C'mon guys - we managed for over a week to be good to each other, even if we were dead set against the other's viewpoint. We have had good and productive discussions because we have steered away from name-calling etc. I know it's hard when you feel passionately about something - but for the sake of keeping our own energy high and focused on problem-solving, let's try and be polite.

Love,
Terri

moonflower

If you're not trying to impress me, you're winning. I never called you an airhead, only the sources of some of the material you post here. But I will say your values are scrambled.

From what you say, it appears you are not only attacking the President but our system of government. You should be reminded that both the President and the Congress were duly elected by the methods set forth in the Constitution. Congress gave the President authority to act against Iraq if he deemed Iraq a threat to the security of the US and both Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of that resolution.

At that point, the President had all the authority he needed to act against Iraq. There is nothing in the Constitution or any treaty that requires the President to get the approval of the UN or a majority of other nations or a majority of the worlds population to suppress external threats to the security of the United States.

The mere suggestion by a President that such sovereignty had been turned over to any external body for their approval would trigger a swift impeachment, conviction and removal from office. Further, it would violate our Constitution.

A majority of Americans have already approved that action through their elected representatives.

It seems you place more importance on getting the approval of the UN to protect this nation than Constitutional acts of Congress and the President.

I've often wondered why I only see lip service paid here to the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. The President intends to stop Saddam from torturing and murdering his own citizens. In addition to being in violation of 17 UN Resolutions to disarm immediately and completely, Saddam is also in violation of the human rights principals set forth in the UN Charter.

Here, you can read all about that from the UN Charter.

PART III
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Now maybe you will consent to stop protesting the Constitution, the Congress and the President and direct your ire and bile at Saddam Hussein. You can go to this site to find out how.
MissionOfIraq@nyc.rr.com

Or you could just use this email address found on that site. Given your blame the President first, last and always policy, I have absolutely no faith you will.

http://www.iraqi-mission.org/

According to your interpretation of the Constitution, approval from the UN and public approval here and abroad would have been necessary for the President to attack Afghanistan before Al Queda destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11. After all, no preemptive strikes permitted or any attack at all, without "the world" signing on.

But then out of the other side of your mouth you slander the President and show your displeasure he didn't stop the attacks on the WTC. Using you logic, he was powerless to do so, needing UN approval, and popular support here and abroad to prevent it.

Love,
jwhop

Thank you, Terri. Yes, it is SO important here to please keep the heat down, showering contempt on those who express different viewpoints isn't gonna help any of us get any closer to the truth. Passion for your cause is great, and I'm certainly as passionate in my convictions on this issue as anyone on earth. But if we stray from presenting our arguments in terms that have some degree of objectivity, we not only lose any possibility of educating undecided others of the validity of our views, we also make this an unpleasant discussion to follow and participate in, and that's a real disservice to the whole community.

Connie, I understand your frustration but again, reacting with anger rather than reason does your own case no good, and only makes it easier for the tone of the whole conversation to turn toward personal confrontation rather than useful investigative discourse.

jwhop, Moonflower is about as "anti-American" as apple pie; and for about the 8,000th time here I'm going to protest your characterization of those who oppose the Bush regime's agenda as "anti-American." Not only is that insulting and sheer hysterical name-calling in place of rational argument, it is also a profoundly intolerant misunderstanding of American values. Dissent - especially dissent from the policies of government - is at the very core of what this country was founded on. The attempt to shout down those who disagree with the policies of current government officials by repeatedly calling them anti-American is itself profoundly anti-American.

Nor does denouncing journalists as airheads and politically-driven hitmen contribute anything to clear understanding. I will be the first to agree that for the most part the mass media hasn't done a good job of presenting the FACTS of what's going on here in a clear and unbiased manner ... but I think that has little or nothing to do with the intelligence or integrity of individual journalists, it is far better explained by the fact that the 29,000+ mass-media outlets in this country (newspaper, radio, TV, book and magazine publishers) are primarily owned by a small number of huge multinational corporate conglomerates - of which TEN COMPANIES (with substantial overlaps in their boards of directors) own controlling interest in the aggregate total reach of all 29,000+ American mass media outlets. (Source: Massive Media: Facts and Figures - PBS) Rather I think it argues highly for the courage and integrity of individual journalists that these concerns are FINALLY starting to be openly discussed in the media (though still not widely), despite the fact that these journalists may in many cases be risking their own careers by speaking out against the vested interests of their corporate ownership.

In any event, the issue here is not Bill Kristol's personality - or Bush's. The issue here is that the leaders of this country are aggressively pursuing an agenda that was decided on IN PRIVATE before they came to power, and about which the American people had no voice or input on. What's more, this agenda is being pursued meticuously as planned, yet it is being presented to the public NOT as a pre-existing plan but as an "emergency response" to the "totally unexpected" terrorist attacks. Even if it were a good plan it would be extraordinarily deceptive and misleading for that reason alone.

But it's NOT a good plan - at least to the extent that "goodness" can be measured in terms of fidelity to traditional American values. Rather it is a plan that is aimed explicitly on world domination by American military might in support of "American interests." That goal flat-out flies in the face of the equalitarian ideals of America, to say nothing of its being profoundly destructive of progress toward a genuinely peaceful and cooperative world order predicated on freedom and justice FOR ALL.America was built in support of freedom and equality, NEVER in support of domination and control.

Donna,

In reply to:

---

Really folks, read the entire report. It is nothing like it is portrayed by all those sites posted. Just a report to convey the need to increase a military budget. Certainly not a take over.

---

I completely agree we should judge this report on its own merits rather than what commentators say about it -- although informed commentary DOES have a place in the dialog. I have read the entire report, and on its OWN terms it is about FAR more than merely "justifying an increased military budget." It is rather an extensive blueprint for the aggressive consolidation of American power over the entire socio-economic system of the world: "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It lists the four primary missions of America as 1) homeland defense, 2) the ability to "rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars," 3) worldwide "constabulay duties" (i.e., serving as policeman to the world, and 4) transforming the U.S. Armed forces to "exploit the revolution in military affairs sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems."

I don't recall hearing any national debate in this democratically constituted country about whether these should be America's primary aims, do you? And indeed, the only one of these four "primary missions" that is mandated by the Constitution is "homeland security" ... although most of the efforts thus far in that direction have been explicitly targeted toward exempting the executive branch of Federal government from being bound by constitutional constraints and civil rights guarantees when it "deems" that homeland security is at stake, such executive "deeming" not subject to any judicial or congressional oversight or appeal whatsoever. Most especially there has been NO national debate or popular mandate that the proper role of America in international affairs should be that of policeman to the world backed up by unchallengeable military force. jwhop asserts

In reply to:

---

The President has decided it's time for peace and real security in the world and if some butts have to be kicked to bring that about and some murderous dictators removed to make it possible, so be it because it's the right plan. I don't give a damn who put it together.

---

Well you may not give a damn who put this butt-kicking plan together, but the constitution that you claim to support mandates that WE THE PEOPLE - not the President and his cronies - decide on the role of America. And I can assure you, the vast majority of Americans have never supported the idea of an American Empire (call it what you will, the role of world policeman backed up by overwhelming global military supremacy to further "American interests" is nothing other than empire.)

In another thread, jwhop, you referred derisively to the "one world Marxist" ideology, and I agree with you completely that that is a dangerous movement that would lead to worldwide repression if followed to its logical conclusions. What I don't understand is your failure to appreciate that a "one world fascist" ideology is at least equally dangerous. One posits the "dictatorship of the proletariat," while the other posits the dictatorship of corporate/military/industrial interests. Neither posits a world system based on cooperation, freedom and shared balance of power - the very principles for which our country once stood.

Before anyone objects to my use of the word fascist in this context, please note that the current reality of extremely close alliance between government and big business is NOT capitalism, it is rather a defining characteristic of fascism. The two are frequently confused because both refer prominently to the social role of business and industry, but they are diametrically opposed in one MAJOR way: the "laissez faire" capitalism of the founding fathers is predicated on a complete separation of business and state, as a matter of principle as important as the separation of Church and state, and for the same reasons -- while fascism is the explicit joining of business and state in the exercise of power.

Given the overwhelming current connections between government, military and business interests ... especially in the executive branch of government and the intelligence agencies, where individuals move freely back and forth through the revolving door of government leadership positions and executive roles in the energy (oil), banking, military contracting and pharmaceutical industries (among others), there is clearly a strong and exhaustively documented alliance between government and business which plays prominently in the current political and foreign policy strategy. Just two examples among thousands of this mutual support relationship in current affairs would be the connection between the attack on Afghanistan (planned in detail BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, with everything to do with the Unocal oil pipeline through Afghanistan), and the cozy relationship among present and former Defense Secretaries and the Carlyle Group of defense and weapons contractors. This intimate connection between government and selected mega-business interests is not characteristic of capitalism ... it IS characteristic of fascism.

And let's not forget that this revelation of a pre-existing PNAC plan for global "American" hegemony and the specific military/strategic plans and actions of the administration "in response" to terrorist attacks is just one small piece of information now publicly surfacing about the existence of an agenda that has not been shared openly with the American people in the government's efforts to whip up patriotic fervor to rubber-stamp the executive's power to pre-emptively attack any regime worldwide that constitutes a terrorist threat (in the President's decision) without congressional declaration of war, while simultaneously suspending domestic civil liberties in the name of "security." More and more such information will continue to surface, and will continue to be denounced as "un-American propaganda" by those who wish to see America transformed from a beacon of freedom and equality into a globally aggressive and domestically repressive authoritarian regime.

In my view it is the patriotic duty of every American to actively and vigorously protest this deceitful, unconstitutional, and clearly un-American power grab by the Federal executive and the military-industrial complex. Dominate the world with military might while stripping Americans of the unalienable rights that our forefathers died to protect? As the sign says, "not in my name!"

Love,
Greg

jwhop

In reply to:

---

Congress gave the President authority to act against Iraq if he deemed Iraq a threat to the security of the US and both Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of that resolution.

---

The constitution gives the president the power to order military response in an emergency situation (i.e., when congressional declaration of war would be too slow to allow for emergency defense of the country) on the proviso that it must be immediately followed by formal declaration of war by congress. Nowhere in the constitution is the President given the power to invoke essentially permanent emergency powers and supersede the constitutional requirement that only congress can declare war ... and it most certainly NOWHERE authorizes military campaigns WITHOUT a declaration of war. Yet that is precisely what the President is asserting, and of permanently cementing with his proposed legislation that would remove the necessity of a declaration of war from all emergency war powers. Clearly the President has no intention of asking congress to declare war on anyone. His intention is to aggregate to himself and the executive branch the right to decide which regimes to preemptively attack as terrorist threats, on an ongoing basis lasting for at least "decades," without EVER asking congress for a declaration of war. This is clearly an arrogation of unconstitutional powers to the exectutive, and a deliberate sidestep of the explicit constitutional provision that only congress may declare war.

Your attitude toward the United Nations is peculiar indeed. While repeatedly dismissing the validity or usefulness of this "bungling organization" when it is an impediment to the President's intentions, you nonetheless repeatedly invoke violations of various U.N. resolutions as justification for aggressive military action. In other words, other countries should be bound to obey U.N. resolutions, but the U.S. is perfectly free and justified in ignoring their bungling resolutions if they interfere with the President's will. Curious.

BTW, it's really an aside to the focused topic of this thread, but since you brought up the U.N. resolutions against torture and involuntary medical experimentation

In reply to:

---

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation

---

we should all question the CIA's deliberate torture and medical manipulation of Cathy O'Brien and thousands of other involuntary subjects of the CIA's longstanding trauma-based mind control program with the full knowledge and support of the President and other intelligence insiders ... among many other similarly brutal and inhumane projects conducted covertly by the CIA, which it does not even bother to DENY, but rather simply declares itself immune to prosecution from the many charges brought against it by survivors of such torture under authority of the 1947 national security act, citing "reasons of national security," and that is the end of it! Of course Saddam's, and all other repressive regimes', use of torture should be deplored and prevented. But the President's invocation of that principle to justify his military ambitions, while sanctioning the use of torture with complete immunity within his own clique's "intelligence community" is hypocrisy to the extreme.

Love,
Greg

Greg

In my considered opinion, you and all Americans here who oppose the Presidential and Congressional policy should run for a seat in the House, Senate or the Presidency.

What is it that is so difficult to understand that Congress gave the President authority to disarm Saddam Hussein. Do you actually believe the President must get the approval of individual citizens for that approval to become lawful? If elections don't empower legislators to represent citizens in their districts and states, what do you think they are for?

If you are unhappy with Congressional actions, file suit in a Federal District Court claiming violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11: spelling out the powers granted to the legislative branch of government.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Or, don't vote for them next time around. You do vote don't you?

In no manner has the President assumed permanent emergency powers. What is your source for that statement?

The "military industrial complex"? Oh God, its 1965 again? The world has moved on--for the most part.

jwhop

jwhop....*sigh*....I for one, would feel very comfortable with Greg in office...

..in fact, if all our elected officials had Greg's integrity, I would feel we were in very good hands, indeed!

Luv,
Rainbow

Hi Everyone

Greg your post pretty much expressed it all and was very well said. "Not in my name!" Exactly!!

I am sorry to have once again lost my cool. There is no excuse for behaving badly but I love this country and all it stands for. Being part Native American there is love of the land and a unity with the land. Though one does not have to be Native American to feel that way about this country. Any one born here has that unity and love for America. I cry when I hear America the Beautiful, when we win a gold medal in the olympics and they play the National Anthem, and I cried all day Sept.11, 2001. So it angers me to be called un-American for simply questioning the acts of my government and it angers me that in doing that I am accused of forgetting Sept.11. I will never forget 9/11, just as no American or the world could ever forget that day. However, I have forgiven my enemies, to quote Jesus," Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Jesus said that on the cross that he was nailed to for speaking the truth and for trying to bring love and peace to the world. He could have struck out against those who were doing him harm, he could have summoned a legion of angles to strike down those who tortured him and nailed him to that cross, but instead he forgave them, he returned good for evil, he loved those who hated him. That was his example to us of how God wishes us to be. "Love your enemies and render good for evil" is what he taught us. So, though it doesn't come easy, I strive to do that. St.John, the apostle said, " Any man who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar and there is no love in him. For if a man cannot love that which he can see, how can he love that which he cannot see?" St. John didn't pull his punches there. I think St. John and his brother James were Taureans because Jesus called them "the sons of thunder."

There was one man that I admired greatly and I also cried the day he was assassinated. Here are the words of that man, Bobby Kennedy :

Bobby Kennedy's speech to the young people of South Africa on The Day of Affirmation, 1966

"There is a discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; and millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich; and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere.

"These are differing evils, but they are common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows.

"But we can perhaps remember--even if only for a tirne--that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek--as we do--nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

"Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men. And surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

"Our answer is to rely on youth--not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress. It is a revolutionary world we live in; and this generation at home and around the world, has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

"Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

"These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

"For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

"Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

Bobby Kennedy was not a perfect man, few of us are, but his words stand and they are very important in the time of history we find ourselves thrust into now. Moral courage and the belief that one man can change the course of history and make the world a better place for all is what is needed now. Because as Bobby Kennedy said: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

If our government had been more just in their treatment of the Arabic nations, 9/11 would never have happened. And now our answer to 9/11 is to counteract injustice with more injustice, to counteract an act of revenge with more revenge, to counteract hate with more hate. If the cycle continues this way it will be the annihilation of humankind. And it will never right the wrong of 9/11.

Love, Connie

Greg, I'm afraid that jwhop is right. Congress, which today consists of a Republican majority, handed Bush a blank check. They gave him the Authorization for Use of Force:

Authorization for Use of Force



Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.


Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and


Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and


Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and


Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and


Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.


SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.


(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.


(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved, September 14, 2001

Notice there in (a) it states any country or person he determines... which means he can name Canada if he wants to, or even you and I. My God, our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves at what is taking place now, in the Republic they established for us.

Love, Connie

OK Rainbow

Let's get out our canvas and paint for the Greg for President banners. Can't start too early, fact is we're getting a late start for 2004.

Hey Greg, you running as a Democrat or Republican? Suggest you stay away from the independents if you want to win. But we need to know so we can put the appropriate animal on the banner. So, what's it going to be, a mule or an elephant?

Thanks for posting the Joint Resolution moonflower, however you've given everyone the impression it was the Republican party who passed this resolution. Wrong, the resolution was adopted unanimously on Sept. 14 by the Senate and by a vote of 420 to 1 in the House. In the entire Congress there was only 1 vote against the resolution.

jwhop

Yeah and they didn't waste any time getting that pushed through Congress either, jwhop. Three days after the attack when emotions were high, perfect timing. This is a cunning group. It's a proven fact in history, that any and all nations that abused their power in an attempt to dominate the world fell to defeat. Though Russia may be out of the picture,let's not forget that China is not exactly a weak nation either. And most importantly, let's not forget that the Big Guy (aka God) is the one in control of the nations and everything else.

I would like to clarify that mine, and the rest of the world's desire that this war be sanctioned by the UN, is not because I think our government needs the UN approval of this war, it is because that is the way the United States has always operated in the past; we COOPERATED with the rest of the world! We didn't flaunt our superiority, we worked WITH the nations of the world. That world cooperation, in spite of the fact that we were a super power, is what made the U.S. great in the eyes of the world, it earned world respect for our country. No one respects a bully.

One of the quotes from a PNAC member in talking to the press was,"you know, it's like the movie High Noon . We are Gary Cooper." This coming from a grown man, supposedly intelligent, a member of a "think tank " really shows what those people are all about. So now in the White House running our country we not only have John Wayne, we have Gary Cooper as well. I'm just waiting for Charleston Heston to show up with his gun collection. Then we can really go "Wump Sum ASS!!" REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!

I'm not being mean to you, a bit sarcastic maybe, and in spite of the fact that you can be a pain in the butt to me, I like you anyway.

Greg's got my vote. I don't care which ticket he runs on.

P.S. If I, along with everyone else, have to spend the rest of our life living indoors, behind plastic and duct tape, I am thinking of creating and marketing designer duct tape. That way we can change the scenery once in a while. What do you think? Do you think I could make a lot of money on that? Hell, everyone else is profiting from the war, I might as well profit from it too.

Love, Connie

Hi Everyone,
There is so much valuable information being presented here for all to see. I think we all need to take Greg's advice about remembering we are not really on opposite sides here: We are all one, and if we keep listening to each other, we will find that we all have our spiritual oneness with God intact. We have to remember that we are each entitled to our own individual moral judgments, that one may not necessarily be more right that the other. Sometimes seemingly opposite views can both be true!!!!!! So please let us not question each other's spirituality here, or anyone's patriotism.

We have to be able to fearlessly examine all in order to decide what we think works best, what is our truest path to oneness and peace.

People who think they have the only possible way to spirituality by being absolutely opposed to this war could possibly find out there is stuff we don't know....Remember we must ALL stay OPEN MINDED. We are right to speak up with our convictions as long as we are willing to keep listening.

Now here are some more WHAT IF's.
Can anyone--Aries? our dependable librarian--reprint some of those Nostradamus quatrains that seemed so eerily to foretell 9/ll? Does anyone remember reading something like, "If people only knew what the father and the son were really doing..." (Bushes?) Maybe THEY don't even realize what they are really doing!!!!!

WHAT IF 9/ll were used as another Pearl Harbor to stir up nationalism and support for the new world order agenda? What if 9/ll could have been averted but wasn't? What if Al Gore were elected and there were no 9/ll?

WHAT IF our government were AS GUILTY as Saddam's at different times of THE SAME types of atrocities!!!! Such as our death penalty, our interrogation methods, our false imprisonments, our USING OUR OWN CITIZENS for medical experiments without their consent, like when we used retarded individuals as guinea pigs to see how much radiation humans can take....

Like Greg said, do we REALLY want to start acting as the policemen of the world if we can't even police ourselves?

Greg made good points about the differences between fascism and laissez-faire capitalism. That was a good illustration of the value of separating government and business like we attempt to separate church and state.

There are times when actions for or against war are clear, but only after there is healthy discussion and healthy sharing of information so that people are not just blindly voting one way or another.

So it may be that our president is acting completely legally, but maybe that is showing us that we need to improve our legal system, to make better choices as Americans.

We are all learning to stop living in denial...that we are all one.

Love,

Hi jwhop

I did some research on that Congressional vote for the Authorization for Use of Force resolution. I don't know where you got your figure of 420-1 but it is incorrect. It is giving people the wrong information to say that the Democrats were in complete agreement on that resolution. In fact, they fought it, wanted it reworded because it gave the President too much power. Tom Daschle did not even attend the post vote party in the Rose Garden. So the in the final vote of 133 opposed and 296 in favor of the resolution it only passed by a 12 votes if it takes a 2/3 majority to pass it. Some Republicans were against the wording of this resolution as well but were reluctant to go against their party. I am happy that Michigan senators voted against the resolution. Also folks if you read this there is still hope in getting that Authorization for Use of Force resolution repealed. We need to contact our Senators. Here is the correct information on that vote in Congress:

Vote Analysis Shows Deep Distrust of Iraq Policy in Congress

Kathleen Gille

November 5, 2002

In the rush to report the vote approving the use force against Iraq, most of the major news media failed to capture the true degree of opposition to the Administration's policy in Congress - especially in the House of Representatives.

In the weeks leading up to the vote, all eyes had been on the Senate where leaders from both parties expressed concerns about the direction of the Administration's policy. Committee hearings had been held where retired military leaders had expressed strong reservations about the policy. Senator Edward Kennedy spoke eloquently in opposition to unilateral U.S. action. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin proposed an alternative that would require the President to obtain UN approval or return to Congress for a second vote before launching military action against Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel continued to question the policy and seemed ready to join with Foreign Relations Chair Joseph Biden and the second-ranking Republican on the Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, in an alternative that emphasized the importance of working with the UN and narrowed the focus of military action to dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Majority Leader Tom Daschle seemed to be holding the line in negotiations among the top four House and Senate leaders and the White House, and even after House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt signed onto a deal with the President, Daschle refrained from attending the Rose Garden ceremony. Senator Robert Byrd threatened a filibuster on Constitutional principles.

Yet, shortly after the text of the Joint Resolution was agreed to by Minority Leader Gephardt and the White House, opposition within the Senate began to crumble. Senators Lugar and Hagel would not oppose the President of their own party and, without moderate Republican allies, Senator Biden declined to even offer an alternative. Every Democratic leader with Presidential aspirations ended up supporting the White House resolution. Indeed, Senator Paul Wellstone, running in a tough campaign for Senate, seems to have been the only Democrat willing to face the electorate with a clear stance against the war. Senator Byrd's attempt to filibuster failed gaining only 25 votes. The Levin alternative received only 24 votes. And the final Senate vote of 133 opposed and 296 in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq was disappointing and dominated the news coverage.

A very different drama developed behind the scenes in the House of Representatives where initially Democrats in opposition the President's policy were set back by Minority Leader Gephardt's agreement with the White House. But, shortly after the Rose Garden ceremony, momentum against the policy began to build. Representative Dennis Kucinich, Lloyd Doggett (who had begun whipping against unilateral U.S. action) and dozens of progressive Members of Congress held a hastily organized press conference opposing the Administration's policy and urging people to call their representatives. (Throughout the week or so before the vote, Congressional offices in the House and Senate, both Republican and Democrat, reported that a large majority of their calls were in opposition to war with Iraq, although the calls to Republican offices seemed to balance out as the vote grew closer). At Thursday morning's Democratic Whip meeting, Members began to coalesce around the idea of offering an alternative similar to the Levin approach. The Democratic Whip, Nancy Pelosi, while not advocating an official leadership position, played a key role with both her expertise from the Intelligence Committee and her efforts to encourage moderate leaders in the House to come forward with an alternative. John Spratt, a member from a very conservative state who is respected for his careful deliberations and knowledge of defense issues, introduced a substitute resolution with the cosponsorship from other moderate Democrats such as Tom Allen, Vic Snyder, and David Price.

During the three days of debate in the House of Representatives, opposition to the President's policy was forcefully expressed, though even many Hill insiders failed to realize what was happening. The morning of the vote, a key Democratic House leader who favored the Administration policy predicted that a majority of Democrats would support the President's resolution. This prediction was far off the mark. In the final vote of 133 to 296, 126 Democrats voted against and 81 voted for the resolution.

The extent of the opposition to this policy in the House can be better understood by looking at the separate votes on the alternatives. Representative Barbara Lee's amendment, which urged the use of diplomacy and reaffirmed commitment to the inspection process and provided no authorization of military force, received 72 votes - closer to the number many analysts would have predicted as the high water mark for any alternative just a few days earlier. The Spratt substitute received 155 votes, with Democrats - ranging from Armed Services ranking member Ike Skelton to the progressive John Conyers -- voting more than two to one in favor of it. The Kucinich motion to recommit, which would have placed a series of strict reporting requirements on the Administration before any military action, received 101 votes.

When you examine all the votes cast for alternatives -- taking the 155 votes for Spratt, then including the 21 Democrats on the left (like Kucinich, Bonior and others) who voted for the Lee amendment but not for the Spratt amendment, and finally the 3 Republicans who voted against the final resolution but not for any of the Democratic amendments -- the number of members of the House who voted their preference for an alternative policy rises to a total of 179!

Many people will ask why does this matter? The vote is over and there is not likely to be another vote in Congress before military action. The President did get a very strong vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq on his own terms. The language of the resolution is sweeping, granting the President wide powers, and the Administration shows every indication of its determination to go to war.

At the same time, the momentum that was generated by the opposition in Congress - especially the House -- can be a real political force. This was no Gulf of Tonkin vote. With Congress returning for a lame duck session, opponents will have new opportunities to question the policy. It is interesting to note that the Administration's controversial plan for occupying Iraq did not appear in the news media until the day after the vote. The Administration withheld information about Korea's nuclear capabilities from key leaders in Congress for 12 days. There is growing evidence of concern about the policy in the military, diplomatic and intelligence communities. These kinds of revelations may not have altered the vote, but they do increase the sense of distrust of the policy within Congress. With the public doubts about military action in Iraq continuing to grow, Members of Congress can and should be called upon to use their considerable political resources to help change the direction of this policy.

Kathleen Gille is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and has worked for 20 years on Capitol Hill.

Center for International Policy Iraq Project

Love, Connie

Howdy All,

When talking about governments, I look back in history for a repeating pattern. Many rulers or governments have went the way of corruption. I think it was the Greeks at one point in their history that allowed citizens to hold office in order to understand the process. A citizen would take their turn as a voice in the government.

When you look back in history the main area that rulers/ governments controlled people for their own agendas was manipulating or controlling information-Knowledge. In order for a country or ruler to accomplish their agenda over a vast area of people they have to control two things. Health & Education. The two biggest budgets in any country right now.

It seems that here in the US we have a major problem with health & education - or lack of. The fact that the US is ready to increase taxes on gas, alcohol, and cigaretts just to have money for each state's budget says a lot. In times of stress, people will buy more cigaretts and alcohol. Tax the things that are addictive (with the exception of gas of course) during the more stressful times. How convenient.

The fact that there is hunger all over the world, loss of jobs, homeless people, excessive taxes, diseases, etc... To me this is not just an unfortunate problem that occures... This occurres because those who are in power want this to be.

The US spends over 1.1 Trillion dollars a year on healthcare. That's over 91 billion dollars a month. I will not believe that our country is too ignorant to solve this dilemma or any other country for that matter. The fact that our healthcare, education, and other systems are collapsing, and they have to raise our taxes to help state budgets is just an illusion. The illusion of not having enough to go around is just that - an Illusion brought about thru government control of health & education.

Some time back, a group of people from various countries meet together to discuss world hunger. They spent over $700,000 dollars for food during this conference.

In my opinion, if any of us ran a business like our government does we would be fired! The illusion that our government knows how to take care of the people is wearing thin. The system of government in the US is very corrupted (as well as other countries too). Can we take care of ourselves? Do we need our government?

I do like the wisdom from the Tao Te Ching:

Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
The less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore, the Master says:
I let go of the law;
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become seren.
I let go of all desires for the common good,
and the good become common as grass.

Woody

Hey folks, thanks for the vote of confidence! But jwhop, I'm afraid I couldn't stomach running as a Republicrat, so I'll have to pass on the suggestion. That whole political idea that "you have to compromise your principles in order to win" is a big part of what's gotten us to the state we're in, isn't it?

In reply to:

---

If elections don't empower legislators to represent citizens in their districts and states, what do you think they are for?

---

Well, as you are fond of pointing out jwhop - and quite correctly - this is a republic rather than a democracy. That means that elections DON'T empower Congress to do anything not permitted in the Constitution, whether the citizens they "represent" want them to or not. That's a proud difference between our country and a pure democracy, remember?

In reply to:

---

If you are unhappy with Congressional actions, file suit in a Federal District Court claiming violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11: spelling out the powers granted to the legislative branch of government.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

---

Exacly ... these are the powers granted to the legislative branch of government, not the executive. Nowehere in the constitution is the legislative branch empowered to hand over their explicit powers to the executive branch. To the contrary, the constitution goes to GREAT lengths to assure the separation of powers. But no need for me to challenge that in court ... that particular breach of the constitution was already pulled over on we the people at least as far back as 1933, when Roosevelt arrogated to himself a whole slew of "emergency war powers" on a permanent basis (in the guise of dealing with the "bank emergency") through a very tricky and unconstitutional scheme which, unfortunately, no one in congress or the judiciary has had the guts or the will to undo to this day.

Incidentally, it is obvious from some of your earlier posts that you are well aware of the longstanding scheme to unconstitutionally transfer power to the executive branch of government, as evidenced by your mention of the scams that resulted in the directly apportioned income tax and the private bank called the Federal Reserve which controls our money supply to this day ... which makes it all the more puzzling that when it comes to Bush, whom you apparently blindly support, you ridicule and pooh-pooh the idea that the executive could be scheming to subvert the constitution, even though you know full well that such deliberate subversion has been going on for a LONG time in this country! That kind of selective blindness makes absolutely no sense to me at all, coming from someone of your intelligence. I don't get it ...

In reply to:

---

In no manner has the President assumed permanent emergency powers. What is your source for that statement?

---

Well take a look at the Authorization for Use of Force rammed through congress two days after the attack, which you have referenced and of which Connie kindly posted the full text. Do you see a sunset clause in there? No? Then that means that the President has asked for and been "given" this arbitrary power to determine who and when to attack on his own discretion without any time limit. This resolution will remain in effect forever unless and until a separate law explicitly revokes it. Since Bush has already clearly stated that this "terrorist emergency" and the need to combat it with extraordinary methods will last for at least "decades," it seems rather unlikely to me that he has any intention of asking congress to take away these emergency powers from him any time soon, doesn't it to you?

In fact, the executive branch has already stolen enormous unconstitutional power on a "permanent" basis, as you well know. On the day after he took office, FDR asked congress to give him broad emergency powers to deal with the banking crisis, and to establish hundreds of Federal "emergency" programs and agencies that were either of dubious constitutionality or clearly outright unconstitutional. The sceme implemented to accomplish this was to reactivate the "trading with the enemy" act of 1917, which gave the president broad temporary war powers in the declared World War to regulate and control all activities of alien enemies during the war. Of course these powers expired when WWI came to an end, but Roosevelt's Act of 1933 reinstated them in the context of the national banking crisis. This didn't quite do the trick, however, because it only gave him power over alien enemies, and specifically EXCLUDED citizens of the US. So he very neatly amended the 1917 trading with the enemy act in the same law which reactivated it, to REMOVE the exclusion of American citizens and domestic commerce from the act ... in effect, placing all American citizens in the category of "enemies" subject to the emergency war powers in that earlier act. This is what he needed in order to legalize his essentially socialist New Deal and banking "reforms," most of which were explicitly prohibited under the constitution. This law, enacted as the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, "approved and confirmed" in perpetuity all acts undertaken by the President under the (now vastly expanded to cover all American citizens as well as enemies) authority of the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act. This permanent invocation of emergency powers survives unhindered to this day as Title 12, USC 95b -- it is the current law of the land, although few realize it. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe it, it's right there in US Law. In effect the constitution has been suspended in the US since 1933, and the President has had arbitrary emergency war powers ever since.

Unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, we have been living under what is technically termed a "constitutional dictatorship" (exactly what Hitler invoked in his post-Reichstag power grab) since 1933!

Why then, you might ask, did Bush even bother to ask congress for authorization, if he already had such unlimited emergency powers? The answer is that periodically since 1933 some courageous members of congress have awakened to the horrible implications of this arbitrary power hanging over us, and have attempted to repeal or undercut the sweeping suspension of constitutional law in the still-effective Emergency Banking act. So far none of these attempts have succeeded, but in 1973 a valiant attempt did have the effect of placing some minor limits on this arbitrary power. This was the "War Powers Resolution" of 1973 that is mentioned in Section 2 Paragraph b of the current congressional "authorization for the Use of Military Force." In that resolution (of 1973) the essentially arbitrary power of the President to use the military for any purpose, any time he sees fit, was curtailed to the extent of requiring specific congressional authorization within 60 days of the President's invocation of emergency war power. Thus, the current resolution was needed to satisfy this limitation.

Once again, Mr. Bush supporter , none of this is about Bush ... he is simply the current instrument of abusing this long-standing attack on the constitution in its most flagrant form yet. He didn't start this war on freedom, and he won't end it. It's not his agenda, nor is it the agenda of the "Republicans." It has been maintained and advanced by every administration of both parties since 1933 (and with less "teeth" since long before that.) He is simply the focus of attention now because people are becoming AWARE of this threat at the time that he happens to be using it in visibly coercive ways under guise of the "war on terrorism." Repetition number 8 million: this is NOT about Republicans versus Democrats, this is about a military/corporate/financial/industrial power elite VS the free people of America (and ultimately the world), who have operated behind the scenes through EVERY political administration for many decades.

As stated so clearly by one of those few in a position to KNOW the truth:

In reply to:

---

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

-- Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House

---

Yes, it's a conspiracy. And if making fun of "conspiracy theory" makes more sense than looking at the actual cited historical facts, laws and resolutions that PROVE the conspiracy, then so be it. For myself, I'd rather know the truth about the threats to freedom that we face, than to have the emotional security of being part of the crowd who smugly snickers at conspiracy theorists. But everyone has to decide that for themselves, don't they?

In reply to:

---

The "military industrial complex"? Oh God, its 1965 again? The world has moved on--for the most part.

---

Well that's the most popular argumentative technique there is, isn't it? If you can't rationally deny the reality of something as patently concrete and verifiable as a "military-industrial complex" made up of interlocking vested interests in the government, military, finance and corporate sectors, you can always ridicule it as an "old fashioned idea" that nobody believes anymore, can't you?

Love,
Greg

Thought-provoking discussion guys - great Saturday afternoon reading!

Don't have much to contribute except this - the phrase 'military-industrial complex' was used widely in my highschool 20th century history classes and world issues classes. It was also used in a media studies class, as it was the teacher's contention that certain mass media outlets were defactco elements of the military-industrial complex. In my college economics classes the phrase was also widely used, and not in an historical sense. I was in higschool and coleege some 25 - 30 years, AFTER, the world "moved on" from using that phrase. Unless, I wwas educated in a time-warp?

Love,
Terri

Trunk Monkey a slow one at that.

Greg, thanks for defending me as a person. Regarding the words spoken to me by the other members, can you see why I never bother to post? I don't think I will come back anymore, it is too hurtful. I now understand why Joyce resigned.

I did not name call or come here with anger, I simply posted my understanding of reading a very long paper. I did not see the same thing others saw in that paper and I simply wanted to say that. I think there are two sides to every story and both need to be looked at.

jwhop, you are my hero, you have guts, and you roll with the punches better than I do.

For the record, I may be a practicing Wiccan, but I respect all life, look to the spark of soul in all. I have provided nursing care to all sorts, including high ranking officials, babies, children, actors, murderers, felons, on and on and I gave them all equal Tender Loving Care that I took the Florence Nightingale oath to do so. So, call me names, I know in my heart that I am a kind and loving person.

Donna

Donna...... PLEASE DON'T GO! ! !

Luv,
Rainbow

Donna, I cannot tell you how it grieves me to hear you say that you will not be back. You've been a loved a valued member of our community for a long time, and have helped many here in many ways ... through your loving spirit and understanding, your astrological wisdom that you've willingly shared with all, your devotion to Linda's ideas and the many inspirational and informational contributions you've made to honor her. And even though you haven't had much time to post here actively in the recent past, it's been good to know you are reading in the background and surface from time to time with some contribution, always interesting and always offered in love.

I dearly hope that you can look beyond the short-sighted anger of the few on this issue - that involves us all so emotionally because it concerns the survival of our way of life and the welfare of our children and our children's children - to the larger good that is our commnity as a whole and over time, and to the love and trust and reaching toward spiritual understanding that has characterized this place beyond the ups and downs. I dearly hope that you will not be driven away from here permanently. But at the same time I recognizer that I might not be willing to stick around either in the same circumstances.

Folks, can't everybody see what's wrong with treating each other badly, no matter HOW strongly we disagree? Strong disagreement leads to vigorous exchange of ideas, which is good for all ... but treating each other shabbily contributes nothing to truth and understanding, and only hurts. WHATEVER we believe about politics or the world situation, we are all supporters of transcending anger and hatred to reach a higher state of consciousness and a relationship with our fellow human beings built on love above all ... otherwise we would have NO reason for being here on this Linda-inspired, conscious evolution-directed spiritual site. Hurting each other is counter to those values no matter WHO is right or wrong about ANYTHING.

PLEASE don't infect this place of love with anger and insult to others. If you do, it makes us all hypocrites, and undermines our reason for existing at all.

Donna I hope you keep visiting and posting when you have something to say. I for one am always happy to see you and look forward to your posts, whether I happen to agree with what you may be saying or not, and I am far from the only one here who feels that way.

Love,
Greg

Donna,

I am sorry if you took my agreement with Prox's statement about spiritual people to mean that I was referring to you. I was not. I was speaking about spiritual people in general who are gung ho about this war. War does not fit into any true religous or spiritual belief or dogma. That is all I was referring to. All I directed at you was a question and perhaps I didn't phrase it right.

It is a normal event in debates for people to sometimes get emotional and that even happens in Congress, The House, Parliaments around the world, and there have been arguments and attacks that erupt at UN meetings as well. I take it all in stride and I have personally had everything, including my value system questioned by jwhop. I may get testy with him in return, most people do react that way when they are personally attacked, but on the whole I shrug it off.

Just as I told Joy, and just as I feel about jwhop, I want your input, I want your opinions even when they don't agree with mine because I don't take it personal to be disagreed with. We all want your opinions no matter what they are. Your opinions are as important as anyone else's opinions.

Again, I'm truly sorry if anything I said offended you. It was not meant as an attack, nor was anything but the question directed at you. I do wish you would stay and keep giving us your thoughts.

Love, Connie

Hi Greg

I was reading through some things this evening and I came across something very odd concerning your friends Cathy and Mark. I was actually doing some more reading regarding PNAC. Though I have been accused of not looking at both sides of the issue, I do look at both sides. It's the only way you can actually form a concrete judgement on anything. Anyway, the article I was reading online referred to Cathy in the context of PNAC and Cheney and it gave a site to find out about Cathy. The article is as follows:

http://cryptome.org/rad.htm

In order to truly understand how despicable and repulsive Cheney and his schemes actually are, we must revisit the past before we continue. A CFR member; Cheney was Chief of Staff to Gerald Ford, Secretary of Defense to George Herbert Bush, and Wyoming's only Congressman. There is a hunting lodge near Greybull, Wyoming where Dickie Dearest was obsessed with "A Most Dangerous Game" (human hunting) and addicted to the thrill of the sport of traumatizing his victims while satisfying his sick perversions. Although this "game" was devised to condition military personnel in survival and combat maneuvers, it was used on Cathy O'Brien and other slaves as a means to further conditioning of the mind to the realization there was no place to hide, as well as traumatization for ensuing programming. According to Cathy, this game had numerous variations on the primary theme of being stripped of clothing, turned loose in wilderness areas which were enclosed in secure military fencing, and hunted by men and dogs until caught, raped, and tortured. This is our Vice President! (Editors note - we'd like to make it clear that these allegations are just that, allegations, and are not proven by anything more than testimony).

There is much more to Cathy's sad but true story of being a CIA mind-controlled slave that she has so bravely informed us of on http://www.trance-formation.org/index2.htm. Read for yourself about The Most Dangerous Game, Project Monarch, and A Most Dangerous Game Revisited which sheds light on the wicked pastimes of Bush, Jr. and Daddy Bush. Warning: the content will make you furious and ill, but at least you will know the hidden, dark, dreadful, and hideous side of these monsters who have seized power according to their plan. As a group who serve only the prince of darkness and themselves, they are without a doubt the biggest terrorists of all. Woe to those who call good, evil and evil, good.

When I clicked on the site they gave regarding information on Cathy a message came up saying " This is an email smear campaign that has not been sent by GNN or any of it's affiliates. We apologize if you have received this via unsolicited email. Please send your email header to (info@gnn.tv) assist us in apprehending the culprits." You will get the orginal message if you click on the site the article provides. But I didn't get this in my email. I found this article online. Because of the message I could not get to the article regarding Cheney and his connection with Cathy O'Brien. I don't know what that was about, I thought it was odd and I wanted to let you know about it.

Love, Connie

Connie, the Trance-Formation.org site that is pointed to was Cathy & Mark's original website that was the victim of an email smear campaign. It was shut down and later re-opened, but has since been hacked. All of the content referred to, including the article on "A Most Dangerous Game" containing information about Cheney's involvement, is now available on the new site I built for them, http://www.Trance-Formation.com. Look in the "Articles" section from the top menu.

Love,
Greg

Hi Donna

Don't know if you'll be around to see this but I've always enjoyed what you have to say when you do decide to participate.

I don't believe for a minute the hurtful things said about you but leaving may not stop them from making comments about you any more than it did when Joyce left.

It takes a special kind of cowardice to comment about someone who isn't around to defend themselves. Joyce is the current example, hopefully you won't be next.

You are a classy lady Donna, don't let anyone tell you different.

Love
jwhop

In defense of my integrity lets get some things straight.

First, what I said to Donna was fact.

She had proclaimed her heatheren status on several posts and is very anti bible and has stated here and on other sites. Randal has stated he was a atheist and we all know his con jobs from the 800 year old immortal act, to the direct link to LG, and the 4 or 5 phoney apologies.

Joyce and the other 11 over the months - Divas are a dime a dozen. Joyce was a belligerent know nothing about anything but her small hi profile status life in LA.
She showed us over and over that her own spiritual and world culture views were lacking. And her lake of understanding of world views vs. Hotel California. And her narrow-minded views of the world. And as all the other divas, left on her on accord in a fit of denial. Nobody is making anyone leave. It is a big act like a 14 year old throwing a fit.

Jwhop, you sir are rumored to be a good man. But you have been, in this case, the hurtful one to many. Going from a pure calm to an emotional rant of belligerence.
From a spiritual perspective you are behind the curve.

Any of the major religions or Holly books or readings is against killing period.
The world is now joined and there are no borderlines. The ego of the Leo age is going to die with it. Get used to it and roll with the Uranus energy that is about to change the world's spiritual perceptions like has never happened since the 20's.

Greg, and Terri,

There was no one angry here. That was your perception. There was no name calling.
(Except when I called you a Trunk Money for showing up late and whacking before you knew what was what.)

Greg, as many times before you alter the facts or discount them concerning my posts.
For every freaked out emotional person that responses to one of my posts, you immediately cave to their fits. You are a very compassionate person, you have deep emotions yourself, and you are smart. But you are also one big push over with a little bit of predisposed male perdjustice. It has happen many times before and a few you have been called on it, only to have the caller swarmed by a bee hive of groupies coming to your defense.

You have a consistent tendency to put words in others mouths. You have done it on so many of my posts I have just stopped talking to you. Please don't do it anymore.

Rainbow, once again, get a freaking clue! Get professional help.

I'm sorry that some people have hurt feeling when they realize that they are ignorant, have double standards, and are not qualified to speak for God. They can just tell it to the sky.

Peace, with out the value added diva dancing, and hero worship,
Darwin