This is about the very things we have been discussing here. I have just had a very bad feeling that something was just not right about this war with Iraq. This concerns the things that Greg has been talking about. I am curious as to what they will have to say about it all.

Tonight on ABC's Nightline Conspiracy Theory: Blueprint for war

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: Several years ago, when President Clinton was still in the White House, and 9/11 was still not even a nightmare in anyone's mind, a group of mostly Republicans wrote a letter outlining a foreign policy strategy that involved regime change in Iraq, by force if necessary. Now
that several of those Republicans are in key positions in the Administration, some critics of the White House's current Iraq policy smell something fishy.

----

The Project for the New American Century. Never heard of it? Well, don't feel bad. Few have. But have you heard of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz? Back in 1997, those three out-of-office politicians and several other like-minded, mostly conservatives, were frustrated with American foreign policy. So they formed this new organization and a year later wrote a letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling for a "comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam
and his regime."

Today, a 76-page paper written by the organization reads like a blueprint for the policy being carried out largely by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In fact, of the 40 people who signed that letter, 10 are
currently in the Administration.

Is this a case of democracy in action? Influential thinkers who became policy makers? Or is it, as some international critics of the White House's policy on Iraq have argued, a secretive organization pulling the strings of the President, with an imperialistic goal of dominating the world? Are these criticisms legitimate?

Tonight ABC News correspondent Jackie Judd will explore this conspiracy theory, and the influence and role of the Project for the New American Century. Ted Koppel will then speak with the Project's founder and chairman, Bill Kristol, who served in both the first Bush and the Reagan Administrations.


Nightline is on ABC at 11:30 P.M. Eastern Standard time

Love, Connie

Thanks, Connie......I'm going to be sure and watch...

Luv,
Rainbow

Jeez, I may have to break down and get a TV yet! But I'll have to rely on you guys for now. Thanks, Connie!

The fact that this subject is even being acknowledged and discussed on such a high profile mainstream program is astounding to me. Unless, of course, this is someone's idea of presenting the idea in a ridiculous light so that folks will dismiss further evidence of a covert agenda as it continues to surface ... ??? Man, I HOPE this is a serious inquiry into this question!

We shall see. Either way, it's an optimistic sign that the unanswered questions are looming large enough for enough people that they can't be just ignored any more.

Love,
Greg

Hi Connie and Greg.....I watched.....

Can't say they discussed much more than what you posted, Connie...but still as Greg said, the mere fact that the main stream media is even discussing it at all, is pretty amazing...*sigh*.......that Bill Kristol guy (not to be confused with Billy Crystal) gave me the heeby jeebies, tho...kinda reminded me of Dickens' Uriah Heep...*sigh*

Luv,
Rainbow

Hi Guys

I just finished watching the Nightline report regarding the blueprint for war. Ted Koppel did not play it down, nor did he draw any of his own conclusions. He kind of left it up to the viewers. Koppel first spoke about how this has been in the newspapers in many countries. That made me wonder why our news media is just now getting around to making this known to the American public.

These guys that formed this Project for the New Century organization are neo-conservatives. Many of them are from think tanks. They claim it is not a conspiracy because they have always been out in the open about it. Ted Koppel asked in what ways were they out in the open and the response was that they had placed articles in newspapers, magazines, sent faxes etc. They did not say which newspapers and magazines. Probably conservative ones.

The founder of the organization, Bill Kristol, said this is going to be the new policy that will be followed by whoever is in the White House, rather it is Bush for another four years, or whoever is elected. He said the U.S. has been too weak in it's foreign policy in the past. They want to bring democracy to all the countries of the Middle East. He spoke about Saudi Arabia and Iran as areas that also need to be addressed and he spoke about North Korea.

The program addressed the letter that was sent to Clinton when he was in office and he was not receptive to it, though he did bomb Iraq. They found in Bush someone very receptive to the plan. An opponent of all that is going on in the Bush administration said that these guys tell Bush in so many words that this is the manly way of dealing with the Middle East. There is no doubt that they are pulling the strings and those belonging to this organization are determining U.S. policy.

It was also mentioned that the attack on Sept. 11 was their chance to implement their agenda, referring to Sept.11 as their Peal Harbor.

To me it all makes more sense now and answers a lot of the questions about Sept. 11. It explains why Chaney did not want to hear the CIA report regarding the attack on Sept.11. It also explains why his supervisors interfered with the FBI agent doing his job in trying to warn the administration. I think they knew about the attack but did not want witnesses to that fact. If Chaney had listened to David Schippers, he would have been a witness to the fact that he had informed Chaney. It makes sense now why no fighter jets were sent up after those planes. Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush wanted Sept.11 to be their Pearl Harbor. How unthinkable and horrible that would be to let all those innocent people die just so they could implement their plan to go in and remove Hussein from Iraq.

That other countries knew about this plan makes it all the more clear why North Korea stepped up it's nuclear weapons production. I am really afraid that these guys are going to start WWlll.

Like you said Greg, I hope this Nightline program tonight starts opening the eyes of people and that the media keeps questioning this organization.

Also, the White House today refused to allow the representative from the Vatican address the press and thus, the nation. He was there to deliver a letter from Pope John Paul opposing this war and declaring it an immoral war. The head of Pres. Bush's own Methodist church spoke out against the war and said that Pres. Bush is not listening to anyone regarding this war.

I totally forgot that you don't have a TV, Greg or I would have taped Nightline tonight and sent it to you. Hopefully though, we will be hearing a lot more about this Project for the New Century organization and it's influence over Bush.

Love, Connie

Rainbow that guy gave me the creeps too. So did the other guy from the organization that they talked to. In fact, Rumsfeld gives me the willies.

They really didn't go into a whole lot of detail but maybe it will get the ball rolling with the press.

Love, Connie

Thanks for the thorough summary, Connie. I wish you would have taped it too. We have TV again, but we can't get networks on the satellite without a lot of rigamarole because of some law protecting local network affiliates' broadcast share even though their broadcast can't make it through our ore-filled mountains.

I'm glad the cat is out of the bag as regards the manly men's plan for the world. "We'd all love to see the plan," as the song goes.

We live in interesting times.

Love,
Maria

I found some info on the net regarding The Project for the New American Century. I think this explains the gradual stripping of our Constitutional rights in the name of Security. This is an evil organization.
http://www.newamericancentury.info/

About the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New American Century

INFORMATION SITE about the PROJECT for a NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

INTRODUCTION

The Project for a New American Century is a concerning initiative which appears to promote a doctrine of positive American intervention, which some have likened to the beginnings of an American Empire for the 21st Century.

Its supporters and signatories represent extremely influential individuals with some close contacts and associations with the Bush administration. It appears to be a kind of Right-Wing thinktank, and the project website provides a mouthpiece for its expansionist philosophy.

At a time when democratic process, respect for territorial integrity, and international co-operation are desperately needed, the Project for a New American Century is speaking a language which many will find profoundly disturbing.

All over the world, ordinary people are expressing concern about the insidious growth of corporate empire, out of touch with local communities, in a globalised economy. This impersonal force, which can be likened to economic empire, has fundamental links with the United States.

At the same, there is a groundswell of concern about US military goals, that has been demonstrated in repeated opinion polls of ordinary people across the world. Even in the United Kingdom (whose government has supported George Bush on Iraq) 90% of people are opposed to the US taking military action without an international UN mandate.

In contrast, a study of the website at www.NewAmericanCentury.org suggests a world vision of America as a morally-invested nation setting out to impose its New American order upon other countries, whether or not they share the view of the US as a benevolent force for good.

In the coming weeks and months, we set out to investigate the material published in the name of the Project for a New American Century - a term which itself seems to signal a century belonging, not to the world, but to America.

We hope to analyse the doctrines and ideas presented by these influential people, many of them close to the heart of the US administration. We will invite dialogue with any of them. We will invite correspondence from others.

Please note - that this website is an Information site about the Project. It has no links with the Project, and is not passing itself off as the Project. Far from it. We have chosen the .info top level domain to signal our mission and intent to seek information about the Project and its participants.

We do not endorse a New American Century... We endorse a New International Century... A century where sharing and co-operation speaks louder than the dropping of bombs




We are NOT associated with:

www.newamericancentury.org ( This is the Projects web page)

Webmaster: Richard Henderson

Other articles regarding Project for the New American Century

Sierra Times: Titled - Project for the New American Century: The Death of our Republic by Michael Gaddy

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/03/03/gaddy.htm

A letter to the President by William Kristol (founder and chairman of Project for the New American Century

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document092101b.shtml

New You Won't Find on CNN - Information Clearing House RE: Project for the New American Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

Love, Connie

Hi guys

Connie, thanks so much for sharing all that great info! I tried to watch it, but must have had the a similar problem to Maria, there is a channel here that airs ABC stuff, but during newshours it reverts to a local station. So it was awesome to wake up and find all this here!

Two sentances from your description of the show really caused some thoguhts to coalese in my head....

In reply to:

---

They want to bring democracy to all the countries of the Middle East.

---

I have learned alot here from you guys about what exactly, "American Democracy" is. I never really knew that America is a Republic and how that was different than the "tyranny of the masses" that is defind as pure democracy. I think it's a far distinction, and I think it's fair to say that the systems and processes of America's Republic have worked very well for it. Still it strikes me as either sheeer aggorance or maybe just naivity to assume that American style democracy is what these countries need or want. And even Elanorna, who wants Saddam's regime toppeled for the best possible reasons, has said she doesn't think the area is ready for that type of governement. I fear the Iraqi people are going to be liberated from a brutal dictator to be governed by some kind of military junta, which will just be the face and mouthpeace of a more benevolent dictator, Bush. And all we need to do to see that in action is look at Afganistan, which is NOT the success story people claim it to be. Yes, the Taliban is routed, but the power vacuum left by that has seen brutal warlords assume power in the countryside. The only "safe" (and I use that term very loosely) place to be in the entire country is Kabul. They have a "democractically" elected leader - but he was chosen from a roster of candidates put forward by sources outside of the country. Not very democratic. I think this whole plea to bring democracy to the Middle East is nothing more than propaganda, a catch-phrase that appeals to the good natures and kind instincts of the average American, so that they will be more inclined to support the war. I question the motives behind this push though, I question them hard. And I wonder where it ends?

And here's the perfect statement to sum up exactly what kind of democracy this group of people seem to be pushing, "Also, the White House today refused to allow the representative from the Vatican address the press and thus, the nation." Yup, that's exactly the shining style of democracy the world ought to be emulating!

Oh, and btw, I just want to make sure of something: Bush is elected by popular vote. I know that - but how does the VP get into office, he is chosen by the party to be the "running-mate" at the outset of the election? But what say do the people actually have? Or is a vote for the pres a vote for the vp too, as in they are a package? And what about Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, etc...these seniro policy makers? Who votes for them?

Love,
Terri

Hi everyone,

I so wanted to watch this program but I fell asleep!
But I was excited that it is on mainstream TV but wish it would be broadcast at an hour when more people would be awake to watch it.

You know alot of people are giving the French such a hard time but I remember it was the French press who wrote the story that America would HAVE to be in Afghanistan before October 2001 or the multinational bankers would withdraw the funding for that oil pipeline as the region was just to volatile.
That story ran in May 2001.
We needed a Pearl Harbor and we got one.
But I think the vast majority of our people don't WANT to believe this. It is soooo unbearably painful.

All my life I have tried to live by "not judging a book by it's cover" but I just cannot deny that when I look at Cheny and Rumsfeld I see EVIL intent. I see Reagan and GW about the same....easily led men with childlike mentality.
But the ONE person in this mix that I can't get a handle on is Colin Powel. I don't "get" anything from him at all.
How does he strike the rest of you??

Hi Guys

I was up waaaay too late last night reading all this information on the Project for the New American Century. I really was amazed to find so much on the internet regarding this organization since I had not heard one thing about it in the mainline news media . That is not surprising when you consider how much influence and power this organization has. One of the articles that I read said that Fox News is owned by someone who has ties to William Kristol.

This organization, along with the Bush administration has a long game plan laid out and Iraq is only the first round in that plan. Iraq was described by Kristol as the "first" armed conflict, the beginning of many more to follow in order to gain control. Iraq is the ideal stategic launching ground and that is why the U.S. wants control of that country.

Terri you spoke about the elections in the U.S. and as Greg explained to you, the president selects his own cabinet. There is where the danger lies in the possibility of a dictator gaining control of this government. Regarding the election of 2000 there was always doubt and question concerning how Bush attained the office of President. It was no coincidence that it just happened to be his brother Jeb's state that messed up the election returns. Here is a quote from one of the articles I posted here last night:

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

George W. Bush along with his brother Jeb and their father have strong ties to this organization.

This is an outline of the Plan of The Project for the New American Century, which is from the site of the Sierra Times by Michael Gaddy:

The PNAC plan:

Supports a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."

This "American grand strategy" must be advanced for "as far into the future as possible," the report says. It also calls for the US to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission."


1. Refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."

2. Describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

3. Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA.

4. Says "even should Saddam pass from the scene" bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has."

5. Spotlights China for "regime change" saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia". This, it says, may lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratization in China"

6. Calls for the creation of "US Space Forces", to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the Internet against the US. (How long will it be before those of us who oppose this quest for empire, become the "enemy"?)

7. Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: "New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

8. Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command-and-control system."

Regarding this plan Michael Geddy said: " The thoughts brought forth in this document should scare the beejeezus out of anyone who calls him or herself an American."

Terri you also mentioned Afghanistan. This is what Michael Geddy said of that regime:

We call what we seek to impose on the world, democracy. What majority of citizens in Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai to be head of the country? Could it be coincidence Karzai was a former Unocal employee? Is it also coincidence the plan for the oil line across Afghanistan is now being implemented? Could the Taliban have become military opponents of the United States simply because they refused this same pipeline deal with Unocal after being wined and dined in Texas back when Dubya was governor in 1997?

Then Michael Geddy asks these very important questions:

What will become of those here in this country who seek to remain loyal to the Constitution? Will we not become just as much an opposing force to those who seek world domination as those in other countries who do not wish to become American subjects?

How much more of our personal resources will be required to accomplish world domination? How much more of our freedoms?

I agree with you Terri, not all countries want our form of government. Other countries have entirely different backgrounds and especially in the Middle East, long religious traditions. True democratic governments would be those chosen by the people from the candidates of their choice, not the candidates named by the U.S.

Regarding Colin Powell, Peggy, I think he is just a front man being used by the Bush administration because he is popular with the American public. Americans wanted him to run for President. I think he is being sold on the same bill of goods as the American people. Misinformation!

Terri that you did not know that our form of government was a Republic and not a democracy in the true sense of the definition is not something that most Americans know. I didn't know either until jwhop brought it up on a thread and I looked into it. The term "Republic" is not used any longer and it was never mentioned to me all through school. Even the government uses the words Democratic or Democracy when referring to our form of government.

This is all very frightening and now what do we do about it? This organization has to be stopped. I liked what Tommaso Palladini of Milan said as he marched against the war in Iraq with his countrymen: " You fight terrorism by creating more justice in the world."

Love, Connie

"Terri you spoke about the elections in the U.S. and as Greg explained to you, the president selects his own cabinet. There is where the danger lies in the possibility of a dictator gaining control of this government. Regarding the election of 2000 there was always doubt and question concerning how Bush attained the office of President. It was no coincidence that it just happened to be his brother Jeb's state that messed up the election returns. Here is a quote from one of the articles I posted here last night"

Moonflower

You forgot to mention a few things. The Florida vote in the contested districts were recounted, what? 5 times? And that Bush/Cheney won every recount. You also didn't mention that all those districts were under the control of local DEMOCRAT election organizations and that they and not the Governor are responsible for their own voting districts or that for some strange reason, only the elderly in those districts didn't have the strength to punch the chads completely out, or that for some strange reason, only voters in those Democrat districts couldn't read the ballots correctly.

You also failed to mention that Florida election law is set by the Florida Legislature and not the Governor and that strict procedures are laid out by law as to protests of results, timetables for declaring the final results and how recounts are to be handled.

You also failed to mention the 3 boxes of ballots found in the back of a Democrat vehicle--in violation of the law or the ballots hanging out of the pockets of Democrat lawyers--in violation of the law, or the Bush ballots found in the stacks of Gore ballots readied for a hand recount, or the felons barred from voting in Florida who voted for Gore, (by the way, we discovered that felons vote democrat 87% of the time) Next to last, you failed to mention that Gore tried to cheat his way to the White House.

Lastly, any politician who can't win even when he cheats is too incompetent to hold office. If Gore were to run against Bush again, I doubt he could manage 30% of the vote. The events of 9/11 brought home the fact to Americans that a strong leader is needed in the White House and Gore is simply not qualified.

jwhop

Thanks Connie

Although, as you say, this entire document contains enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone who favors the form of government our founding fathers created and that we THINK we're still living under, to me there is one paragraph that is bone-chilling to the marrow: paragraph 7, where it says

In reply to:

---

"...advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

---

Okay, leave aside the obvious question of why our government would continue to need to develop ever more advanced forms of weaponry and warfare even after we have achieved a position of unchallengeable global supremacy, and ponder this -- what conceivable "political use" could a biological weapon that targets "specific genotypes" have? The only use for weapons that target human beings based on specific genetic characteristics is genocide!

These are the published policy aims of the folks who are now running this country! And it's not even being denied ... their "defense" against charges that this is a conspiracy is that they have stated these aims publicly all along!

Hey folks, it's time to call a spade a spade: Saddam is a madman and a brutal enemy of humanity, yes ... but he's a penny-ante amateur compared to the enemy of humanity that now holds the reins of Federal power in the U.S. We must stop these folks in their tracks NOW, or the world is in for a dark ages that will make the first millennium look like a garden party! Yes, that's an alarmist sentiment. It is time to be alarmed. Past time.

Love,
Greg

I agree 110%.

their "defense" against charges that this is a conspiracy is that they have stated these aims publicly all along!

A crime like that is a crime no matter what.

It's the same crime they used against the ones they arrested here in Oregan.

Do you suppose, theroetically of course, that if 39 of my bubbies and me published an intent to kill all of them, that it woulfd be justified when I did it. Do you think they would even read such a publication, thinking it was the rant of madmen.

They are down right insane criminals with their fingers on the triggers, there hands in the til, and a match held to the Constitution. If the Senetors we elected can't see this then they are part of the conspiracy.

The law will get them. It's just a matter of time.
If they know what's good for them, they would start impeachment ASAP.

And tell our troops to Stand Drown!
And bring them home.


I have never seen such moronic thinking from educated, grown men. It has a cerntain intrinsict hint that they are not there for the service of man, but to serve man (up to the sacarficial alter of some delivlish plan, the kind that lurks in the darkest parts of Godless men.)

More shame and sufferage for American History.
How many times and how long will it take to rewrite the write of the might, and make it right?
This one may not even get a chance.

I will lament in song until the hard ed
are finished killing themselves.

Greg, I totally agree with what you and Proxy said about this organization. It definitely has to be stopped. I intend to write my representatives in the House and Congress, call them too. Just as Proxy mentioned, I have been wondering why no one in Congress has stood up and opposed what they must KNOW is going on in Bush administration and the influence of this group on the President. I intend to ask my representatives about this organization to see what their reply may be. On ABC News tonight I got the feeling that Tom Daschel was hinting at this organization when he said that there are those in this administration who do not have the best interest of this country as their agenda. The Republicans out number the Democrats in Congress now which is why Bush was handed a blank check for this war. Bush then proceeded to follow the Project for the New American Century organizations suggestion to the penny of what was needed in the war budget. This is a quote from one of the sites I posted:

"Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP."

Another part of the article reflected what you and Proxy said in your posts:

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."

Why is the world media reporting to it's people about PNAC and the plans of this organization, Bush and his appointee's involvement with PNAC, yet the media in the U.S. is not doing their job of informing the American public? It seems that all our media is doing is helping Bush to promote his war with Iraq.

We have to help get the word out to the American Public about PNAC and their plan for world hegemony. How do we do that? My husband suggested printing out the information about PNAC and posting it on message boards. There are message boards all over the country. We have them in supermarkets, dept. stores, on college campuses, and in work places here in Michigan. Also maybe make up flyers and distribute them? What do you think? There must be other ways as well.

Greg, I found number 7 on that plan list from PNAC chilling too. Genocide can be the only use for those weapons targeting "specific genotypes".

Thank you for the information on the election results in Florida, jwhop. I must be one of the 13% of people who predominently vote Democratic who are not criminals. It appears that those who vote Republican, while they are not criminals themselves, vote the criminals into office. I'm just teasing, because as I said before, Democrats can be criminal too.

Love, Connie

In reply to:

---

7. Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It says: "New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

---

That entire paragraph above is totally taken out of context and has no bearing whatsover on the report. Has anyone read the actual report? I did, out of curiosity and it surely doesn't even imply what the above says.

"Moreover ,there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons'
development and use. In addition, there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries. Nor has there been a serious analysis done
of the benefits versus the costs of maintaining the traditional nuclear "triad." What is constant is based upon two important truths about the current international order. One, the Cold-War standoff between America and its allies and the Soviet Union that made for caution and discouraged direct aggression against the major security interests of either side no longer exists. Two, conventional warfare remains a viable way for aggressive states to seek major changes in the international order. Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait reflected both truths. The invasion would have been highly unlikely, if not impossible, within the context of the Cold War, and Iraq overran Kuwait in a matter of hours. These two truths revealed a third: maintaining or restoring a favorable order in vital regions in the world such as Europe, the Middle East and East Asia places a unique responsibility on U.S. armed forces. The Gulf War and indeed the subsequent lesser wars in the Balkans could hardly have been fought and
won without the dominant role played by American military might.

"Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack - electronic, "non-lethal," biological - will be more widely available."

And the paragraph below is simply a theoretical conjecture into the future of possibilites, not something planned or to take effect. It is simply their reasonings why there should be an increase in military spending since our military was beginning to suffer from lack of funding, done by Clinton, I might add. 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.

"Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and "combat" likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, "cyber-space," and perhaps the world of microbes. Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers' pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater.Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems - combatants and noncombatants -will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation,
not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military preeminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that U.S. forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intel-operational concepts - designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defense program - to maximize the capabilities that already exist. But these
must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thorough going transformation."


Bill Kristol is a regular contributer and political contributer on Fox News Channel. He is not any of the things said about him in above posts. He is not evil, nor is he trying to start any evil program to take over anything.

Hi Donna

Thanks for posting that. I saw it too but some people will see it and place the most extreme interpretation on it, being predisposed to do so.

I though Kristol laid it out straight. If there's going to be peace in the world, someone is going to have to lead and it won't be the bungling, bumbling, incompetent UN.

There are two ways of looking at things. America's detractors want to pull America down to their level. America wants to raise other countries up and has been doing so at our expense for years. America's detractors scream that foreign workers don't make as much as American workers doing the same jobs but those jobs were exported to those nations to build up their economies and give their workers jobs. Jobs that pay more than they would make working for a home grown employer and jobs they line up for. It costs America nearly a half trillion dollars a year in balance of trade payments to have those products made elsewhere. Those are dollars flowing out of America, out of our economy and into another.

But none of that is going to matter nor will anyone gain from letting a bunch of petty dictators or radical Islamic terrorists or any other kind set the world on fire.

Nor is anyone pulling the President's chain as some continue to insist. Nor is the President a tyrant who wants to rule the world. He is the most powerful man in the world now. He could pick up the phone to every leader in the world tomorrow and tell them to stand down and they know if push came to shove, he could make it stick.

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.

The issue was biologicals, non lethal biologicals. So, now we have the very same people who say they are against killing attacking a plan that calls for the development and deployment of weapons that only incapacitate instead of killing. Go figure.

jwhop

Hi Donna,

Except for the fact that Kristol was on ABC's Nightline and said he was the main guy the wrote the plan to oust most of the Arab rulers by military force and install psudeo democratcies.

Maybe he didn't really mean it?
Because when asked about the conditions of the people to substain a democratcy such a unfeed half crazed religiously brainwashed people he said somelike, OH!

It amazes me, no, astoishes me, no overwhelms me, how a person on a spiritual site doing Astrology, that is a self proclaimed heatheren anti-christ working for a self proclaimed atheist con man can come out in support for a polictical wordly spin docter and say he is a nice guy.

Interesting value system you have?


Love and tick, tick, tick,
Darwin

This is an article concerning PNAC from the Atlanta Journal - Constitution by Jay Bookman. At this site you can also access more information and download the PNAC report.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

This, along with Nightline, are mainline news sources. Everyone can't be wrong about PNAC. While the flag wavers who consider themselves the true patriots and everyone who disagrees with them are un-American, the rest of us will try to save this country and have it represent what it always has represented in the world. The U.S. has always been a beacon in a dark world. I refuse to let a bunch of self-proclaimed neo-conservatist butt wipes and war mongers take this country down. I refuse to let them put a match to the Constitution and take away my rights in the name of security or anything else.

Donna, is that just your opinion of Mr.Kristol or do you know him personally? Because if it is just your opinion what makes you think you are right and our opinion, along with a lot of newspaper reporters and others, is wrong?

I agree, Proxy. It also amazes me that spiritual people would think that it is okay to blow people up and force our form of government on them. How does that make this country, this administration any different than Hussein? And is more deaths going to even the score for 9/11? The people who are so hot on this war are also people who do not forgive their enemies and seek revenge instead in their personal lives. How many deaths will it take to even the score for 9/11? How many people have to die to satisfy that revenge?

Love, Connie

You better check out your information about all that money those workers in other countries are making, jwhop. You must have been or are a CEO.

Connie

Hi guys, I'll have some more insights to contribute to this in the morning ... we had a major power outage here and I've been kicked out all evening!

In the meantime, though, let me please ask everyone to keep it cool ... I think we've been doing a pretty good job of discussing some issues with MAJOR consequences and MAJOR emotional attachments without letting it turn personal, and that's been really useful and productive, so let's please keep it that way. Proxy, although I happen to agree with your assessment of the issues here completely, Donna is a member of our community, a fellow seeker and a human being ... nothing is served by calling her "a self proclaimed heatheren anti-christ working for a self proclaimed atheist con man." That's neither accurate nor appropriate to the mutual respect that community discussion requires. It's just personal insults which - remember? - are not allowed here.

Thanks.

More tomorrow, gang.

Love,
Greg

moonflower

You are not going to save the United States by tearing it down nor will you save a single life in the world by your antiwar, anti America stance. What you will do is embolden those who would kill with impunity, enslave their people and set the stage for a far larger war that will kill far more people.

Nor am I impressed by you posting some airhead's interpretation of what a report means or what anything means for that matter. I think for myself and don't need the Dan's, Peter's or Tom's of the world to 'splain what it all means to me, and I wish you didn't either. I sure don't need anyone from the Atlanta Journal Constitution to interpret for me. Just what exactly makes you think reporters have the inside scoop on the truth. In reality, they're mostly politically driven hitmen and women attempting in every way to sensationalize common every day events to sell newspapers and increase revenues from advertising by enlarging circulation. There's little truth there. They are not seekers of truth or bastions of freedom and have abandoned the honored "who" "what" "where" and "when" to put their spin on events by supplying a "why", something they know absolutely nothing about.
Besides which, according to your conspiracy theory, they're part of the conspiracy. So, why do you quote them?

As for your question, does Donna know Bill Kristol personally, the same would apply to you and anyone else who judges his honesty or integrity. So, do you know Bill Kristol personally?

Again, you compare our government to Saddam Hussein. It's becoming increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously or anyone else who would make such a radical moral equivalent.

jwhop

Jwhop,

I don't really care if my posts don't impress you. I am not here to impress you. I am not anti-American simply because I do not worship George W. Bush the way you do. Unlike you, I can distinguish the difference between this country and the president. I am not tearing this country down. I am not tearing your hero down either. I just don't like the way he and his cronies are running the government. There is a difference you know between the president and this country. He was not elected by the popular vote if you recall so does it surprise you that others don't worship him as you do? We stopped bowing to monarchies a long time ago. At least most of us did. Just because you, along with your emperor think that blowing up the world solves everything that does not mean that anyone who disagrees with war as the answer to everything is un-American. You can kiss Bush's feet but I'm not going to do that.

Anyone who does not hold the same view as you do is an airhead and wrong. So it does not surprise me that you deem those reporters airheads. While I still have any Constitutional rights left I am going to voice my opinion about George Bush rather you like it or not. Doing that does not make me un-American. Kissing feet and bowing is your thing, not mine.

Respect is something that has to be earned. It doesn't come along with a title or anything else. George W. Bush has to earn respect the same as everyone else. In this morning's paper he is quoted as saying, "We don't need anyone's permission..." God has spoken, so be it.

George W. Bush obviously doesn't care about the people in this country because the unemployment rate keeps going up, states are having to cut school funding, hospitals are having to cut staff, the corporations keep raping the economy. The list of woes in this country under his administration keeps mounting while he beats the war drum. Oh yeah, I forgot, killing people is the way to help the economy. One more thing, as long as Bush acts like Hussein I will keep comparing him to Hussein. They both want to dominate the world. Some people can't handle power without going overboard and wanting more and more power. I think Mr. Bush comes under that category.

Love and Peace, Connie

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

Hi Woody

I agree with your post. In today's paper it stated that the first month of the war is going to cost $10 billon and every month after that it will cost $5 billion. While all the tax payers money is being dumped into a war, states are struggling, unemployment continues to rise, education for our children suffers, and health care ,as you stated, suffers. We are going to spend billions and billions of dollars building up Iraq after the take over. If Bush does not care about the condition and the people he governs in his own country, why would anyone in their right mind think he really cares about the people in Iraq or any place else in the world?

You are also absolutely correct in saying that governments want to keep the majority of the population down. That is so the rich and powerful can control. It creates a cache system. That we even have homeless people in America should shame the government. That our cities are in such shambles and our streets are unsafe ought to shame the government as well. We need to clean up our own backyard before we go policing the world. How are these people going to police the world when they can't even police their own country?

Love, Connie

Darwin, 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.

...if the shoe fits....

FWIW I didn't make my post in reference to anything you said to Donna, because so much of what you have been coming out with lately is utter drivel, and I ignore it when you are being like that. I was more concerned with getting Connie and Jwhop back on track with each other since their dialouge has been at least thought-provoking. I went back and re-read your post to Donna though, and you were pretty mean. But what you just said to Rainbow has to be the most insulting thing you have said to anyone here. Totally uncalled for, totally judgemental, totally disrespectful of the definition of "spiritual" that you profess to know so much about.

Love,
Terri

RBAY, Dear,

Rainbow's histroy speaks for it's self. She is more out of line that anyone on the site and you all baby her because she is an old woman.

The whole starting point of her growing investation of total irrational posts was because Greg's restriction on natureal karama to take it's dur course.

I for one refuse to be so mean as to Rainbow as to support her dysfunctional and co-dependentcy with pats on the head. Most young people treat old peolpe like kitty cats. Rainbow and me know what were about and I don't need a punk to tell me how to talk to a mature woman with an attitude. So buss off, baby Jane. I'm sick of your hair triggered vengengce. Take a close look at your Saturn Cancer and maybe you can get a clue.

Love and what ever,
Darwin

Now it's my turn to ask everyone to please stop fighting. We are supposed to be anti-war.

Prox, Rainbow is not an old woman. It's a proven fact that Native Americans don't show their age like white folk do. I find Rainbow to be a very sensitive, compassionate, and caring person and she has a lot to say.

I agree with Proxy though when he made the point that no one made anyone leave. It was Donna and Joy's choice to leave. It will be their choice to come back or not.

What some people have to try and remember is that at a spiritual site they are going to be outnumberd a bit when the subject regards war and killing. Prox made a good point there too, in his own way. I am not patting you on the head either Prox, cause remember, I'm older than you.

Let's put this all aside and get back on the track.

Love, Connie

Hey Proxy....(you "young" whipper snapper, you!).....I might be old...... BUT I STILL GOT MY OWN HAIR! ! ! !

Lookie at yew...



I'm not sure how old YOU are, but it doesn't look like you've drunk from the fountain of youth, anytime, lately...or the fountain of intelligence either, for that matter...

...and what the hell are you picking on me for? I had hoped that we had gotten beyond our "clashing auras" of the past.....but obviously not....

How do you get off, talking to me like that? Who the hell do you think you are?

Mr. Clean? Mr. Rightous? Mr. all American and decent? ?......Well I've got news for any newer knowflakes here who might have been taken in by you, because I know better!!! (tho I've had the decency [til now]to try and over look it).......

........ but I haven't forgotten a very disgusting post you made awhile back, about a young teen aged girl next door, giving us a very blatant, and explicit discription of how you were LUSTING for her as you watched her every move, with your wicked, sick, unhealthy desires...talk about a dirty old man ! ! !

You baldy, are the one who needs the help....

(Greg, I know we're supposed to keep the peace here, but I cannot allow that cocky know it all, to be allowed to get away with the arrogant things he's said about me, without justification...and I shouldn't even let it bother me since HE'S REALLY A NOTHING! A NOTHING! PERIOD!)

...and oh yeah Proz, while I'm at it...you need to get a clue....TAKE SOME SPELLING LESSONS....

Darwin, I have had it with your insults to people, and it will end here and now.

I like you and I often agree with a lot of what you have to say ... although I disagree with a lot of it too, and that's neither here nor there. None of us are asked to agree with anyone here, but everyone is asked to be civil to everyone else here, agree or disagree, and you have flat refused to do that, over and over again.

In the last few posts you have not only lambasted Donna as an "anti-Christ" for holding beliefs that differ from yours (and how, exactly, does that differ from fundamentalist Islamic terrorists calling those with different view than theirs "great Satans?") - in the very same posts where you claim that you are not guilty of "name calling," you have called Joyce a dime a dozen Diva and a belligerant narrow-minded know-nothing; you have called Randall, who also doesn't even post here any more, a con-man and dismissed his beliefs as a phony act; you have called Rainbow a co-dependent dysfunctional old woman who needs professional help; and have called Terri a punk with a hair triggered vengeance while telling her to "buzz off, baby Jane." No name-calling there, huh?

In reply to:

---

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.

---

I didn't put any of those words in your mouth, Darwin, I took them directly from your last two posts. Go look for yourself.

In reply to:

---

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.

---

I think this is the real crux of the matter, Darwin: you clearly believe that YOU are qualified to speak for God, and you can't stand it if anyone doesn't accept "The Word of God According to Darwin." Over and over again on threads far too numerous to collect and quote here you have TOLD us what God's will is, and accused anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of one particular scripture (the Christian Bible) of being ignorant and ego-driven. Don't forget, my friend, that Linda Goodman, in whose name this site was originally founded, in addition to finding great value and inspiration in the Christian scriptures ALSO built much of her philosophy and teachings on Eastern religion, Goddess religion, Native American spirituality, alchemical and hermetic metaphysical teachings and other "heathen" concepts that the Church used to burn people alive for expressing ... and even founded her own "nature spirit" religion caled Mannu. Fact is nobody is qualified to speak for God except through the inner understandings of their own higher s-elves, and everybody is entitled to do that ... everyone is entitled express their own beliefs about God without being dissed and accused of being "heathen Anti-Christs" by other community members.

My apologies to all for expressing this with anger, but I AM angry that intolerant self-righteousness takes precedence over tolerance and compassion and plain simple human kindness far too often when we discuss subjects that we disagree on. I'm sorry that you think the source of the problems here is "because Greg's restriction on natureal karama to take it's due course," but I don't happen to believe that tolerating personal insults and hurtful personal put-downs has anything to do with "allowing natural karma to take its due course." You're free to disagree with that, and you're free to take your energy to another site that DOESN'T have that policy; but this one does, and you're NOT free to ignore it. You can play according to the rules here or you can take your insults and intolerance somewhere where the discussion policy is more in line with your own preferences, but you CANNOT stay here and continue to insult and put down other members.

Yes, war and killing are on the way out in this coming Aquarian age; either that, or the human species is on the way out. But if you think that peace is only about not dropping bombs you are sadly mistaken ... the bullets and bombs are not the cause of war; they are the logical outcome of an intolerant mindset that holds and expresses contempt for others who have different beliefs or worldviews. For the LAST time, that is not allowed here. If you or anyone else is not willing to accept and honor that principle in interactions with others on this site, then go somewhere else.

Love,
Greg

Terri......and Connie.......in my utter horror and disbelief at the unwarranted attack on me, by one, Darwin, I completely forgot to thank both of you for standing up for me...*sigh* I really do appreciate it....thanks....(I could chalk it all up to a bad hair day, on Darwin's part.....butcha gotta have hair first........oh! that was a low blow...)

And I want to thank you too, Greg.........(and I do realize I wasn't the ONLY ONE who was targeted with his dispicable slimy venom, altho he DID say I was the worst one of all)....*sigh*....

......and I realize that I have stooped to his level in my explosive retaliation to his cutting remarks, but that guy can test the mettle of even the most evolved MARS IN SCORPIO....

Luv,
Rainbow

(echos from the Good Book keep ringing in my ears...do onto others...turn the other cheek...forgive them, for they know not what they do........Well...maybe in time...)

Greg,

In reply to:

---

Yes, war and killing are on the way out in this coming Aquarian age; either that, or the human species is on the way out. But if you think that peace is only about not dropping bombs you are sadly mistaken ... the bullets and bombs are not the cause of war; they are the logical outcome of an intolerant mindset that holds and expresses contempt for others who have different beliefs or worldviews.

---

Exactly!

Love, Connie P.S. How do I get the quote in the box? Tried many times but could not do it. Oh well, you know what I mean anyway.

Rainbow,

Love, Connie

I thought this place is called Conscious Evolution!
It is starting to be more like Controlled Evolution!
What ever happened to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Expression, Openess to All Posibilities where we can and are suppose to learn how to react to help ourselves to evolve spiritually in all facets of Spirituality...beliefs, communications, thoughts, emotions, how to find the balance of thoughts and emotions/mind and heart, interactions to evolve to our higher existance?

Rainbow , deep inside, I know you are a sweet, loving and caring person and I like you and I'm sorry and sympathize that you felt attacked, but in my defense for Darwin's integrity (Darwin, I'm not trying to speak for you), I feel it unfair that you have brought out in the open a discussion from many threads back that is only partial to what went on with the discussion. I am assuming that it was the Astrological Story about Darwin's 6th house Interpretation which looks shocking for those who doesn't know Darwin. Unfortunately later on the thread, another knowflake interpreted it differently. We all know Darwin, whether we want to admit it or not, he knows how to dig deep within our psyche which brings the worst out from most of us, but aren't we here to learn to know how to deal with the worst in us? Darwin is also learning from all of everyone else's responses to his posts with what and how he is to communicate his strong beliefs and emotions (slow down ). To set things straight, here is the link to the Story "For The Truthseekers (WTC info)" ... http://consciousevolution.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=44222&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

I may not know most of you personally, but I do care and feel respect, connection, strong bond and love to you all and this site. Please, let us all try to be more understanding, forgiving and compassionate towards each other and please stop trying to bring each other down.

For everyone's info, Darwin IS a good man however cutting his words may be.

Cristina, I love and respect you, but I must respectully take exception to your implication that by forbidding personal insults on this site I am somehow compromising the principle of free speech.

Free speech means that no one shall be muzzled by coercive (e.g. governmental) force and laws from expressing any thoughts or ideas, as long as that expression does not bring about tangible and unjustified harm to another. It does NOT mean that anyone should be permitted to say anything anywhere.

A visitor in your living room absolutely does not have the right to call you and your daughters Satanist sluts with impunity, and if you ask him to desist and he refuses you absolutely DO have the right to kick him out of your house. Nor are you an enemy of free speech if you do so.

Publications absolutely DO have a right to set their own editorial policy. A "pro-life" advocate ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to demand to be allowed to call "pro-choice" advocates dirty names in a publication produced by reproductive rights advocates. A gun control advocate ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to demand that his view that gun owners promote murder be published in a sport shooting magazine. A neo-Nazi ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to demand that his opinion that Jews are genetically inferior scum be freely expressed on a Jewish website.

And a person who wishes to call other members heathen anti-Christs, dime a dozen divas, phoney con men, and codependent old women in need of professional help ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to do so on a spiritual website where such personal insults are explicitly prohibited by the website's policy!

I too feel it was unfortunate that Rainbow felt moved to reach back to old occurrences from the past to defend herself from an attack she should never have experienced to begin with ... and this is exactly what is wrong with allowing personal insults on a discussion forum. It never ends: someone is attacked, and they retaliate, and someone else jumps in and throws insults at the first one, and the next thing you know, we have EXACTLY the situation that has just occurred on this thread: namely, the whole discussion has been lost, nobody's even talking about the subject of the thread anymore, everyone is just battling about insults and personal characteristics and attacking and defending each others' mode of expression.

That's not what this website is for. It IS counterproductive and harmful to peaceful and productive discussions, and I DO have the right to prohibit it, and I HAVE prohibited it since this website first came into existence nearly five years ago. If people want to participate in a no-holds-barred everything-goes argumentative and insulting discussion forum, I have no problem with that at all, and there are plenty of them on the internet. But this is not one of them, and I will not be told that I must allow such behavior in the name of "free speech."

In reply to:

---

Please, let us all try to be more understanding, forgiving and compassionate towards each other and please stop trying to bring each other down.

---

EXACTLY!

In reply to:

---

For everyone's info, Darwin IS a good man however cutting his words may be.

---

Yes, I believe that Darwin is a good man too, and I am very often deeply impressed by his insight, amused by his humor, and uplifted by his humanity. But none of those things make it okay for him to wantonly insult other members in DEFIANCE of our rules here, and no matter how good a person he is, if he persists in absolutely refusing to treat others with respect HE WILL BE BANNED.

Love,
Greg

Hi Everyone,

Sorry for being overly sensitive, I am usually able to
contain myself better. I admit to Sun Cancer senstivity
and Leo Moon pride. So, yes, I was hurt and impulsively posted after reading Connie's reply... " I agree, Proxy. It also amazes me that spiritual people would..." which she later explained in another post. And to add fuel to the hurt, that question about my opinion of Bill Kristol, well, I was devastated, especially since she posts her opinions all the time. I could do the same, I watch Fox News daily and see Bill Kristol all the time, I have a different take on him, so I could post extremely long excerpts from the "right" in equal reply to the "left" extremely long posts. I choose not to, because in reality, I understand those who believe one way will not be swayed by those who believe another.

It is just that I had one of those "aha", "Eureka" moments
when I read the report and saw that one sentence was taken from page 8 and the other sentence was taken from page 59
and put together in that #7 paragraph. That is all. It is things
like that which lead to the spin in politics that really bother me.

I thought I would enter the discussion, with a different view, as I usually avoid confrontational issues. I would rather read and learn before I venture into the political arena, I am not a political science major. My recent interest in politics only began since the election and 9/11. I have two nepews in the military, they may never live their full lives. One has a 6 month old baby, the other has a baby due in July. I don't want a war for any reason, but they are two good reasons to cause me great discomfort from a personal viewpoint.

I don't work for Randall, I was asked to assist on a voluntary
basis, as time permits, nothing more, nothing less. And I really enjoy it, simply because it spurs me to keep up with my astrological learning.

I will just stay out of the political discussion. I love this site and the wonderful members here. Greg you are my other hero, and there isn't a more loving, intelligent, caring human being than yourself.

And Rainbow, you rock!! You just keep on being your wonderful, caring self. Don't ever change, you are fine the way you are!

Proxy, I hold no hard feelings toward you.

Jwhop, thanks, I try to live up to the meaning of my name, sometimes, well, sometimes it isn't easy, LOL.

Donna

Hi Donna

I'm very happy to see you back. I want to say that just from the things you said in your post I can tell that you are indeed a very caring and loving person. It doesn't matter what a person's religion is or even if they don't have any religion. What matters is how much they love and care for others and how they live their lives. I think you fit the bill of being a very spiritual person just for that reason.

Again, great to see you back and I hope you keep sharing your opinions. I'm truly sorry about the misunderstanding. Actually jwhop set me straight on that question I asked you when he said it could apply to my opinion about Mr. Kristol as well. And you know what? He was right. So any time you feel I am out of line just let me know like jwhop does. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, painful as it is.

Love, Connie

Hi Greg,

I see your point and I take it with respect and understanding. I love and respect you too and what you are trying to accomplish with the site. I respect that with all my heart.

In reply to:

---

I must respectully take exception to your implication that by forbidding personal insults on this site I am somehow compromising the principle of free speech.

---

I am not implying that at all and I'm not stating that you allow insults nor am I implying that you are compromising the principle of free speech. I feel that you have misinterpreted my point. I know that you are very protective of everyone and the site, I don't hold that wrong, you love and care passionately for everyone and CE, it isn't easy to satisfy and make everyone happy, I admire that. I just think that insults only becomes an insult when someone takes it in as an insult rather than a statement of the other to get a specific point across, to think over and respond in an evolved way (just like jwhop and moonflower, and you and jwhop). Yes, sometimes I do see situations going to the extreme, not by one, but others too, but then they resolve it within themselves... they evolve. I am not talking about free speech as you said, I'm talking about "Freedom" to evolve, which include all those I have mentioned above as one. We are not a specific organization or publication to a specific physical cause. We are all spirits trying to rise above ourselves, to evolve above our fears, anger, weaknesses, faults and negativity. If we don't confront them or have the freedom to cause for us to confront them, then how do we do it. I have kept a lot of my thoughts and opinions to myself for "FEAR" of what I have to confront and "FEAR" of myself, telling myself I don't have time for this as an excuse. A cause was set up with what I thought is happening (maybe I caused it for myself). Now I am face with it to confront (what your reaction is to what I felt). It's my step up to evolving. Darwin is here for the same reason, just like all of us are, to resolve issues within himself so he too (his spirit) can have a chance to evolve. He can't do it alone, I can't do it alone, I'm sure most of us can't do it alone either, we are all here for each other, we need each other to interact to learn how to rise above ourselves, confront our negative selves and turn it around to make it closer for us to reach our higher selves.

Hi Libra

I don't mean to butt in here, because I know this is between you and Greg. But just now reading your post I think I know what you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong though because I don't want to be putting words into your mouth.

What I think you mean is that even in the negative interchanges we have have with others, or even the negative things that happen in our lives can be a source of spiritual growth for us if we think about it and also see where we are at fault rather than just blaming the other person. It is in our relationships with others that we come to truly know ourselves. We can't truly know ourselves if we only look at the good things about us that people point out but we also have to look at the bad parts as well that people point out to us. It is said, and I agree, that it is much easier to see the faults in others than it is to see the faults in ourselves. Our first instict is to defend and deny when someone points out our faults. That comes from the ego. But we really need to look at what others point out because it is the only way to come to know our true self. Then, not hate those negative things about ourselves, but instead, work at ridding ourselves of those things. No one is perfect and we all have faults, but then, none of us are finished products either.

Love, Connie

Hi Connie,

Yes, Thank you, that is exactly what I feel. You've put my thoughts and feelings in far better words than I have. I'm glad you understood. We are all part of another as much they are a part of us.

Greg.........I'm sorry!

I know you expected more from me......
.
.....you expected me to show a little class and dignity.......
grace under pressure...

....forebearance..... tolerance.....

...and the ability to rise above every extremely hurtful insult Darwin spewed out at me!

And I let you down, with my angry and impulsive MARS IN SCORPIO IN THE FIRST HOUSE, vengence!!!!!

....again, I'm sorry...

I don't know what I did to provoke him.....(notice that he was not specific in his accusations....just like the first time).....but for him to attack me out of the blue (when my contribution to this thread amounted to very little in the first place and then it was not "dis" ing anyone except maybe Bill Kristol, whom I'm sure doesn't post on these forums).... So, for him to out and out attack me for no good reason at all, was as you said, uncalled for....totally unjustified!

........and Cristina......in spite of what you might have been trying to accomplish by posting that thread where Dawrin made his obscene remarks about the young girl, I do thank you for doing it....because even tho it was a "story" written by him, the obscenity in his story, was not something that a lot of us wanted to see on this forum......which proves to be prefectly obvious, as one follows the thread...

Also the whole revealing thread unfolds showing how he attacked me the first time, without provocation! . It was "out of the blue" just like this time.....and he also did not come up with evidence "showing" me where I'd done the things he claimed I did, even though I challenged him to show me....I want proof when I'm accused of something of which I'm not guilty!

So if your intent in bringing up that thread was to show that Darwin is a man of integrity, I don't think it worked......I think that once again, it was a thread showing his true colors....

......and yes Cris, I'll admit I probably used "unfair" fighting tactics, in fighting back........but I was matching that man blow, for low blow! Just like any "unevolved" Scorpio would do....

Chris....you say, "He knows how to dig deep within our psyche, which brings the worst out from most of us, but aren't we here to learn and know how to deal with the worst in us?"

What I want to know, is who assigned that job to him???? God knows there is enough out there to challenge us, as we try to evolve along our spiritual path every day, so we surely don't need Darwin here also testing us.......it was my thought that we are here for peace and love and understanding.....and when someone comes in and tries to thwart that....I don't think it's contributing anything toward our spiritual growth....

This man seems to take delight in calling me dysfunctional....which I probably am....and old, which I probably am (in the company of the likes of Annette Funicello, Connie Stevens, Mary Tyler Moore and Suzanne Pleshette....[a bunch of dwadling old ladies are we] ) ....and as long as he's hitting low, I wonder why he didn't dog me for also having high blood pressure, cancer and diabetes....(the cancer is in the past...but I DID have it and I think that makes me a naughty lady too, according to Garp)......makes about as much sense....

I've probably said far too much, even though there is a lot more I'd like to say...*sigh* (oh btw, I think it was my many *sighs* that got to good old Dar)....

Frankly, I hope I'm done...

Luv,
Rainbow

Donna, Cristina, Connie and Rainbow,

Thank you all for your loving replies and your affirmation of the value of working together to help one another grow spiritually. As individual human beings there will always be differences in our approaches to that growth (if there weren't, I suppose we'd already be there! ), but as long as we have a common purpose I believe we'll always find a way around whatever the difficulties and miscommunications may be.

Donna, if you want to steer clear of the political discussions I can hardly blame you. But I do think there is real value in stepping in to offer a viewpoint that you think has been missed, because unquestionably there are MANY alternate ways of looking at all these things, and the more we see the perceptions of others the better off we are, whether those perceptions "change our mind" about our beliefs or not. And I also believe that everyone here is emotionally and spiritually honest enough to actually CHANGE our minds if a viewpoint we hadn't previously considered makes clear and compelling sense. Perhaps not our core beliefs about fundamental values, but there are MANY assumptions we all have that could stand to be challenged and re-examined, and in the process of doing so we stand to gain at the VERY least a degree of empathy and seeing through the others' eyes which is a huge step above simply assuming that those who disagree with us are inexplicably ignorant or ill-willed. Anyway, thanks for being you!

Cristina, thanks for your clarification. I probably DID jump too quickly to assume you were suggesting that disallowing personal insults was a violation of free speech - I'm sensitive to the issue because I've heard that complaint quite a number of time from one side or the other (often both!) when feuds and arguments have come up on the site and I've invoked that policy to restore the peace rather than letting folks continue to verbally slug it out.

I do understand - and agree - that we learn from unpleasant confrontations as well as from smoother and happier exchanges. But there is a balancing act involved, because the unrestrained exchange of insults and anger can, and often DOES, lead in directions that take us AWAY from healing and growing ... and my long experience with discussion forums on the web has convinced me that when hostile exchanges are allowed to continue unchecked they bring about changes to the character of the forums that is actually harmful to all: the less confrontive and more sensitive folks tend to just leave rather than stand toe-to-toe with an agressive energy that feels hurtful or intimidating to them, while more aggressive and argumentative elements are attracted to the discussions, and the whole character of the site shifts away from the spiritual vibe that it its reason for being toward a contentious and competitive energy.

Now there's nothing "wrong" with contentious and competitive energy per se, it is surely a part of life ... but at this point in time it is MY perception at least that there is a HUGE overbalance in the direction of aggressive, confrontive energy in the world ... and I believe with all my heart that a critical survival skill for humanity at this point in time is learning to shift that balance more toward the cooperative and empathetic end of the scale. For that to happen, there have to be SOME places of refuge from hostility and confrontation, simply to give us room to LEARN the subtler skills of "agreeing to disagree" with respect and goodwill, otherwise the energy that is louder, more black-and-white, and in some ways more "natural" to us who have grown up in this extremely competitive and confrontive world, will ALWAYS end up drowning out and driving away the less agressive elements. Just the nature of the beast. That's why I've established the "no personal insults" rule here, and why I feel so strongly that it is my duty to enforce it with more than lip service. I don't think it's unfair to ask everyone here to abide by this rule while "in this house," especially when everyone who signs up to post here agrees to abide by the rules as a condition of registration.

Certainly I recognize that we're all human and we all get carried away at times, especially when we are discussing subjects we are passionate about. But if someone INTENDS to cooperate with the policy, a reminder should be sufficient when someone gets carried away. I don't have any problem with that. What I have a problem with is when someone indulges in personal attacks and insults over and over and over again, no matter how many warnings or friendly reminders are forthcoming. That says to me that the person has no intention of following the policy, and yes that does anger me, and no, it is NOT fair to the others on the site who rightfully expect this place to be the safe haven from attack and aggressive confrontation that it is "advertised" to be.

In this case, I feel that Darwin is deliberately taking advantage of the fact that he knows I like him and value his presence, and will be very reluctant to ban him ... so he uses that perceived "weakness" on my part to basically thumb his nose at the no insults policy, and I think that's very unfair to me personally AS WELL as the other members of the forum. Hey, a rule is a rule ... we don't have very many of them here, and whoever is not comfortable with this one doesn't have their arm twisted to ageree with it and become a member here. I don't see any reason why anyone should be "humored" to the extent of flagrantly ignoring it whenever he wants to lash out at someone. That, to me, shows a real disrespect for ALL of the rest of us ... and it does do real damage to the site and the community.

Anyway, enough, enough, enough ... I hope.

Love,
Greg

GREG............



LUV,
RAINBOW

Donna.......I am another one who is happy to see you back......and thanks for the support....it is so much appreciated.....

You speak of your Cancer Sun sensitivity.... I can really
relate to that....FIVE water signs in my natal chart....one of them being my Pisces Moon....so I've been thin skinned all my life...

But at least we feel...... Better than to be insensitive, I say....

Glad you're back, girl...please post more often...

Luv,
Rainbow

Hugs to you, {{{ Donna }}}. I'm another one who loves to know you're here. I feel really solid about your good heart. And I was wondering if I should mention earlier that if you and Connie had met on a different thread, you'd have hit it off great from the start.

Not that there's really all that much great about hitting it off right from the start. Hitting it off later after a clash at first is cool too.

Hugs {{{ Rainbow }}}. The onsite pretend psychologist are at it again, eh? I find that when amateurs think they're qualified to give psychiatric diagnoses using the labels out of the medical manual it's almost always a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or even the pot calling the garden hoe black. I've been diagnosed here by Sabra, my friend/not friend/friend again here and now unless he gets mad at me for this -- which IS NOT my intention, Eran . His diagnosis, while he was mad at me and behaving meanly (hey, it's true) was quickly followed up by the even funnier, more ironic, far more pot-calling-the-garden-hoe-black diagnosis by the ever-highly-opinionated, utterly anonymous Aries. In nearly every case, I believe, those heat-of-battle pseudo-psychiatric diagnoses of very specific terminology based on message board chatter are far more telling about the person who said them than about the person they're calling "black." Ya know? "It has to be you..." Cuz otherwise it might be them.

{{{Proxy, jwhop and Sabra}}} -- when you are good you are very very good, and when you are bad you are horrid. Whaddya mean, me too?

Hugs {{{Terri}}}. You took an undeserved hit. And, just to let you know, I'm really not trying to restart an argument with Aries, just giving her my delayed, considered reaction after all these weeks. Indirectly, I admit, but that's the context it came up in, so I'll have to let it suffice. Love you, and as always very much admire your even-handedness and spirit and caring.

{{{Cristina}}} -- You are a very kind person. And I appreciate your perspective into the dynamics of conscious evolution in the setting of our internet "reality show" kind of thing we've got going on here. (jwhop is going to think I'm a communist for mentioning this website in the context of a TV reality show...unrelated as communism may seem to the topic at hand.) Anyway, I do appreciate the way you frame what goes on. I just want to raise the point about being careful that you don't cross into that iffy, icky territory of "blaming the victim." You know, like a rape victim... Was she asking for it? Proxy lashes out at someone, someone gets hurt...so it's that person's fault for feeling insulted when Proxy levels a rank insult at them??? Gotta watch that tendency society builds into us. (And which some of the New Age thought, unleavened by real-life experience, can promote.)

When Proxy flaunts his mean streak he asks a lot from us, in terms of active forebearance and love, which takes energy. I'd have to say he built up enough goodwill with me, in his last few weeks of interactions, that I've got the love and forebearance for him at this point to say I'm really glad Greg gave him "one last chance," which is not the first time Greg has said that to Darwin.

I'm no doubt one of his dime-a-dozen divas who says Fu Yu and then goes for a walk when people on the board start getting too damn pissy. Because you know what? There's enough pissy people in everybody's life. Why you gonna go seek some out online in your off hours?

OK I love this place. I love the knowflakes. And to absent friends and absent former friends and absent future friends, {{{hugs}}}.

Love,
Maria

Maria, No, none of the iffy, icky territory of "blaming the victim." You know, like a rape victim...
Was she asking for it? type thing ...it's pointless without resolution, everyone gets hurt and non constructive.

Rainbow, I can definitely relate to the thin skin.

Connie, that was very nice of you. We both seem full of passion for humanity, and that is a good thing.

Christine, I agree so much with your thinking on evolving spiritually. One of the most important things for me, is to always remember it is OK to not like the action, but never the person. I think, we as humans, often react to the action, not the person.

Greg, that is the nicest thing anyone ever said to me, about me being me, I mean. Sometimes I wish I wasn't me,

I will say this current situation in world affairs certainly has all of us on edge. Passions are increased and concern is accelerated. We all want the best for humanity and beginning here with each other is a good place to start.

Love Always Prevails

Donna

Maria, it takes me forever to write my post, you must have been writing and posting till I got mine done.

Thanks for the hug, it most welcome.

You make me laugh, we are quite a motley crew, said in the most loving way.

Love,
Donna

Donna, you seem like a very sensitive and gentle person, and everyone here at the site
have great respect and look upon you highly, thank you.

Okay.....I'm blind.... I can't see it!....

For heaven's sake.... WILL SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT I DID?????

Since I'm NOT a victim....I must have had it coming....

Did Sigmund get upset because of all my *sighs*???

FACT: I really do sigh a lot, and I've been dianosed with clinical depression....I take prozac.....

Are my posts irrational????

FACT: I feel a sense of humor is appropriate at times, to lighten the mood when things get serious....so yeah, I post goofy stuff now and then.....but I hardly feel it is irrational...*sigh* (here I go again)....

Anyway, for those of you to whom this applies....

......if being nice to someone (geese, what a new and unique idea), it babying them....then please continue to baby me....I LOVE it....*sigh* (yup, again)

.....and if the jig is up because I now know why so many of you are nice to me....then I can easily disappear too....no problem at all....

Donna, I'm truly relating to the sensitivey we talked about now.....

Remember the law of the jungle?????? The weak ones don't have a chance when a bully lets you know you're gonna be his dessert....

Luv,
irrationalrainbow...........

....and that's the way it is.....good bye all...

Love,
Rainbow

Ginny, Maria was giving me a friendly warning that when I express myself about my view in spirituality that I should be careful not to cross to a point of "blaming the victim" territory type thing, because in today's society, the tendency to do that happens... and I told her that no, none of that type of view, and I explained the rest in my response to her post. You must have misinterpreted what she wrote or maybe my response to her post.

I just wanted to go on record that in my opinion Donna is one of the kindest, most generous people I have ever had the pleasure to know. I know for a fact that Donna not only talks love she puts it in action in her day to day life.

And if that's what other "pagans" are like then
alot of us will probably adjust our preconcieved notions and hey...that's a good thing!!

Always looking for the silver lining....
Peggy

P.S. Rainbow,
You don't seem irrational to me at all. You just come across to me as someone who is very sensitive to others thoughts and feelings. I can see where that would be a blessing and a curse.
Sometimes I'm glad I'm a Saggie and things just sail over my head.

Peggy!

BTW, if anybody wants to see an "agree to disagree" success story, take a look at Peggy and Donna ... these two disagree on political issues almost COMPLETELY ... but are still dear friends who love and respect each other deeply. It's not a pipe dream, it CAN be done.

Rainbow, you have done NOTHING wrong so there's nothing to understand. But if you start talking about leaving here, be forewarned, I'm coming afer you with my band of trained Ninjas to kidnap you and bring you back!

Love,
Greg

Rainbow, Dear Heart Rainbow!! I am gonna join Greg's Ninja band!!
You are a psychic sponge, with all that water. I love your lighthearted humor, it really makes my day. I am never or ever have been, the chatty type, so I don't often join in with the light banter.

I think Maria was referring to Proxy with the onsite psychologist humor. At least, that was my interpretation.

Greg and Peggy Agree to Disagree!! With the utmost respect and love!! Peggy and I would never have met if it wasn't for this site. We are true sisters of the soul.

Donna

PS, we sure have come a long way from the topic of this thread.

Donna, Yup, yup, yup.

Rainybow, I was referring to Dr. Proz's diagnosis of you, which you should take with the same amount of seriousness as Larry, Moe or Curly Joe's diagnosis of you, as they all have the same credentials in that area.

I think you're delightful and loveable, and that's not a diagnosis, that's an expression of my feelings for you.

Love,
Maria

Maria......I just made what I thought was my LAST post, but I should have come here first, cause your last one, really made me smile...and the Good Lord knows I sure needed one today...*sigh*...

Thanks for the Larry, Curly, Moe analogy......you are to RIGHT ON....(no pun intended)....he not only thinks like them, but looks like he could be part that trio of intellects.......

At any rate, thank for the support but I think I'm leaving or at least taking a breather from here...(need fresh air)....for awhile....

Luv,
Rainbow

Peggy....I thank you for your kind words too....every kind word contributes to a little more healing....

Luv,
Rainbow