the role of "martyrs," the best way would be to strap themselves to the turret of a Republican Guard T-72 tank. Think of it as a human hood ornament.

My fondest hope is that they be found in Iraq before the cessation of fighting, arrested, repatriated to the US, charged, tried, convicted and dealt with in accordance with the laws of the US. If it were up to me, they would, upon conviction be stripped of their American citizenship and deported. If in addition, any deaths of American military personnel results from their actions, I would see them tried for homicide, convicted, imprisoned to serve their sentence, then deported.

It's long past time that people learn their actions have consequences.

jwhop

I would not be a "human sheild" in Saddam's Iraq either, for many of the reasons already listed here. Now only would it be ineffective, but regardless of good intentions toward the Iraqui people it will not help them either ... and it IS being used to great propaganda effect by Saddam.

However, I must say that though I disagree with their actions I respect the people who feel strongly enough that they are willing to put their lives on the line to stand up for what they believe is right. That's a long American tradition (and a tradition among freedom loving people everywhere in the world.)

When neo-Nazis were being denied the right to march in Chicago a few years ago, the Jewish organizations were among the very few groups who SUPPORTED their right to march peacefully - not because they supported the ne-Nazis aims and viewpoints, obviously, but because they believed that if freedom of speech is to be protected it must be protected for everyone. They took a stand for PRINCIPLE above their own well-justified loathing for those who were invoking its use. Did that make them traitors to the Jewish race? No, it made them supporters of the PRINCIPLES that guarantee freedom and justice for all, principles that must apply to all or their value becomes meaningless.

Treason is well-defined in the Constitution as applying to acts of war and in time of war. Regardless of how our President refers to this state of perpetual armed conflct that he has initiated in the name of the "war on terrorism" against any and all enemies he and his cronies choose to identify as terrorists, for "decades" [HIS estimate] into the future, it is NOT war in the constitutional sense. The constitution is VERY clear that only congress has the power to decalre war ... and it has not done that.

To the contrary, legistlation introduced by the administration seeks to deliberately subvert the constitution in numerous ways, not least by allowing the Presidential declaration of armed conflict to have the legal effect of war ... despite the clear and unambiguous provisions in the constitution ABSOLUTELY FORBID such a unilateral power grab by the executive branch of government.

There are many factors in the current situation that are vague, ill-defined, and open to many interpretations by many people, and I do not claim to have black-and-white answers to most of them. Sadly, politics in the modern era has come to have everything to do with public relations and propaganda, and nearly NOTHING to do with truth ... and that is from ALL sides ... so that it is nearly impossible for folks of integrity to form a clear idea of what is "really" going on and why. But the thing that angers and astounds me most of all is to hear the President's actions with regard to this war on terrorism as "defending the constitution" ... that is the absolute epitome of Orwellian double-speak. Our constitution has been under deliberate attack by many administrations for a long time now, but NEVER has there been such an open and concerted attack on its most sacred provisions as this administration has launched and CONTINUES to relentlessly pursue through one action after another. To me THAT is FAR closer to "treason" than honorable {even if misguided) people standing up for what they believe in their hearts is right.

Those who want to speak of any of the actions being taken in the name of the War on Terrorism as somehow "defending the constitution" should first DEMAND that the administration drop ALL of the "wartime suspensions" of constitutional law that they have initiated willy-nilly while the American people were too scared by the terrorist attacks to resist. We will not help ANY country to achieve "freedom" and self-determination by scrapping the foundations of our own freedom in the process ... and those who sweep that under the table need to be called on it, every time they claim we are "defending the constitution" by these actions.

Love,
Greg

So testosterone right, treason wrong.
Aid and comfort to the enemy.
You mean like love your kids as you would yourself.
And it comes back to the fact that each of us is the enemy.
All guilty of treason. All guilty of murder. All guilty of hate.
Lets see, how many really bad crimes are there in the world.
Ahhh, oh, just three? What do yea know.

Accountability for ones choices is what life is all about.

You can't make someone happy.
You can't make someone love.
You can't make someone compassionate.

It all comes from within through the spirit.

You say tomato, I say the "Tour of Italy" special with a smooth Chianti Classical.
And some Minestrone soup covered with grated Mozzarella cheese.
Garlic bread and an anti-pesto plate.

From one side to the other, a fixed point to infinity.

Solutions are a dime a dozen.
The will to change is as hard as diamond and as rare as white Buffalo.

The desire to stop the force of change is a constant dripping within the mind.
A pool of magma rising to the crust of the earth.
Leaving only one way to avoid change.
Destroy the opportunity.


Maybe is time to once again, separate State and Religion.

How did we end up discussing the lower form of State on a spiritual site?

Easy to do when we run our compassion engine on 86 octane with 10% alcohol in our veins. Drive the war car under those conditions and you circle.
Round and round for all time.
Or until God gets bored and needs a little change of scene.

So your kid is a really, really bad boy.
How many things will you try before you stop caring?
And even when you lose him to the world, are you going to send a hit man after him because he doesn't do what you want him to do.

Do we all live in the desert because the mountain is casting a shadow over the valley?
We could move the mountain slowly, systematically to make even a better valley.
But blowing up the mountain will only cover the valley and make a high cold lonely plateau. No wild flowers, no snow, no streams or trees. Just the same old wind of yesterday.

So I'm a dorkie poet, sue me.

But you know what I mean, Harry.

Hello again Pisces Dreamer!

I have a traditional Saggy Moon tactlessness, but I also hold confident opinions of my Leo Sun.

My own codes of honour and ethics are high. I would never betray my country or my people. I will always try to walk tall.

Those people, well... something is wrong with their codes of honour and ethics. Something is wrong with them!

This is not about taking sides, this is a healthy discussion.
I myself cannot stand people who try to dominate or control my thougths or actions. But I do like debates.

Diplomacy has failed many times in the history. What is the rush?
Well, all those American and British troops are waiting in the desert for months and soon the weather would change and the hot cruel summer would arrive in this part of the world...

Also, I was speaking metaphorically about suicide.

Those people are not standing for America, on the contrary, they are clearly standing against America.

Good night from my part of the world, it's 11.30pm here...

El

'Night, El

Prozzles, that was amazing.

My thought about how we ended up discussing the lower form of State on a spiritual site is that we feel "trapped" in this world of conflict, and seek spiritual understanding and growth to transcend it.

Love,
Greg

Clearly, the word or in Article 3, Section 3 divorces the 2 different acts of treason spelled out in this section of the Constitution. Clearly, it doesn't require a war or combat situation for " or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort to apply.

The Justice Dept. has also stated treason could be charged for any American found aiding the Taliban, al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

Where did anyone get the idea the President is acting unilaterally without the approval of Congress?

http://www.ocyr.org/iraq1.htm

Technically, a state of war exists between Iraq and the UN member states in that the cease fire provisions of 1991 were breached by Iraq.

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein"

And that member states were to use all necessary means to bring Iraq into compliance.

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area"

And that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolutions.

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)"

There is also no question Iraq continues to oppress and abuse it's own citizens and commits acts of terrorism in breach of the resolutions. Further, Iraq has not to date returned property stolen from Kuwait.

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq"

An easy argument could be made that since Iraq IS in material breach of UN resolutions and has not complied with the ceasefire agreement, that member states can still use any necessary means to bring Iraq into compliance.

This is the full text of UN Resolution 1441 and it isn't long. It might be helpful to read it. I see no reference to other UN Resolutions being superseded or withdrawn by it's adoption.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

I don't remember suggesting the communists, drug dealers and terrorists can't march in the streets of America or that anyone who wishes to join them cannot do so. Nor have I seen anyone else here suggest that either. Just because they have a Constitutional right to do so, doesn't mean it isn't deplorable. It's double deplorable to lend support to these people considering the aims and objectives of the communists is to overthrow the lawful system of government of the United States. So, be my guest, just don't expect it to go unnoticed or not commented on.

I keep asking but getting no answer, so I'll ask again. Where were all the protesters here and where were the communists at World Workers Party, A.N.S.W.E.R. et al. when Clinton bombed Iraq and the same question applies to Clinton's bombing of Serbia in 1999, with the same Congressional approval President Bush now has and WITHOUT UN approval to do so?

jwhop

Jwhop

I don't know enough about the legalities of "treason" etc., in your counrty, so I'll stay away from that, but about your other question:

In 1999 I hadn't yet found this site. I was a part-time stay at home mom who worked in a retail store for extra money and fun. I worked for a company that strongly supported the work of Amensty International, and it was through them that I was given the opportunity to volunteer upwards of 20hours a month for that cause. AT the time our focus was more on the release of political prisonners than any particular anti-war stance. I also was more plugged into my immediate community and did work for a woman's shelter and with local high schools who were fundraising for the 30-hour Famine.

As for this community - when I first landed here in early 2000, I don't think we really discussed any of these issues. But I doubt that was because no one was interested, rather I think it's because we were more focused on astrology and Linda Goodman at the time. Remember, we weren't "Conscious Evolution" then, we were a Linda Goodman-based web site, and that was what people talked about. I guess as our community grew and evolved we atrted to realize that many of us shared an interest in "conspiracy theories" if you will. (I'd rather think about it as truth-seeking )

Personally, I can also add that I have changed alot myself over these couple years. I'm still pretty young, so maybe that has something to do with it, a person probably changes alot more between the ages of 25 and 29 than they do from say, 35 to 39.

Anyway, I think you are being a little unfair, with the confrontational way in which you asked that particular question. I have seen you ask that before, and didn't answer preceisly because there is something in your "tone of voice" there that is accusatory. If it's about party politics, i.e. people are against Bush, but it was ok for Clinton, than I can say honestly that it's not at all the case for me. At the end of the day I don't give a flip who the leader of your country is, or what party he belongs to. I don't even vote along party lines in my own counrty, but instead for the local representative who seems most likely to have my best interests at heart. Like others here, I share the opinion that there are corrupt people in EVERY party.

AND, to the best of my recollection of the situation in 1999 - Clinton bombed for what, 4 days? And that was after Iraq expelled the inspectors. It was not a unilateral campaign that involved 150,000+troops, $80 billion or more, with no defiante plan for resolution i.e. an "exit strategy". So although I don't 100% agree that it was necessarily right for Clinton to bomb them, it certainly is not an equivilent situation.

Love,
Terri

PS - I realized there is soemthing of an untruth in there. I was disappointed when Bush Jr. was elected - but that's cause I regarded Gore the least likely of the pair of them to be environmentally destrutive. Gore was, after all, the "saviour" of the Kyoto protocol, and for that and other reasons the more obviously "green" of the two men. Because of the closeness of our two countries, I feel Candians DO have a bvested interest in the environmental policies of the US. Especially since our own leaders aren't terribly s**t hot in that department either

Hi All

First, in reply to Proxy: I can't think of a better place to discuss politics, or wars or world matters than at a spiritual site. Simply because to do so is spiritual. We were created to be caretakers of this world and each other. God is concerned with our world and what goes on, we should be concerned as well if we are trying to be more spiritual.

I have come to the conclusion that the Constitution is much like the Bible. We translate it to best fit our agenda and throw out quotes from it that best fits our purpose at the time. The truth is that the Constitution has been in demise since Abraham Lincoln established what we now know as the Federal Government. Following is an article concerning the "truth" about the Great Emancipator and the beginning of the Federal Govenment we know today. Also the beginning of the end of the Constitution:

The Federal Government

by Clara Rising

In A.D. 2000 we must cling to that fact. We must convince ourselves that once, like Camelot, there really existed such a country, founded on freedom and human dignity. We must try hard to remember because it no longer exists. In 1776, when Jefferson's Declaration of Independence articulated the American struggle to break away from the tyranny of George III, brave men pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to create a confederation of states based on those ideals. But that dream died with the Civil War, with the establishment of a Federal Government, all-powerful, all-consuming, even more dangerous than any European monarchy because it performs its monstrosities under the benign banner of "We, the People." In truth, Lincoln did not believe in government "of, by, and for" the people. Or else he would have allowed the South to be the democratic, self-governing confederation it was. If we are to understand our present predicament we must return to those bloody years, 1861-1865.

The War for Southern Independence (Chief Justice Rehnquist calls it not "The War Between the States" but "The War Against the States") was a tax revolt, pure and simple. For forty years, even before Andrew Jackson fought against the tyranny of a central bank, the South had suffered under unbearable tariffs designed to suffocate its economy in favor of Northern ports, textile mills and industry. In 1833 a so-called "compromise" bill fathered by South Carolinian John C. Calhoun and Kentuckian Henry Clay only pretended to reduce protectionism by delaying any tax reduction into the distant future. The tax rate that year was 50%. Calhoun had, according to William W. Freehling in The Road to Disunion, "perpetuated the highest tariffs ever to be charged in antebellum America, throughout the worst cotton depression his constituents would ever suffer." This tariff robbed them of forty bales per hundred. But it passed the House 119-85 and the Senate 29-16. Charles Adams, in When in the Course of Human Events, gives a broader view. He points out that the tariffs of the 1830's and 40's represented a total revenue of about $107.5 million, with the South paying about $90 million and the North $17.5 million. By 1860 the total exports from the South had reached $214 million, while those of the North were $47 million. This represents a discrepancy between 87% and 17%. Add to this imbalance the fact that the South had to pay fishing bounties ($13 million, which was 83% of the National Treasury!) and $36 million for shipping from Northern ports. After Sumter and secession, The Philadelphia Press saw through the "South-as-aggressor" propaganda: "It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, NOT the coercion of the State, that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone; if they can , it is safe." Lincoln understood that. He had wailed, when contemplating secession: "What then will become of my tariff?" The South knew well enough what they were facing when the new President boasted, in his first inaugural:

"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; BUT BEYOND WHAT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THESE OBJECTS, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." (Italics and capital letters are mine.)

"Beyond what may be necessary" meant only one thing. Invasion, despite the disclaimer. A reign of terror had begun.

The first signs came just after the inauguration, when an embassy of Southerners went to Washington, authorized to negotiate for the removal of Federal garrisons from Fort Pickens (Pensacola) and Fort Sumter (Charleston). The President was indisposed, and Secretary of State Seward refused to see the Southern delegation. Then, in the newspapers and from Seward himself came the news that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. It was a lie. Frantic preparations for a major military operation--disguised as a humanitarian provisioning effort-- were under way. On April 6 the frigate Powhatan set out for sea with 10 heavy guns and 400 men as a convoy for the transports Atlantic, Baltic, and Illinois. These transports were hardly carrying groceries. The Atlantic sailed with a battery of 4 guns and 91 men, plus 400 soldiers. That same morning the cutter Harriet Lane set out to sea with 8 guns and 100 men.

Late that night the Baltic joined the squadron with 20 surfboats and 200 recruits. The Illinois followed with 500 cases of muskets and 300 soldiers. The sloop-of-war Pawnee joined them as they sailed into Charleston harbor. Besides the flagship Powhatan there were 11 vessels with a force of 285 guns and 2400 men. To "provision" a small island whose soldiers had been buying their vegetables at Charleston markets and who even had a resident butcher! In fact the tiny island of Sumter represented not a Federal fortress so much as it did a Federal toll booth, strategically located to collect tariffs and duties from incoming ships.

And therein lies the key. The South, with low duties, represented free trade, while the North, with its protective tariffs, feared the flow of European ships into Southern ports, a traffic which could cripple New England textile mills and the burgeoning industries spreading along its major rivers. That little toll booth represented millions of lost revenue. It became an insult to national honor far beyond its military value. During that April night, as a raging fire from the bombardment consumed the barracks and threatened American lives, Federal gunboats stood off at a distance and, under orders, did nothing. They had gotten what they had come for. The South had fired the first shot. The North could now claim a self-righteous--even a religiously righteous--cause.

Lincoln was quick to act. That shot at Sumter fell on April 12. Less than a week later Lincoln found a slick lawyer with a loophole which allowed him to delay the next session of Congress for three months. In those three months he tore up the Constitution and became an instant dictator. Without the consent of Congress he called up the militia. On the 21st of April he ordered the navy to buy five warships.

On April 27 he suspended the right of habeas corpus, a suspension which allowed him to arrest and imprison (by military order, without trial by jury) any newspaper editor who disagreed with the administration. In the end over 14,000 people were imprisoned and over 300 newspapers over the country--in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Missouri, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut--were shut down. On May 3rd he called for more troops, again without the approval of Congress. By the time Congress met in July it went along with everything Lincoln had done, including the unconstitutional arming of troops. Without the absentee Southern senators and congressmen, those who were left were afraid of being arrested by a military officer for "treasonable speech" and sent to prison. When a rumor spread that certain members of the Maryland legislature were not enthusiastic about Lincoln's policies, Secretary of War Cameron ordered Major General Banks to arrest all or any part of the state legislature rumored to have Southern sympathies. In the middle of a September night, all suspects found themselves locked up in the prison at Fort McHenry, and democracy in Maryland ceased to exist. To make sure that it remained dead, Lincoln ordered all members of the Federal armed forces to vote in the November Maryland state elections, even though they were not residents of that state. When the Supreme Court objected to Lincoln's nullification of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney. Lincoln's orders to the federal marshal instructed him "to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders." Based on that loophole, the marshal decided not to issue the warrant, but the Constitution--what remained of it--hung from a thread.

Lincoln's assault on that document was not limited to his initial attacks on critics. In 1863 an Ohio Democrat named Clement Vallandigham ran for governor of his state on a peace platform. Lincoln had him arrested and convicted by a military court. By this time Lincoln had put Secretary of State Seward in charge of "Internal Security," a nineteenth-century version of the KGB. With habeas corpus gone, no judge could expect an appeal to that writ to be upheld, even if you could get a judge rash enough to try. One brave soul did, but Judge Taney had retired by that time, and the writ was automatically denied, with the excuse that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over military tribunals. Thus a precedent had been set, to be used by the Lincoln administration for the rest of the war. The military was now above the law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, even the Supreme Court. As for Vallandigham, the Ohio gubernatorial candidate, Lincoln personally signed the order that banished him from the United States--without a trial, for the crime of "sympathy for the enemy." The President seemed to be out of control, consumed by revenge. It was not enough that he had destroyed the Constitution with his midnight arrests and imprisonments, but he had actually tried to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the crime of disagreeing with him. He was acting like a madman--like, as my students said of Marx, "a nut case." Yet, after all these years, perhaps we can understand, if not forgive, his moods, which often bordered on the insane. Historians have recorded a medical history of syphilis, and many now agree that he suffered from manic-depression. In fact, during his first weeks in office, he kept to his room. William Henry Seward, the Secretary of State, ran things. Until Sumter.

As for slavery, Lincoln wavered--depending on his audience. Except for a fanatic fringe of abolitionists, Northerners, remembering the bloody revolution of the blacks against Napoleon's troops in Haiti, and fearing an influx of freed slaves from the South, were against emancipation. In Massachusetts there was talk of secession if the slaves were freed. In his first inaugural Lincoln stated unequivocally, "I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Most of Lincoln's generals were against emancipation. General Hooker said that if the war was being fought to free the blacks instead of in defense of the Constitution, three-quarters of his army "would lay down their arms." Evidently General Fremont did not agree. In August, 1861 he freed the slaves in the area of his command in Missouri. Lincoln immediately expressed his disapproval. It was a war "for a great national idea," he insisted, and that idea was "the Union, and General Fremont should not have dragged the Negro into it." Fremont was relieved of his command. That next summer, in May of 1862, General David Hunter tried freeing slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina. Again, Lincoln objected. Then something happened. The American ambassador to France wrote to Secretary of State Seward complaining about Lincoln's rejection of emancipation by firing Fremont. Evidently this one objection caused Lincoln to realize that his war was seen in Europe through entirely different lens. Emancipation could become a tool, could enhance the cause of the North, could open a flood of diplomatic and ( most importantly) trade and economic aid from overseas. Like Bill Clinton reading the polls, Lincoln took a 180-degree turn. The legend of the "Great Emancipator" was being born.

But not quite yet. In the summer of 1862 Lincoln met with free blacks and advised them that, since they could never be the equal of the white man, and since the two races would never be able to live together in harmony, the best thing for them to do would be to follow the advice of the American Colonization Society (he was its president) and emigrate to the Caribbean, or South America, or to the new country of Liberia on the west coast of Africa, now officially recognized by the United States. Horace Greeley, publisher of The New York Tribune, was shocked and printed on August 20 an open letter to the President asking him to clarify his views on slavery. Lincoln replied that his sole purpose was to save the Union. If he could do it by freeing all the slaves or only some slaves or no slaves at all he would do exactly that. In other words, slavery was tied unconditionally to the Union. Lincoln cleverly avoided the fact that colonization meant expulsion. Greeley's fears were not unfounded. Lincoln was substituting a crazy emigration scheme for emancipation--almost a month to the day before his famous Proclamation would be announced on September 22. But the idea didn't die. Even after the war, over a thousand blacks sailed from Georgia and South Carolina to Liberia in 1866 and early 1867 under the auspices of the American Colonization Society. But by that time American blacks felt more American than African, and the effort ended. As for the Proclamation, it freed nobody, not the slaves in the Confederacy, over which Lincoln had no jurisdiction, nor the slaves in the North, expressly omitted "because the Constitution promised the protection of property." In fact, after Gettysburg it was met with such rage that blacks were hanged from the lampposts on Broadway in the New York riots, resisting the draft. The result in the South, as recorded in Edward A. Pollard's Southern History of the War, was puzzlement and contempt when Southerners realized that, under the Constitution, such a proclamation could not be given except under the pressure of military necessity. Since this emancipation would not be implemented until January 1, 1863, what sort of "military necessity" could be delayed for a hundred days? And, if slavery was really the cause of the war, why had Lincoln waited two whole years--of horrible slaughter--before he issued his proclamation?

In effect, despite the setback for Lee at Antietam that September, the war was not going well for the North. Both Bull Runs (July, 1861 and August 1862) were disasters. As was Fredericksburg, Virginia in December of 1862. Shiloh, in April, had been a draw, and, in spite of the Yankee capture of New Orleans in May and the Southern debacle that lost Kentucky for the South at Perryville in October (with ironic credit being given to that most Northern of Southern generals, Gen. Bragg--who should have been wearing blue rather than gray), the scoreboard was tilting toward the South. An indication of Lincoln's desperation was not his famous proclamation but another, often ignored order issued just before, one that reaffirmed the abolition of habeas corpus. This time, as William Safire writes in Freedom, the nullification was much broader and much more official, having the blessings of Secretary of War Stanton, who considered such a move "absolutely" necessary. The reign of terror would not end with the war, but would gain momentum with Lincoln's assassination and the mass hangings of suspects, even of Mary Surratt, the landlady who rented a room to John Wilkes Boothe. Afterwards, terror took the misnomer of "Reconstruction."

But what does all this have to do with Marxism? One word. CONTROL. And the fostering, the nurturing--one could almost say the forced feeding--of hatreds within our society which have caused divisions still with us. Divide and Conquer. When one reads the Northern newspapers of the day calling for the extinction of all Southern white people, and the scorched-earth policy that would leave the South "a desert," the institutionalized contempt introduced by Lincoln's policies becomes obvious. The term "ethnic cleansing" had not yet been invented, but one has only to remember that it was this same generation, lusting after Southern blood, that murdered and hunted down the American Indians. Custer fought for the Union in Virginia, and died at Little Big Horn. It was General Grant (then President Grant) who gave the order to slaughter all the buffalo, in an effort to starve the Indian into oblivion. And it was Lincoln who executed thirty-nine starving Sioux, whose only "crime" was complaining that the Federal Government had cheated them of promised provisions. They were hanged, all thirty-nine, at one time. As was Nathaniel Gordon, a Yankee slave trader from Maine, caught selling Africans to Cuba and South America in 1862. Thousands of New Yorkers protested the sentence, but the abolitionists were beginning to have a voice in politics by that time, and Lincoln, perhaps as a result of his successful dictatorship, began developing a Jehovah complex. He "granted" Gordon a 13-day delay, deliberately ignoring the cruelty of that added punishment, but excusing himself with the insufferably pontifical pronouncement that "it becomes my painful duty to admonish the prisoner that relinquishing all expectation of pardon by human authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and Father of all men." Lincoln thus joins Pizarro condescendingly counseling the Inca before he killed him, or the Spanish Inquisitors self-righteously lighting fires under "heretics." In fact, toward the end, Lincoln seems to have suffered from the Greek sin of hubris. By evoking "God's will," he in effect blamed God for the war. God was punishing the country, North and South, for slavery. He became Yahweh on Mount Sinai sending out pronouncements. And now he reigns as the Great Emancipator in his Greek temple by the Potomac. Across the river Robert E. Lee's home still stands, its gardens a national cemetery. It has been said that the victors vowed nobody would ever want to live in Arlington again. They were right, but one wonders if that decision was totally without vengeance.

As for racism, it has remained a tool of the Marxists and the "politically correct" ever since. Divide and Conquer. But the recent sugar-coating of division with the popular word "diversity" cannot change the real thrust of a major effort to "keep hate alive" (to misquote Jesse Jackson) by "playing the race card" (a phrase used in the O.J. trial). Gone is the old idea of a melting pot, the creation of a new nation of Americans. But realistically, perhaps it could not have happened anyway. We are a diverse people. I can remember reading to my students the last words of Captain Scott, who died in Antarctica trying to find the South Pole. The final entry in his diary read: "I shall die like an Englishman." Would any of us, I asked them, have written "I shall die like an American?" ...

With its stranglehold on every aspect of our lives, the Federal Government has become an Empire more vicious than the one we fought in 1776. That, too, was a tax revolt. Over tea! What if Paul Revere had had taxes that consumed half of his income! As Alan Keyes, a presidential candidate, has said, we Americans are tax slaves. Yet most Americans are in deep denial over the clever, silent invasion of Marxism in our culture. The capitalists who hire the workers are now the villains.

And the workers are shackled by taxes, the small businessmen by endless, often meaningless regulations. A total control, a death-grip of Marxist dedication to the annihilation of capitalism has mesmerized our elected--and non-elected--officials (those heads of agencies which really run our government)--to the point that we no longer realize the danger to our freedom. The Great Nanny on the Old Plantation will take care of you, overseen and urged on by the Big Man in the White House--whether you want to be taken care of or not. You will have Social Security and Medicare, a Federal Department of Education, health insurance, the IRS and prescription drugs, whether you want them or not.

I witnessed the result of Federal control in education when I taught high school in Kentucky. During one of those years the students lost 34 days as "snow days." I was puzzled. Yes, there had been snow, but not so much that 95% of the students could not have come to school, even those from the more mountainous eastern side of the county. I spoke with the principal. He explained that the Federal Department of Education paid per head on the school bus. Fewer students on the bus, fewer dollars. Thirty-four days from a school year, when school starts in August, is a tremendous pressure on a schedule. Free school lunches were another puzzle. One very wealthy student, a particularly rude young man, would often whiz by me in his new Corvette as he swung into the parking lot. One day I saw him in the free lunch line. I asked the principal about the qualifications one had to fulfill to get a free lunch. He said "None. There are no qualifications."

The same rule seems to work anywhere the Federal Government operates. Never mind that prices skyrocket once "the government" sets the ceiling. No matter that the doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies will charge what Big Brother wants, even if the charge is ridiculous. Never mind that some people who work for the IRS are sometimes vicious, more often stupid. Those IRS encounters have a way of embedding themselves in our memories. Mine began one day in Lexington, Kentucky. We had been called in for an interview, and we had been waiting in a large oval outer sanctum. An argument arose at a desk across the room.

A soft-spoken older man in a comfortable tweed jacket and jodhpurs--I had seen his kind at horse farms across the state--was explaining why he had been late with a payment. The woman at the desk, her legs crossed, leaned back and flipped a long cigarette holder in her hand and said, loud enough to be heard beyond the door, "Just remember, what you make every day, by five o'clock it's OURS" as she thumped her chest.

Even worse than the IRS is something as silent, and as invasive as cancer, and as insidious because it is stealthy and treacherous, a virus destroying, bit by bit and daily, our individual freedom. I refer now to our old friend, "P.C." The president of our little country bank complained to me recently that government regulations are killing him. I asked why. "I can't even compliment one of my female employees--I can't say "My, you look good today," or "What a lovely dress" without living in danger of sexual harassment!" When an educated, usually erudite friend of mine recently argued that he couldn't understand my contention that there is a connection between Marxism and the Federal Government, I remembered the banker. James Madison once wrote: "I believe there are more instances of abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

We have had our share of violent and sudden usurpations, at Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and recently, in the Elian Gonzalez case in Miami. The idea that an Attorney-General of the United States could order armed storm troopers to break into a private home, terrify a six-year-old child whose mother had drowned trying to get him to "the land of the free," would seem like a fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm, but it happened. Even more astounding was the reaction of the Media--that great interpreter of the polls for "the American people," telling us what to believe, like the propaganda arm of a would-be Marxist government. "CNN" could well be the Clinton News Network. We have seen the Constitution in shreds as the result of Lincoln's dictatorship, and now with Bill Clinton's endless Executive Orders (more than all the previous presidents put together). On the internet I found an interesting comment on the Constitution: "It has become merely an ornamental relic that serves no real function other than that of making the American people feel as if the document still matters to those who govern." The comment that follows echoes de Tocqueville's analysis all those long years ago: "It appears that the modern electorate chooses their leaders for the same purpose that they attend a magic show. Their actual desire seems to be that the performer deceive them."

As we turn from the performer in the White House--whoever he will be--one startling fact remains. The welfare state has been turned on its head. No longer does the government provide for the people (with their hands out). Now the people (through their enormous tax burden) provide for the government. It is the great government bureaucracy that is the beggar, and the people the suffering benefactors. Yet "the people" don't seem to mind. It is as if they have been tranquilized beyond thought, beyond realizing cause-and-effect. A fortyish engineer recently admitted that he paid half his salary in taxes, but it didn't bother him. In fact, he was amused by friends who, upon retirement, suddenly had to actually, physically pay their taxes, no longer automatically taken out of their paychecks by the "payroll" tax. "As long as it was unseen they didn't worry about it," he said. "As soon as they retired and realized that they were paying high taxes, they were unhappy." "And you?" I asked. "Aw, the economy is good," he said. "I don't worry about it." He doesn't worry that half his salary goes to taxes. How much tax will it take to make him realize, in Alan Keyes's words, that he is a tax slave?

Another phenomenon in the United States, A.D. 2000, is the apathy of the American voter. We have neighbors who have never registered to vote--neighbors who work hard and love their children. I used to wonder how the German people could have allowed Adolph Hitler to come to power. I no longer wonder. The apathy is not limited to voting. The welfare climate has created another kind of apathy--the weakening of the work ethic. Too many businessmen complain that they can't find people willing to work. Deep within this grievance is a maxim unavoidable to those who understand the reality of economics. It is simply this. Destroy the work ethic and you destroy capitalism. Then the Marxism that began with the socialistic programs of FDR will be complete.

Great upheavals seem to come in cycles. If you take 1860 (when the dictatorship of Lincoln created the Federal Government) and count backwards 70 years, you get 1790, a good round figure for the beginning of this country. If you take that same fateful date of 1860 and move forward 70 years you get 1930, the date the Frankfurt School, with its devotion to Marxism, arrived in America. Now, 70 years later, we are in the year 2000, when desires have become "rights" and "rights" have become "entitlements." We are already in socialism. Perhaps it is too late to stop the downward slide into total totalitarianism. But as long as there is history, and people who want to understand it, perhaps there is hope. I sometimes think of a story about the last ruler of Granada, when the Christians under Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Moors from Spain. It is said there is a spot between Granada and the sea, a rise of hill where he stood gazing back on all that lost glory. It is called El suspiro del Moro--the Sigh of the Moor. His wife, so the story goes, upbraided him. "Why," she said, "do you weep? You could have saved it when you had the chance. And you didn't."

Let us hope we don't wait too long.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/clararisingbook5.html

Love, Connie

Hello moonflower

Well, that's a version of history they don't teach in the Public School System.

Perhaps it would make some sense to you that I would like to see the 16th and 17th Amendments repealed.

Most people who trace the rise in power of the Federal Government would say it got a major boost when the 17th Amendment was ratified, authorizing the direct election of Senators. Prior to that time they were appointed by the several states to protect the rights of the states, and tied into the 10th Amendment very nicely. Never hear very much about the 10th Amendment anymore, except that it was one of Bob Doles campaign issues. It's clear we now have both houses of Congress enlarging the Federal power. The House was to be elected by the people as their representatives to protect their rights and the Senate appointed by the states. Now both represent the Federal government which is meddling in the lives of citizens and trampling on states right.

The 16th Amendment supposedly authorizes a direct tax on citizens without apportionment. The notion of a progressive income tax on the wages of citizens is right out of the Marx handbook, as are government schools.

Thanks for posting that. There's much there I've never seen before.

jwhop

Well I for one sure wouldnt want to be the one to give any aid or comfort to anyone in this world!!

Hi jwhop,

I think if we want the truth about history we have to read books by Historians like Clara Rising to get the real version.

It seems that Abraham Lincoln set precedents that have been followed by every president since that time. I was aware that Lincoln wanted to send the slaves to other countries. I did not know that he had syphilis and possibly was a manic depressive.

I read that it isn't our elected officials we have to worry about so much as the appointees. I think that is true.

Abba Eban said, "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." I think that is true also.

"Strap themselves to the turret of a Republican Guard T-72 tank. Think of it as a human hood ornament"?? Geez, jwhop you can be mean sometimes.

I agree with Greg, I admire the protesters for their dedication to their convictions even though I don't agree with the way they are protesting.

Love, Connie

Terri

The short answer is of course people are applying a double standard to President Bush. Bush is conservative, has rejected turning any sovereignty over to the UN, has shown the UN to be exactly what it is, an unreliable organization for solving problems, hypocritical and incompetent and without the backbone to enforce it's own resolutions. Further he rejected a treaty that would put the US at a competitive disadvantage and refused to give power over US citizens to a world court that in reality is nothing more than a bunch of unelected bureaucrats.

No wonder the political left hates the President and that includes the press, foreign and domestic. The use of force that has the potential to kill is exactly equivalent no matter who uses it, Bush or Clinton. Those who are against war wouldn't make a distinction. The inspectors weren't expelled from Iraq. They left because Saddam Hussein wasn't cooperating with them, was obstructing their investigations, harassing them and refused repeatedly to permit certain sites to be inspected. Saddam expelled the US members of the inspection team and the UN withdrew the rest of the inspectors. That was the moment for hostilities to commence again but Clinton and the UN waffled, dropped a few bombs, wrung their hands and gave Hussein 4 more years to replenish his stocks of chemical and biological weapons. UN estimates of his remaining stocks were thousands of tons of some of the chemical weapons when they pulled out and Hussein hasn't accounted for them.

I don't think I'm being unfair in my appraisal of the situation. I hate hypocrisy. A Clinton bomb falling on civilians kills just as surely as a Bush bomb falling on civilians. One is totally overlooked, Clinton who actually did it and the other is sharply criticized and causes protests and Bush hasn't even actually done it.

You're right, I can be very confrontational and I'm pissed. I'm especially pissed that the antiwar movement has at it core communists, terrorists and the Colombian drug dealing communists FARC and that Americans who say they love their country would lend them their support. The identity of these organizing groups and their aims are no secret.

That said Terri, I appreciate your straight forward honesty and understand that for you and others here too, the bombing of Serbia and Iraq happened when you were younger, some no doubt were teenagers. Idealism is one of the finest human qualities, as long as it's applied evenhandedly. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of selectivity and loses that sterling quality I value. I think you're right, that this shouldn't be about politics but it seems strongly to me that it is.

It's true you don't have a vote here for political leaders and though Gore may have been your choice if you did have, the vast majority of Americans are breathing a sigh of relief that he wasn't elected President in view of 9/11/02.

Treason is very well defined in our laws and sedition also has a definite meaning. The US is a permissive society where the strict letter of the law isn't always applied and that's OK in most cases. There are limits, however.

I heard on the news today that some of the British human shield contingent are pulling out of Iraq because Saddam is attempting to position them where he wants them. They also said he is using them for propaganda purposes.

jwhop

Hello jwhop and everybody!

You're right, some of the British peace activist from the "human shield" group in Iraq are heading home... good for them!

Around dozen protesters have left Iraq after US officials said that America cannot guarantee their safety.

Ha, very brave people, indeed ... some of them said that they have financial problems, but the spokesman of the group, told that Iraqi authorities have limited the sites they wanted to visit, like hospitals.

The aim of the human shield group was a mass migration of world peace activist to Iraq, thank God that has not happened.

On Friday the head of Sweden's largest peace organization urged human shields to leave Iraq, saying they were used by Iraqi propaganda purposes...

Well Piscesdreamer, you see, even the peace activist all over the world do not find the human shields people doing something correct or noble.

Unfortunately there are still several dozens human shields left in Iraq, I'm sure that they would escape in the event of the war and the bombing campaign.

Have a nice day everybody!

El

Hi jwhop, Eleanora and all,

I'm glad to see that some of the protesters in Iraq are leaving rather than allow themselves to be used by Hussein for propaganda purposes. If Hussein was positioning them where he wanted them it would have been for the U.S. like pin points on a map. Because you can be sure he was positioning the protesters near the sites he has weapons hidden. Hussein deliberately places his weapon plants and munition storages in populated areas, using his own people as sheilds.

Jwhop as for Clinton vs Bush and anti war views, I think what Terri is saying is that this site has evolved through the years, along with a lot of the people who have been here for a long time. I can't say for sure because I am new here but I know from my daughter who has been a member here for years, that what Terri says is true about that. It was at that time strictly an astrology site where they discussed that and Linda Goodman's philosophies. It's only natural that the site would evolve to apply the spirituality to the world. Religion is all the same way. All churches are involved in the community and the world and war pros and cons are even discussed in the pastor's homilies (sermons). The closer a person gets to God, the more God leads him into the world, helping others and taking care of our planet. Spirituality is meaningless if kept to one's self. It is meant to be action more than words.

I think as Terri said, it may have been the same in Clinton's bombing as Bush's if that was being discussed here at the time. Just because it wasn't being talked about doesn't mean everyone didn't feel the same way about it as they do this war. I know I did. Another difference is that Clinton was not talking about any regime change. If you remember from that article I posted in the other thread from the House, Clinton did want an all out war against Iraq, he also knew that Iraq was building up it's stock pile of weapons. The House nixed it when Clinton was in office, saying that "as long as Hussein remains in power" the game of hide the weapons with him will continue. I think Clinton then probably just dropped a few bombs as a warning because it was never the policy of the U.S. government to overthrow any government, we only worked with people in the country opposing the regime and helping them to overthrow their dictators. I am not a Clinton fan except that his domestic policies were much better than Bush's and we had a good economy during his term in office. Clinton, along with Jimmy Carter, are now speaking out against this war with Iraq. Neither of them favor overthrowing a government. That does not make the U.S. look good to the rest of the world. As Terri said, Prime Minister Cretin of Canada, is against that as well, asking, "who's next?" Besides all the other things I just mentioned, Sept. 11, 2001 didn't happen during Clinton's administration either. I think the terrorist attacks here made a lot of people more politically aware and begin to speak out more about our country's policies in the Middle East. Then I also remember Greg mentioning that he has tried to have these debates before but it never worked out and he felt the time was right to try again.

So it isn't hypocrisy in everyone's position about war and what is going on, it is a process of evolution or change that takes place, and the events taking place in our world that prompts change and speaking out. Especially 9/11. Since I have been here I have never heard anyone actually say they liked Clinton. What I have heard, and what I believe to be true as well, is that all presidents, all government is the same regardless of the party or the person. It's the Constitution and the way events taking place are used by our government to further take away our rights under the Constitution that is more the issue here. You don't really think that Bush and his administration gives a fig about our Constitution do you? No more than Bill Clinton or any other administration has since the time of Abe Lincoln. Only the American people care about the Constitution. Though not the majority of them. The majority of Americans don't really care about anything other than their own little worlds and what's on HBO this month. At least all of us here care, even if we disagree at times.

Hypocrisy. Now you have gotten me started. I don't like hypocrisy either which is why I don't like government. Now there is the largest assemblage of hypocrites any where on the planet. They say one thing and do the opposite all the time. Just the phrase, "war as a means to peace" is a hypocrisy. Defending our Constitution is the biggest hypocrisy our government perpetuates. They don't give a fig about the Constitution or our rights under it. The American people care about the suffering in the Middle East. The Bush administration, or any other administration does not care about the people in this country or any other country. If there was no self-interest in the Middle East, if Iraq did not have something we wanted, face it, we wouldn't be there. We are not out overthrowing the dictators in the Third World countries who oppress their people, because those countries don't have anything that is to the self-interest of the U.S. Britain is no different than the U.S. Talk about hypocrisy!! The people of Northern Ireland are oppressed, specifically the Roman Catholic people, and they have been fighting their oppressors for years. They want a united Ireland and for the British soldiers to leave. Does our government care about that? Britain is just as much an oppressor in Northern Ireland as Hussein is in Iraq. The U.S. and especially the corporations of the U.S. oppress people in other countries as well. The corporations in order to make more money exploit people all over the globe. Now that's hypocrisy!!! Does our government care about that? No! they own stock in those corporations and sanction the destruction of unions in this country. The unions, even the UAW was weakened and all but destroyed under the Reagan/Bush administration. Outsourcing became the thing. Outsourcing is another term for exploitation of workers in other countries to make more money instead of paying higher wages and benefits to American workers. The starting wages of American workers has also been reduced, in this country we earn less now than we used to and the cost of living has not been reduced. In short, if you hate hypocrisy, jwhop my friend, you would really have to hate the government.

Love, Connie

I could not resist throwing this article in here. With the war and all that has been going on in this country, and other countries as well, it doesn't hurt to poke fun at it all and get a laugh now and then.

U.S. "GROSSLY UNPREPARED" FOR UNLIKELY THREATS
No Plans in Place to Deal with Drying Up of Oceans, Giant Moon Explosion,
Or Potential for Everyone to Be Pecked to Death Like in "The Birds"

Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) In a haunting Senate hearing today on risk assessment and emergency readiness, officials from dozens of government agencies conceded the United States is "grossly unprepared" to deal with thousands of highly unlikely threats, including falling chunks of the Moon should it explode into pieces, or the simultaneous spontaneous combustion of every person east of the Mississippi.

Or anything to do with vampires or poisonous housecats.

As senators listened aghast, officials from the Centers for Disease Control, FBI, FDA, NASA, and National Endowment for the Arts confessed that despite the safeguards implemented since September, the country remains at implausible risk.

"I can tell you that today, right now, if Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo develops the ability to shatter the eardrums of American textile workers with a mere thought, we're going to be in trouble," testified CIA Director George Tenet.

CDC Director Dr. Jeffrey Koplan was equally disheartening in his analysis.

"If some undetectable disease is introduced that spreads so quickly and is so deadly that anyone within a 10,000-mile radius dies before they're even exposed, we have not dedicated adequate resources to handle that effectively at this time, no," Koplan said.

Asked what diseases might fit this category, Koplan shifted uncomfortably as he acknowledged the CDC did not know of any, nor had it directed drug companies to prepare a vaccine to combat them. That response infuriated and terrified Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.

"What do you mean you 'don't know of any'?" asked Roberts. "The entire nation, and perhaps the entire world, could be killed by this virus and you've never even heard of it? I won't even bother asking what you're doing about killer bees."

While some senators and agency directors focused on external threats, under withering cross examination, Mary Ryan, assistant secretary of state for consular affairs, confessed that Canada could attack at any time. Many wondered if internal dangers were being adequately addressed.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration administrator John Henshaw, for instance, was noticeably cowed after Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott turned his attentions on office supplies.

"Mr. Henshaw, like million of Americans, I want to believe my country can protect me, but also, like millions of Americans, I have a stapler that I use to fasten important papers," said Lott, holding up a Swingline #545 desktop model. "What if this stapler suddenly turns on me, decides to attack me, inflicting hundreds of puncture wounds on my person like this (clack) aaaargghh!! (clack) arrrgghh!! (clack) eowarrrgghh!! so that I bleed to death?"

After a long silence, Henshaw, refusing to make eye contact with Lott, offered no reply.

"Well, God help us," intoned Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who then ordered the Senate's sergeant-at-arms to remove all staplers from the Capitol building and congressional offices.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, however, urged senators to stop the hearings, explaining that airing such dangers publicly could expose weaknesses that America's enemies would exploit. Biden, however, said the American people deserved to know what their government was doing to safeguard them, and asked Ridge if his team had considered the possibility that a rogue nation might create a Category 5 hurricane the size of Asia that would have the ability to suck up the entire U.S. wheat harvest.

"Boy, I don't think so," Ridge replied as several senators ran screaming from the building as a precaution. "Also, I haven't given much thought to the potential for an army of lethally radioactive wallabies that could crawl into all our beds at night, pretending to be pillows."

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, meanwhile, testified that HHS was ill-prepared to respond if every American, from infant to the elderly, suddenly began smoking cigarettes and continued to do so, non-stop, 24 hours a day. However, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., had Thompson's testimony stricken from the record, arguing that it described a "goal," not a threat.


http://www.satirewire.com/news/0111/threats.shtml

Love, Connie

THE HORROR



So much evil behind such an inncoent facode...

LOL


T

Staple's? Yeah, we got that too.

Hello again,

Moonflower clarified something for me I had not known when I started this thread. When I heard people saying these shields were "working for Saddam," I did not know that Saddam had invited them and paid their expenses and given them living quarters. I thought they had paid their own way and were not in contact with Saddam directly. This information does change my opinion somewhat about these protesters.
So, I will amend my opinion to say that in light of this new information I too am not so sure of their motivation. I will say instead that if there are protesters there who went on their own at their own expense and are not in cahoots with Saddam then I would consider them sincere and genuine people of peace and love. They would probably know their presence or deaths would not really change the course of events--just that they would have shown that they were willing to die for their convictions regarding love.

So, do you all really believe the US is there to stop tyranny and help Iraqi citizens to freedom? Do you think if Iraquis die they will thank us?

Shouldn't we stop tyranny here first and then go out and spread our success story?

Also, it may be true that some antiwar protesters are for communism and the overthrow of our government. I am sure the average citizen protesting this war is not communist and does not want a revolution and does not consider themself to be in alignment with the groups jwhop mentioned.

proxy, I can relate to your lamentations that old discussions of star signs and soulmates have given way to heavy world discussions, but it is all related. We can and should go on discussing more pleasant topics as well as the serious ones to remind us not to get depressed. Like some of you were saying, this website has evolved, and many people have managed to learn so much more about astrology I find myself in over my head at Star Chat sometimes!!! It is hard to keep up. But still such a nice place to visit and at least attempt to keep up.

Love,

Hello moonflower

History has shown that some of what you have posted here is, I believe factually in error. For instance, you have said it has never been US policy to use force to bring about a regime change.

Let me remind you that was exactly the policy of the United States in WW2. The policy was to overthrow the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler. Had he not committed suicide, he would have been executed as many of his henchmen were. I would also remind you Hitler was initially elected.

The policy of the United States was to overthrow the military regime of General Tojo, Japan's Prime Minister, again in WW2. Tojo was executed following the surrender of Japan and Emperor Hirohito considered divine, sacred and inviolable by the Japanese people was left as the titular head only of Japan.

The policy of the United States was to overthrow the military junta which had seized power in Haiti when they overthrew Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Bill Clinton sent troops into Haiti to accomplish the overthrow of the overthrow. Just an aside here but Jean-Bertrand Aristide is a communist who suppresses dissent by hanging a car tire around the dissenters neck fills it with gasoline and lights it off. Fondly referred to by Aristide as a neckless. Also a favorite of that great "leader" Nelson Mandela's wife.

The policy of the United States under Bill Clinton was to overthrow the government of Slobodan Milosevic President of Yugoslavia and Clinton bombed for 78 days to accomplish the overthrow. It is noted that by that time Yugoslavia had split into warring countries and factions. However the policy is clear.

The policy of the Clinton Administration was to arrest and detain the de facto leader of Somalia, warlord Hussein Mohamed Farah Aideed. To that end, he changed the mission of the US military troops there during the Bush Administration from one of peace keeping and got some of them killed in the attempt. Mainly because he refused to give them the military equipment they needed to do the job. Perhaps you remember, Les Aspin, SEC of Defense at the time committed suicide.

Another erroneous fiction is that war doesn't bring about peace. Very clearly war, real war where an enemy is totally defeated and surrenders unconditionally does bring peace and if history is any judge, a lasting peace. Unless you are unwilling to accept the examples of Germany and Japan, both of which surrendered unconditionally. Bitter enemies became friends, very good friends once their leaders were removed and representative governments instituted.

What doesn't necessarily bring peace is a negotiated settlement as in the Gulf War and The Korean War which ended in a negotiated settlement with 37,000 US troops on the border between North and South Korea to maintain the so called peace. These settlements left the same dictators in power with predictable results.

It's clear both of these nations will have to be dealt with in the near future, if for no other reason than they are both threatening the United States and their neighbors and developing the weapons systems to make it possible. All these settlements accomplished was to put it off what really needed to be done for the future. The future has caught up with us in these cases.

As for your contention and Bill Clinton's that he asked for permission from Congress for an "all out" war with Iraq in 1998, I may have an advantage here because I've actually read that House Task Force on Terrorism Report you mentioned. Clearly, very clearly, Clinton asked for a bombing campaign against Iraq and not an "all out" war with Iraq to defeat Saddam Hussein and remove him from power.

That request to bomb was resisted on the strength that a bombing campaign wouldn't get all or even most of Saddams chemical and biological weapons and further that even if all of his WMD's were miraculously destroyed within Iraq, he has more stored outside of the country. The lack of a "regime change" was specifically cited as a reason to reject Clinton's bombing campaign as an effective means to destroy Saddams arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

These are some excerpts from that report you mentioned.

"Assuming that the US located these clandestine WMD, it is still far from certain the US will be able to bomb and destroy all the Iraqi operational weapons. And this has nothing to do with the accuracy of aircraft or the penetrability of smart munitions. The problem lies in the ruthlessness of Saddam's regime and his desperate clinging to power----."

"Significantly, however, even if the US and its allies will have managed to destroy the bulk of Saddam WMD operational arsenal, this will provide only a short term solution. No bombing campaign against Iraq, and even an occupation of that country for that matter, is capable of destroying the hard core of Saddam Hussein's primary WMD development and production programs. The reason is that under current conditions these programs are run outside of Iraq -- mainly in Sudan and Libya, as well as Algeria (storage of some hot nuclear stuff). Thus, once the bombing campaign is over, the Iraqis can be expected to smuggle new weapons from Iraq's development sites and production lines - sites that remain untouched by allied bombing as well as unchecked by UN inspection teams. And, for as long as Saddam remains in power , this charade called disarming Saddam will continue."

"And so, the US is planning an instant-gratification bombing campaign that would neither destroy Iraq's WMD operational capabilities nor touch its main WMD production lines in Libya and Sudan."

President Bush isn't planning or threatening a bombing campaign against Iraq. An all out war bent on defeating the Iraqi military and removing Saddam Hussein and what passes for the Iraqi government is the plan. These are the specific parts of the plan missing from Clinton's request to bomb Iraq in 1998 that was rejected by the Republican Congress.

This is the link for the full text of the House Task Force On Terrorism & Unconventional Warfare Report you referred to.

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/feb/report.htm

This report also sheds some light on our reluctant allies the French and Germans who have been busy since the cease fire of 1991 doing business with Saddam and his out of country WMD program. Not to mention the lucrative contracts they have with Saddam estimated at 60-90 billion dollars in the case of the French. They are just as aware as the Republican Congress in 1998 that bombing and inspections will not uncover their clandestine activities. And they're also aware that a war, invasion and removal of Saddam will expose them. When those weapons, materials and technical assistance are uncovered, (and they will be) the nations which helped Saddam in violation of the UN embargo and sanctions are going to have a gigantic black eye.

They are crying "let the inspections work" when they know full well as we do that inspections have no possibility of finding Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, his laboratories or chemical and biological stocks. From the same report.

"Meanwhile, Iraq was reviving the international support system for its WMD development and production programs. By late 1994, Iraq's secret purchasing system was completely restored. It was operating energetically not only to just restore previous capabilities but to support new projects -- mostly outside Iraq. Anticipating that the sanctions would be lifted from Iraq, many European firms were rushing to grab a good share of what used to be a very lucrative market. Presently, the Iraqi-run system is made up of an endless and redundant web of Western firms and technology plants, liaison people, banks and financial institutes, secret merchants and middlemen -- so that it is virtually impossible to discover all components, let alone bring down the system. The procurement system of the Iraqi intelligence has been resurrected, it functions, and it feels good. The present system has not only arose on the ruins of the previous one, but it has learned and overcome all the errors of the system of the 1980s. Significantly, virtually all the firms and plants that had worked for Iraq before the Gulf War have already found their way into the fold of the new system. This time however, many support and sustain programs in Libya and Sudan, as well as in third countries from where the Iraqis ship the goods on their own. Thus, when Lt.Gen. Hussein Kamal "defected" in the Summer of 1995, he was bringing data of what was left behind in Iraq -- not on the wave of the future already being constructed in Sudan and Libya."

I sincerely hope our Canadian friends are not involved in selling Saddam equipment or stocks for chemical and/or biological weapons or lending technical assistance. If ANY American company is involved I would see them prosecuted for treason and it wouldn't bother me in the least if their CEO and board of directors were executed.

Moonflower, do you actually believe the British are arresting, torturing and murdering Irish citizens or anyone else? You have compared the British government to Saddam Hussein.?

War as a means of peace clearly isn't hypocrisy as proven by WW2. In fact, Germany and Japan have since been close allies and at peace with their neighbors.

I think it's time to give representative government in the Middle East a chance. It's worked everywhere it exists to protect the rights of it's citizens and raise their standard of living. And----it's undeniable that those "so called" democracies don't go to war with each other. Usually, they are there to lift the boots of dictators off the throats of their citizens. Usually!! These democracies have become reliable trading partners of the United States and each other and brought peace and stability to their regions

As for the union issue you mentioned, the Air Traffic Controllers went on strike in violation of the law. President Reagan warned them before hand that they would lose their jobs if they did. In view of the fact they were trying to shut the country down, they got exactly what they deserved. Should have listened to Ronnie, he meant it and so does President Bush mean what he says.

Unions have become political entities using the dues of their members to fund political campaigns of candidates the members are voting against. No wonder union membership is down. Further the most egregious example of union corruption is the National Education Association which is the biggest impediment to education in America.

A request! Could we confine a post to one subject at a time? If I'm going to write non fiction books, I intend to get paid for it.

Love,
jwhop

Yikes, staplers can be evil, my finger got attacked by a stapler when I was 10,
they are a dangerous bunch!!!! , hehehe, yet we somehow can't live without it.

Sabra, beware of those staples!