Marti,

You wrote: 

...does anyone see anything here that would have any affect on stopping terrorism?  Not one of these bills or agreements deals with anything other than stripping US citizens of their rights, and establishing a police state.  And how many terrorists do you think are out there who care what kind of laws we pass or don’t pass?  By their very nature, terrorists don’t abide by any laws…….which brings us to those who run our government.    

So who are these people that our government is so fearful of?  George Bush claimed at one time that he had looked the enemy in the eye……and apparently he was looking at us.

 

I watched a move courtesy of Netflix the other day. I cannot remember the title, but it was a rather odd movie about a middle class Jewish family celebrating the Passover.

The grandfather, who had survived a concentration camp in the holocaust, carried around a suitcase everywhere he went. This was a bone of contention between him and his son. The son didn't understand. The grandfather carried the suitcase because he knew what had happened to the Jews who were not prepared when the round-up began - the ones who denied the signs all around them. He carried the suitcase with a space blanket in it because he wanted to be prepared when "they" came.

If we ignore the signs around us, we will simply go along with the program in ignorant bliss. We will not be prepared, and unable to resist.

The grandfather won the arguments with his son with the following questions - "Feeling a little dirty? Want a shower? Take a towel...." His son knew immediately what he was referring to, and got the point. End of discussion.

"George Bush claimed at one time that he had looked the enemy in the eye……and apparently he was looking at us" (Marti).

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM

  (0+)

I agree, the Republocrat Congress and White House have been acting as if the Constitution and the People's Rights are the enemy. 

However, "The Protect America Act" is the legislation currently being worked on to give Telcoms immunity for cooperating with the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program (it began well before 9/11, according to the head of Qwest, who refused to participate), and to make the program legal.

S. 1959 is the "Thought Crime" Bill, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007", which passed the House and may be scheduled for debate in the Senate at any time 

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959 

This bill doesn't make anything illegal; it creates a commission to study "homegrown terrorism" and "violent radicalization" and recommend laws, etc. However, it does EQUATE force with violence, it blames the internet for circulating propaganda and finds exposure to it to be a threat, it does NOT define "extremist belief system" meaning it can be interpreted as anything out of the mainstream. The NLG, SALT, CCR and ACLU all oppose it for these and other reasons. We can expect that any proposed laws will follow and mirror the foundation laid by this bill. This bill is a threat to civil liberties, and a waste of $22 million- a lot of the proposed research has been done by the FBI and advocacy orgs 

 Google "Sibel Edmonds" to get an idea of the threats we face from elite-controlled government, and the threats they are interested in exposing us to, in using to monger fear

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:46:19 AM

  (0+)

Growing numbers of people are chiming in, and even most former Bush supporters are finally beginning to see who and what he is.

This is all well and good. But it is not enough.

It is not enough that we elect a good, conscienteous, Democrat as president, because it would only be a matter of time before the partisan pendulum would swing back to the right again.

If we perpetuate the present political-economic system, yet another right-wing demagogue would inevitably rise to power, as Reagan and Bush did, waving the flag, thumping the bible and rattling a sword, and appeal to egocentric nationalism once again.

There is a far better way. Just read this:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM

  (0+)

If there's no real enemy don't worry - the Department of Homeland Criminals will make a bunch. And that's part of the technique that has been utilized throughout history. The human animal has a natural tendency to get trapped within the amity-enmity complex.

In order for this method to work there must be a constant threat, whether it's Communism or terrorism - any outside force to justify the mechanisms of war and population control. If there is no clear and present danger to our society from the outside then it's time to manufacture the enemy from within, one technique is to commit the unspeakable horror of murdering your own people - blame it on others and then take away citizen's rights and freedoms under the guise of protecting them from your manufactured enemy. Control of the media, the courts and the military all ensure that any opinion other than the official line is branded as dissent and sympathy with the identified out-group, in this case terrorists. End result is enslavement - fear - control. It works, but only on the ignorant.

Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear

- Albert Camus -

Fear and ignorance are the weapons and the means to accomplish these objectives. Make the people afraid of a perceived threat, keep them ignorant by control of the mainstream media.

This fight is really about individualism verses the collective. All the laws being put into place right now are to facilitate the next stage of the plan. Agreements, trade deals, Presidential directives, Kyoto protocols - all of these new laws will enable the globalist UN controllers the means and opportunity to exercise their power over everyone, superseding any local jurisdictions. Watch what happens next as they clamp down on supply and distribution of necessities like food and fuel - raising prices to absurd levels and provoking incredible hardship and civil unrest. Our role as the general public is largely reactive, we are trained to watch and interpret via the media - an event will occur and they will tell us what has happened, what to think about it, and what they are going to do to resolve it - we will follow along and then do whatever they say. We are getting good at this training stuff - taking our shoes off at the airport - waiting in absurd line-ups while they check for boogie-man terrorists among us - allowing ourselves to be questioned and detained. Now they have even made laws taking away the rights of people to voice their opinions - I guess that makes me a dissident because I'm against the war and criticize the government. I suppose we are at the point when a person does not have to actually break a law and aggress upon another individual or their property - it's enough to think the wrong way and get locked up for it, and don't you dare take pictures or videos because the last thing they really want is some incontrovertible evidence of their criminal behavior.

by CasaZaza (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 202 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:28:31 PM

  (0+)

       a long time ago.

       It's not if, but when. It's not in their interest to share anything. It's to control everything. Global government will happen.

       We must continue the fight. With our words, our protests, our diligence and for many, our lives.

       Your article is correct. We are the enemy. In spades. They've made it clear.

       I breathe for peace.

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:30:49 PM

  (0+)

Poignant story about suitcase man...I too would carry a suitcase if I were sure they were not manufactured with hidden gps wafers sewen into one of the countless compartments that are now part of all modern luggage.

Not that I'm paranoid.

by James Strait (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 193 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:31:23 PM

  (0+)

Well, since the Reagan days there have been openly stated wars against citizens of this country.  War on Poverty, drugs, crime, etc etc., none of which has done much except make the problems worse.  We now have a Prison Industry with 2-million citizens in jail or prison.  (the recent news of the 1 in 100 citizens in prison did not include the 700,000 who are in Jail serving less than one year sentences.  We pay over 41 billion to keep people in jail, who knows how much of that is profit to the corporations?  Yep, we are the enemy allright.

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:48:01 PM

  (0+)

Our prison population has been enhanced through sentencing guildlines intended to increase the number of prisoners, for longer terms for eventual use as forced military labor. Nice system huh?

Marti

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:14:04 PM

  (0+)

And what do you offer as evidence of the connection between the revised sentancing guidelines and foreced (draft...?) military labor?  Until I eview the evidence, I don't know whether or not it's a "nice system".

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM

  (0+)

It's when THEY started seeing that the public was beginning to figure out that THEY were profiteering by lying, stealing and killing.   That's why they lied about 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.  In the meantime, to protect their backside, they started privatising social services.  That's why we have Corrections Corporation of America and Hospital Corporation of America.  That's why I wrote "Crime Pays-For Some" at http://GreatRedDragon.com ::

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 2:52:14 PM

  (0+)

The people create all wealth by adding value to raw materials.

Those who have lost viability in their own territory through drought or climate change or simple despoliation of the land, must invade others' turf for the necessities of life. The Mongols who invaded Eurasia are a good example.

There was no private property before someone took property and had to control what, until then, had been commons. Native Americans never owned land. They lived on it, and occupied it as any group or individual occupies the place where they sit or raise food. They fought to maintain it, but not at the cost of sustained campaigns of large-scale killing like the Europeans had done.

The control of property became the control of populations and the feudal system evolved-- kings, barons, Popes, etc. These centers of wealth vied for control by unleashing their armies of the poor on each other. It was also a good way to rid oneself of large numbers of young, unemployed males who constituted a threat to the status quo.

Out of these forces of wealth came corporations like the East India Co. and the Hudson's Bay Co. New York was founded by a corporation, and most large cattle ranches were owned by people who had established fortunes in Europe. These corporations literally killed for control of markets and resources. Our American Government was established, in part, to free the people from the economic slavery enforced by these corporations and wealthy individuals. The founders recognized that economic slavery is also political slavery.

But these forces of wealth, which is created by people, but controlled by corporations, will always try to control their environment as much as possible. They need to maintain control or the people will escape the economic penalties for being poor. Economies of scale will always penalize the poor and take profit from them. 

Like today, the insurance companies hold us hostage to our need for healthcare. No money? Not our problem, except to the extent your need raises the premium further on the costs and profits from medicine.

So in the US we have seen over time the waxing and waning of corporate control over the people and subsequent exploitation. So, to answer your rhetorical question, the people have always been the enemy of those who need to dominate them in order to maintain their control of wealth.

So Bush has done us a favor by making it so clear what the issues are and being so incompetent at it. The common denominator between Bush and the terrorists is: they kill people to maintain control.

But no murderer can have a good future. After all, people create wealth. People are what it's all about. Guns don't advance civilization, babies do. Mothers and Grandmothers do more for humanity than all the tyrants in history.

So the effort at control is doomed from the start. It is an illusion. No one obeys laws with which they disagree, or which are not to the benefit of their own needs. That's the viability of a government by the consent of the governed that tyrannies lack. For every fence there's a ladder. The Great Wall of China didn't work. The Berlin Wall failed. Hadrian's Wall failed. In fact, all these walls were symptoms of incipient failure and collapse of the status quo. Even the rise of "police states" represents a last-grasp attempt at control. Look at the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Their depredations were foreshortened from the start. It will never work because human beings are way too clever to be effectively controlled and that's the genius of Democracy.

So don't be scared of Bush's attempts to abolish the Bill of Rights or surveillance, or threats. He can't control 300 million people. But he wants them to think so. So don't be scared of the man behind the curtain. We will overcome. Because the basic tenets of our government are viable and guns will always fall to butter. 

by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:22:09 PM

  (0+)

I think that's a very noble ideology but I believe that the actions of the people in our country point in an entirely other direction. Just look at this administration. There has never in my life, (well, we did kill a president and no one believed it) been such an out and out attempt to overtake our government as with the bush coup. Not only did it succeed from the start, it managed to pull it off through another election, made a hero out of a failed president (RR) and made his disastrous "trickle down economics" a mantra of an idotic, soon to be extinct middle class who still don't have a clue what's befallen them.

You are right about the workings of war and the demise of civilizations but you're being naieve in believing that democracy is going to save us like some magic religion. The problem is that you have to do more than say that you have democracy for it to work for you. The people in this country won't even get off of their collective asses and vote. 70% of the people believe that the government had some involvement in the 9/11 attacks and that the bush administration has lied to the people to justify an illegal war and on and on.... but the bush administration "prevails", to use one of his favorite verbs. No one has initiated an indictment for war crimes or impeachment procedures. We impeached his predecessor for getting oral sex. He performed anal sex on the nation and has gotten away with it clean.

Democracy may save some nation, some day, but it won't be us. You have to have balls and fight to the death for democracy, not just talk about it with a tear in your eye.  

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:27:04 PM

  (0+)

Anyone who has the courage to stand up and be counted as a supporter of the Constutution and Bill of Rights is automaticly placed on a list, a list I am proud to have my name on.

The Rome became so corrupt and devoid of morals, the city rose up and burned the Empire to the ground.  It is time again.

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:53:15 PM

  (0+)

by PeterJ (16 articles, 3 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 236 comments [53 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:33:49 PM

  (0+)

AND EVERYBODY FINELY SEE,S THE TRUTH, NOW WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, ITS GOING TO BE LIKE GERMANY, BUT WITH BUSH AND THE NEOCONS USING HITLER'S PLAY BOOK, AND PASSING ALL THESE NEW LAWS, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD AND UNDER GROUND MOVEMENT, ALL I CAN SAY IS GET PREPARED. ITS A HARD RAIN THAT GOING TO FALL.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:17:54 PM

  (0+)

"After watching the avalanche of infringements on our civil liberties since 9/11, I can only conclude that it is American citizens who have become a threat to 'national security'."

Ms. Oakley, please name three infringements that have impacted you directly.  Surely, there must be at least three where you've been adversely affected given the "avalanche".  Three... just... three.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:50:00 PM

  (0+)

Why don't you name three ways in which having those rights fo habeas corpus, due process, and a prohibition against using our own military against us directly affected you?

Its  easy to sit back and hold the attitude that since the "effects" haven't just yet reached my doorstep that this is not an infringenment.

 Of the rights I mentioned, I never had need to invoke any of them directly, nor were soldiers routinely used against Citizens......but I knew those limitations and rights were there as a silent warning of my right to be free of government oppression.

So please tell me....... What direct benefit did you incur by those rights remaining in place? 

People who take this attitude that just because they haven't YET been victimized by these losses of freedom and the loss of the right to be treated fairly and justly,  that somehow losing these rights has no affect, are the same people who are willingly lead to slaughter.

Acquiesence originating from fear is no less a threat to our nation than those who actively seek to dismantle our Republic.  

I am not a person who will be quelled by a false sense of security especially when it is based on  accepting those things which have historically been unaceptable.  

Why not ask yourself why you are so willing to give up on what has been the greatest society ever on the face of the earth....... Maybe for you, rolling over is easier.  

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:55:13 PM

  (0+)

In 2001 after the false flag of 9/11 I was horrified at the reaction of so many Americans, the Bush gang knew exactly how they would react and they were correct. Flags, two or more flying from vehicles, bumper stickers and all the stuff people get up to when they've been preconditioned through years of lies and propaganda. The people had been told how the USA was the only superpower so naturally being a superpower an invasion had to be planned, the invasion having already been planned is of little consequence , let's kick butts was the cry.

 The big mistake Bush and Co. made was that butts were not kicked, the US military is hiding in barracks for the most part, where's the glorious victory, where's the big parade, where are the medals. The USA is the joke of the century with its bragging and its empty threats and to cap it all each man woman and child owes an enormous amount of money as a result of their mis-adventure so there may be justice in the world after all.

by douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:48:00 PM

  (0+)

Hey Mr. Murphy,

1) my AOL ISP BLOCKED my email from truthout,org and right here, the OpED--that's freedom to read buddy

2)I have had some of your ilk (and I am NOT discrediting the US Military--just "your" kind) place intimidating info at my door.

3) I have had enough Black SUV's drive thru my quaint little neighborhood and they weren't from the car lot

There's your f*cking three -NOW, be gone with you. 

(_x_) 

You, Mr. Murphy is What is wrong with this country.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:01:46 PM

  (0+)

Come, come, Ms. Reese.  Are those examples of infringements?  I think not.

"1) my AOL ISP BLOCKED my email from truthout,org and right here, the OpED--that's freedom to read buddy"

This is not an infringement of your rights but rather an apparent contractual misinterpretation by you.  Contrary to popular progressive belief, there is no constitutionally-protected "freedom to read" - although some web sites will argue there is.  Shocking, I know - http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/First_amendment ! 

I believe, Ms. Reese, that you're discussing the "freedom of speech" found in the First Amendment but in a false reverse:

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

You can't make someone read what you write, but you can write what you want. 

This in mind, though, your AOL account and/or ISP provider are not necessarily bound to the First Amendment because it/they is/are (a) private entity(ies) with which you enter into (a) contractual agreement(s) when you use their services.  AOL is NOT the government, and you should "read" and "understand" the Terms of Use (and Service) of the contract, as well as the law-required Privacy Statement by AOL and/or ISP provider - http://about.aol.com/aolnetwork/aolcom_terms and http://about.aol.com/aolnetwork/aol_pp .

"2)I have had some of your ilk (and I am NOT discrediting the US Military--just "your" kind) place intimidating info at my door."

This is not an infringement of your rights and possibly represent's another person's freedom of speech.  If the "intimidating info" did not damage your private property, threaten your physical well-being, or violate the criteria of a "hate" crime, then this can be construed as the "price" you seemingly feel you have to "pay" to live in an open society.  Buy some bricks, build a bridge, and get over it, OR (if you prefer) Cowgirl Up!

And for the record, I've had Obama campaigners call/visit my house during the New Hampshire primary (even though I'm a registered Republican), I've received a number of labels from lovely people here - ilk is yet another one, and I've had the U.S. Army decal on the back bumper of my vehicle scratched off (well, gouged is closer).  The last is the only one that upset me because it represents criminal trespass but not an infringement of my "rights".

"3) I have had enough Black SUV's drive thru my quaint little neighborhood and they weren't from the car lot"

Ms. Reese, if you want me to take this seriously as an infringement of your rights and not a self-willed "Bourne Conspiracy", then I need a little bit more than your say-so that the black SUVs are nothing more than black SUVs.  This is just comical and really not worthy of any additional comment.

So, what we have is still no direct infringement of a person's "rights", although misconceptions seem to abound.  These examples fail to display an encroachment or trespass of a Constitutionally-protected right.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:11:40 PM

  (0+)

Tom, there are numerous examples of over-reaching and blatantly unconstitutional crimes committed against the citizenry by this government, wire-tapping, torture, rendition, secret prisons to name just a few admitted to, and no one can deny (except you maybe) that the unprecedented number of "signing statements" and "presidential directives" laying the groundwork for a tyranny isn't in place. The plain fact that no one has been held accountable for these already admitted to crimes is testimony to just how far we've deteriorated.

But, you? Hey ... don't worry about a thing.

Gee, Tommy, you would think when you bought the uniform they would of giving you some instructions on not looking like a fool in it.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:49:08 PM

  (0+)

Name three U.S. citizens then who have been impacted directly by the, "...[N]umerous examples of over-reaching and blatantly unconstitutional crimes committed against the citizenry by this government, wire-tapping, torture, rendition, secret prisons to name just a few admitted to..."

Three Mr. M... just three is all I ask - and make certain that they are U.S. citizens, please, and not foreign nationals.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:59:37 PM

  (0+)

Ah ... poor, poor Tommy ... Jose Padilla, is one obvious example, the many people that have been tasered without just cause, "Don't tase me bro' ...", anyone that has been herded into a "free speech zone", all of us who were spied on illegally, the fact that at any time this government could if it so wished now grab anyone it deems and throw them into a Kafkaian Hell, even thought they haven't that mere fact that the dictates are there that they could is scary enough,  and since when does it just have to be "our citizens"? If you deny basic rights to one (Gitmo) you deny everyone.

But none of this concerns you little soldier boy. Don't worry about it ... march along ... go salute yourself in the mirror again ... us adults will take care of things ... go peddle your crap to those gullible enough to think you have some thing to say ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:46:29 PM

  (0+)

Abdullah al-Muhajir, (aka José Padilla), a U.S. citizen, was tried and convicted in a Federal court on August 16, 2007 and subsequently sentenced to 208 months in jail. His rights were not violated and his case followed the due process of law - click here .

This is not an infringement issue. You do not have a "right" to be tased or not. A taser is considered by the great majority of law enforcement and judicial officials to be an effective use of non-lethal force –e specially when compared to others means (e.g., pepper spray, baton, bean bags, water cannons, etc...). The use of force is permitted when apprehending a person with due cause - click here .

"Herded into a free speech zone"...? Poor, poor, Mr. M. The horror of the herding, huh? Get over it; you still got to rant and rave. You still got to express your right of free speech. The free speech zone just didn't meet your expectations. My advice is that you work on your acceptance for things beyond your control - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone .

Were you "spied on" then? Who's "all of us"? Where's your evidence for all to see the spying?

As to why I'm only concerned about our own citizens, you (and others here) allege that Americans have been caught in this "avalanche" of infringements. The fact remains that you and the others cannot name a single person that you know of that's actually had their rights infringed. Pretty sad, I think, and a bit inflammatory on your parts.

Personally, foreign nationals are that – foreign. And I'm foreign in their country should I visit there. They are not entitled to the same rights and privileges that citizens are. That's life across this globe; get used to it.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:34:09 PM

  (0+)

Why is an American not concerned about laws being passed that strip constitutional protections, simply cuz he's not aware of an instance of abuse that's been reported by media? 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:24:12 AM

  (0+)

As I've requested previously here, what sections of the Patriot Act and/or other legislature do you find troublesome, and could you please post either links to the(se) section(s) or the text here at OpEdNews.com so that we may review them? 

This is not deflection (pathetic or otherwise), and I'm not the one alleging the avalanche of infringements.  The responsibility, then, rests with you fine folks on noting the irksome passages that demonstrate infringement.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:16:53 AM

  (0+)

I lost my job due to a lay off because of the economical impact of ths administration.

When I lost my job I lost my health insurance for myself and my kids.  I should mention I am a cancer survivor and they say what ya don't know can't hurt ya...so hopefully that's the case as  have no way of knowng if I am stll cancer free.

The RNC and ther cage for free speech is another... 

CERTIFIED mail sent to me and never delvered.

I can go on with the simple stuff... 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:47:55 AM

  (0+)

You truthfully DO have my thoughts and prayers for continued health Ms. Roberts-Piper - for both you and your family. 

What you reference, though, are not Constitutionally-protected rights: "powers or privileges to which one is justly entitled" to citizens via the Constitution.  Rather, these are priveleges: "rights or immunities granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor" to persons due to their positions within American society and its borders.

Overall, I think there's a large misconception as to what represents a Constitutional "right" vs. a societal or governmental "privelege".  Driver licenses are priveleges, not rights.  Public protest of a G8 summit is a right, but the permit associated with the protest is a privelege that directs the how and where the protest may occur - obstensibly for safety reasons. 

These are subtle differences that are being confused by many who have posted here.

As to Ms. Edwards, her condition of employment with the government - and let's not forget her security clearance - required that she remain silent http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf and http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/security-clearance.asp .  I'm almost certain that the security clearance non-disclosure requirements were explained to her because I've received similar screenings and subsequent briefings on sensitive materials.  She would not have been granted access to what she claims to have translated had she not.

But again, her Constitutional right to freedom of speech is not being infringed here.  Her contractual agreement with the government and security clearance take precedence because, if she had an infringment issue, Ms. Edwards could have clearly refused the position.  If she's claiming whistleblower protection, then the security clearance concerns, if valid, still remain in effect.

So, Ms. Edwards issue is not a clear case of infringement - however "unjust" one might think her government- and court-imposed gag orders may be.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:21:57 PM

  (0+)

Edmonds... not Edwards or as Mr. Mom states, "220... 221, whatever it takes," - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085970/quotes .

It's been a busy day with the possible ice storm looming in New York and New england...  The brain is slipping gears.  Do try to avoid any personal follow-ups there.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:29:24 PM

  (0+)

If you are correct, then please tell us why she cannot even tell anyone when she was born?

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:36:47 PM

  (0+)

I cannot tell you why she is not permitted to divulge such information given that certain of her words are covered under that States Secret Act, as requested by then Attorney General John Ashcroft and upheld by Judge Reggie Walton - click here .

I DO know that it is Ms. Edmonds' attorney that is making the claim in linked Motion for Recusal and/or Disqualification. But this has not been confirmed by the Department of Justice or Attorney General's office. It appears as though Attorney General Ashcroft attempted initially to declare the whole of her previous and open testimony under the States Secret Act, possibly for convenience sake. Judge Walton eventually did deny a portion of the Attorney General's request.

I can postulate, though, and relate the censuring to the personal safety of her and her family, who are foreign nationals that live outside the U.S. One of those accused (i.e., Ms. Melek Can Dickerson) by Ms. Edmonds reportedly threatened her and her family:

"...(f) the other employee threatened the lives and safety of Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family members, who were citizens of, and resided in, a foreign country, because Plaintiff refused to go along with the other employee's scheme to obstruct justice and because Plaintiff reported her concerns about the other employee's wrongdoing to FBI management..." (p. 3) - click here .

Given the other employee's position within the intelligence community and her possible connections, it might make sense to protect Ms. Edmonds from not only the other employee but foreign-based terrorists, as well.

While we're talking about her, an issue that raised a flag for me is why Ms. Edmonds was willing in October 2007 to reveal the States Secrets gag items she's claimed to know but only to a major American broadcaster - click here . As she told Brad Blog:

"People say, 'why doesn't she just come forward and spill the beans?' I have gone all the way to the Supreme Court and was shut down, I went to Congress and now consider that shut down... Here's my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX -- promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know," - click here .

Obviously, there must have been a price associated with acquiring these "revelations" because no American outlet took her up on her offer. The London Sunday Times, though, did run with it and issued an article on her secrets in early January 2008 - click here . So, she wants to tell her story, her way to an American audience, but when there are no takers, she can sell it to a British paper? How's that for principles!

Interestingly, though the Times piece focused exclusively on the black-market trade of nuclear secrets between nations in the West and Middle East, as well as the governmental corruption associated with it. Certainly, a serious issue that's in need of further review, but NOT the "smoking gun" that 9/11 Truthers have been looking for... And yet, very few Truthers have pointed this out, continuing to focus instead on their web sites and posts on the reasoning "why" the States Secret gag was initially set.

In the end, Ms. Edmonds gave the 9/11 Truthers... squat! However we still see the Truther rallying cry "Edmonds must be heard!" Go figure!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:47:22 PM

  (0+)

undeniable, irrefutable...

Sibel Edmonds 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM

  (0+)

Would this possibly be you Mr.Murphy?  A deliberate plant?  A deliberate trouble maker?

Your presence on a forum of this type is more as an antagonist rather than informed commentator.  Your vocabulary is better than most, but I suspect your intimate twisting of words and contorted logic is derived from sources other than your own.

I do consider interference in the websites I want to receive or read from an infringement of my 1st Amendment rights.  Google, AOL, and many others just got blanket immunity for "infringing" on the rights of their customers.  They actually passed a law giving them immunity......doesn't that tell you that what they were doing was a violation? So much so that they needed protection from the consequences of their own illegal actions?

Has it ever occured to you that you might possibly be more at home in say....Russia?  China?  They do this kind of stuff all the time and are always looking for lackeys who will promote the party line.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:11:15 PM

  (0+)

Yet once again, I'm labeled as some psy-ops type or a proud member of COINTELPRO.  Lord knows, I could NEVER have these thoughts for myself!  Ms. Oakley, I am as my bio says I am.  I cannot make you believe any of it, but I do and that's enough for me.

As to your silly comment:

"They actually passed a law giving [the telecoms] immunity......doesn't that tell you that what they were doing was a violation? So much so that they needed protection from the consequences of their own illegal actions?"

This has very little (if anything) to do with the illegality of the telecom's actions.  The immunity concern centers around the flood of lawsuits that late night TV lawyers will launch upon the telecoms under the guise of "just compensation" for harms done - the great majority being intangible.  And if you think they're actually concerned about anything but the almighty dollar, then you're socially ignorant - click here .

As to the need to move somewhere else other than the U.S., I'm a U.S. citizen and have fought to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies.  I'm very content here.  Why do you recommend moving, aren't you happy here, Ms. Oakley?

By the way, answering my question with a poorly-worded reverse question was... childish.  However, I'll put you down as not having been swallowed by your own alleged "avalanche" of infringements.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:33:53 PM

  (0+)

Just go ahead and roll over Mr. Murphy.  It is you who seems unhappy with people expressing their thoughts........

Silly?  Childish?  These are terms used by people who have no real arguments and resort to attempts to demean. 

Aligning yourself with those who seek to destroy you will save you from nothing.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:43:22 PM

  (0+)

Of all the things I cited in my article Mr. Murphy.......I noticed you did not address one of them.  Instead you attacked non-referenced issues.

I can only assume that either you are unable to focus on the issues at hand, or you had a preselected agenda before entering this conversation.

I would bet on option two. 

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM

  (0+)

You are worrying about the bug dust under the corner nighstand when the bed covers remain unmade.  I'll answer a question when it makes sense and isn't framed as a personal insult, such as your silly and child-like approach to some comments. 

I'll presume that this comment will be removed because if it's non-relevance to the article discussion, but until then, Ms. Oakley, you'll know why I don't take the silly bait all the time.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:55:01 PM

  (0+)

It's one thing to be gullible or naive or ignorant of what's going on.

But to refuse to see ... to refuse to face facts when presented, and to be in denial, as Tom and all the other Neo-Cons are ... that's just foolish.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM

  (0+)

For the record, I consider myself a classical conservative and not a neo-conservative - click here .

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:08:47 PM

  (0+)

Gosh Mr.Murphy......I just might break into tears here in a minute if you don't stop! NOT!  LOL!

You have been well rebutted through this entire thread.  You keep asking for three instances of abuses under these "laws" and have been given several examples.....including those 5,000 who were rounded up........but you seem unable or unwilling to accept that you have lost the argument.

The fact is, you have no legitimate argument other than your willingness to comply at all costs with the loss of civil rights, and of our sovereignty.

This same band of thugs and carpetbaggers that are so intent on surrending our soveriengty are holding a summit in New Orleans in April to finalize details of the Security & Prosperity Partnership. 

Just imagine that for a minute Comrad Murphy......our president and his entourage meeting with the leaders of two other countries to finalize the dissolution of our soveriegn nation to the detriment of of the people of all three countires.  Golly......maybe with your unwaivering support and willing gullibility.......you might could get yourself an invite.

you are one of those individuals who will willingly partcipate in your own destruction thinking that by doing so, you will at least save yourself.  Your own immature and programmed responses to this thread are indicative of someone who has lost any ability to think critically ..... or to think anything other than what they are told to think. 

Please do go fishing.......while you are away, those of us whose intent it is to preserve our country for the next generations will continue the  fight while you take this much needed rest.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM

  (0+)

Whatever are you ranting about here...?  I'm not crying, but I do find you confusing.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:49:45 PM

  (0+)

It threatens our basic freedoms   Did you know that, Tom?  It gives the government access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.

Now go back to sleep 

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:11:29 PM

  (0+)

If you could be so kind, München, please cite the references within the Patriot Act that (1) pertain to U.S. citizens and (2) are troublesome to you from an "infringement" perspective.  Also, the sharing of any direct infringements of your own rights would greatly help to support Ms. Oakley's claim of many infringements.  Thanks!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:18:09 PM

  (0+)

I fought in Viet Nam. While there, couch seat generals applauded the righteous little war against the commies... 57,000 dead Americans later and we find out the only winner was the military industrial complex. 

 Mr. Murphy, how many times have you been shot at defending our country? How many of your friends have you seen die because of exceptionally stupid politicians? I fought in a war to defend the right of scum bags like you to have free speech.

 Enjoy your right to free speech Mr. Murphy. But if our paths ever cross, steer a wide berth around me. I have a hard time suffering fools like you.

 Sincerely, Tom 

by Tom Johnson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 30 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:43:14 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Johnson, I have twice now been deployed overseas in a combat theater - Classes of 1990-91 (Saudi Arabia/Kuwait) and 2003-04 (Iraq).  But unlike you, I do not mandate that this be a requirement for someone to "prove" themself to me.  It's a little bit high school-ish, don't you think?

And rest assured, I'll stay clear of you, as well, should we ever meet.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM

  (0+)

Since HSD, the FBI, and any of the other 15 "intelligence" agencies operate with total secrecy......you already know that it is impossible to state any specifics.

Congress has even been prevented from knowing the specifics......its all a secret!  Its all national security!!! 

How about the 5000 Arabic people rounded up by John Ashcroft in the two months after 9/11?  Many of them natuaralized citizens......arrested for no reason other than ethnicity........some held for three or more years.....no contact, no charges, no defense, no one knew where they were.  In the end?   ONE case made it to court and was thrown out for lack of evidence. 

Would those 5,000 do?  Is that enough to cover your 3 reasons?  Or were you thinking that because they didn't round you up that nothing was wrong?

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:20:21 PM

  (0+)

If it's "all a secret", then... how do YOU know...?  Are you with the government then, acting as an agent of disinformation? *evil chuckle*

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:39:23 PM

  (0+)

If being an "enemy combatant" means I can no longer be able to peacefully question my government, well ... I'm guilty ... and they can come and get me anytime they want ... I won't resist. I have no working firearms. At this stage in my life I resist all forms of violence ... except to protect innocents, as far as one is capable. And if they're that determined to get you, they will anyway.

But if I'm allowed my day in court the only defense I will offer is that if anyone should be denied ability to question their government, that government would cease to be a government and become instead a tyranny. And I would rather die while I am free than submit to living in a world where freedom is denied.

"Most egregious is the lack of truthful reporting on 9/11.  Instead, those who question this unbelievable tale by the government about what happened that day are quickly relegated to the category of the lunatic fringe, or conspiracy theorists."

How true ... tonight I watched as Kieth Olbermann gutted Marion Cotillard for daring to mention 9/11 might be other than what we've been told. Even the most hardened of pragmatists have to be able to say that there are, at the very least, unanswered questions concerning 9/11 ... to have the supposed "Prince of Liberalism" not only dismiss that anything said regarding the "official version" should not be questioned, but that any one making any suggestion contrary to the "official version" is insane - is itself insane and goes to show just how deep corruption lies.

We have walking this planet witnesses to the last time the whole world went insane. They are dying off rapidly, but there are enough around, and enough recorded history to tell us when supposedly civilized countries thought it was perfectly okay to turn children into slaves for making weapons to kill more children and after they worked them to a point they couldn't work anymore these civilized guards by the thousands, over a number of years, turned these children into little crispy critters ... yet, you have people that say, "... well gee, for the government to do something like 9/11 it would take thousands of people ..." and yet, they believe that a handful of cavemen half-way around the world could ... and insane people, once again in position of power, wouldn't commit these crimes, or worse, again given the chance, and they don't see of what they're saying ... well, it masses me.

Too many people know the truth now ... let's see if we're allowed to speak it ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:20:57 PM

  (0+)

"Too many people know the truth now ... let's see if we're allowed to speak it ... "

You "know" only that which you choose to know and discard uncaringly the rest.  Truthers have been allowed to speak their piece for six plus years now - on the streets, at Ground Zero, at political campaign venues, on national television, etc...  What do you mean by "let's see if we're allowed to speak it"?  This sounds like nothing more than petty envy that the Truther Movement hasn't gained legitimate, national appeal and then be carried by mainstream media.

Gee, did you ever think the problem with achieving this mass appeal lays within the falseness of the aforementioned "truth"?  No, of course not.  And therein lies your problem, Mr. M.  Rather than concluding that the Movement lacks credibility, it concludes that mainstream media is part of the ever-growing conspiracy and is blocking the Truthers' voice from being heard...

I hope you see the inherent irrationality in that thinking.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:52:28 PM

  (0+)

Have you ever noticed that the government has promoted and paid for documentaries on the History channel and National Geographic in an attempt to counter the 9/11 truth movement?  The problem is, even these contrived "specials" contain fatal flaws.  As in the one that attempts to explain how the Pentagon was damaged........but fail to show the outside 18 inch thick support columns (solid steel by the way) and never was there any attempt to refute or explain the 18ft diameter hole in the Pentagon...........which supposedly was hit by a jetliner 165 ft. wide and 44 ft high.   Just one of those nagging discrepencies.

Oh!  And no one has ever attempted to explain how the top two floors of the Pentagon remained intact, at the top of the 18 ft hole.........for at least 20 minutes after an airliner supposedly rammed in to it.

And all those video cameras every 15 ft around the Pentagon but not one recorded the impact of a jetliner? 

I forgot.....a man in a cave with a computer orchestrated this whole deal.......but has never been charged with the deaths of 3000 people by the FBI or any other government agency.

Then there's that lack of wreckage....no signs of the huge engines, no seats, no luggage, no people, no wing parts, no tail parts, .....nothing.  Just an 18ft hole.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:32:25 PM

  (0+)

I have addressed these open-ended questions repeatedly in the 700+ comments, articles, and entries I've posted.  You are, of course, more than welcome to read any or none of them.  There are not only possible reasons that do not require controlled demolitions, missiles, mini-nukes, or detah rays from outer space, these reasons are more plausible.  Therefore, they are the desired explanations.

But by all means keep asking and or stating the same questions or concerns, respectively.  I've found that for Truthers the "truth" exists only in a falsehood's repeated statement.  And Truthers (like any established religion) know HOW TO repeat.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:01:25 PM

  (0+)

you have addressed them with nothng more then your view as well.

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM

  (0+)

I never claimed that my positions were absolutes or anything other than my own assertions or opinions based upon others' works.  What I have and continue to claim is that when you compare my assertions to that of a Truthers' on the same issue, mine tend to be the preferred of the two because of the levels of complexity displayed by both.  The Truthers' assertions are far more complex and depend upon still unproven variables to actually match the observed outcomes of 911. 

Again, this is an appeal to Occam's Razor.  And I don't need to claim "proof" like so many Truthers allege.  But I DO need to show the possibility first and plausability being greater than a competing theory second. 

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:48:08 PM

  (0+)

Repeat?  I guess you would be an expert in this area.  Your posts are all the same.

There is news footage showing everything I sited in my last post.  Pictures are worth a thousand words.......and those pictures show NO airlliner......NO steel melting fires.....and NO wreckage. 

Kean and Hamilton who headed the 9/11 Commission Report have just put out a new book detailing all the information that was withheld from them, all the evidence they were not able to look at.....all the people they were forbidden to talk to......all the scientific reports they were denied, etc......

Now.......if 9/11 happened the way they said it did.....why would anything be off limits?  Oh yeah!  I forgot......"national" security.  Those "nationals" must be secured at all costs! 

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM

  (0+)

"Pictures are worth a thousand words..."

That's true, but you're using human perceptions to describe your subjective observations and not objective data. 

Tell me, Ms. Oakley, is this footage real or not based upon your "picture is worth a thousand words" approach - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw&feature=related ?  Looks pretty "real" to me!  I guess there really are UFOs - well, at least in Haiti, huh?

I rest my case.  This is why we have the scientific method to better correlate that which we observe with that which can be known.  Your senses can be fooled, Ms. Oakley, just as they seem to have been here within your post.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:37:40 PM

  (0+)

did you say something?

nah ...

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 10:52:57 PM

  (0+)

"Not me," said the bee, "Nor I," said the fly.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:09:33 PM

  (0+)

We have a constitution that protects us from the federal government. (not any more).

Of all of the countries in the world, Americans have the highest sense of individual rights.

We have 60,000,000 guns and are not afraid to use them. We know that we were given the right ot have them by men who knew that some day we would need them to protect us from the federal government.

Folks, what stands between us and the final steps of a police state are 60,000,000 gun owners (enemies of the state).

God bless every one of them.

by tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 9:51:46 PM

  (0+)

 "For What It's Worth"   Tom 

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM

  (0+)

Peace is always welcomed.  But I'd like to see a more contemporary "face" on it rather then dusting off and replaying the anti-war icons and symbols of the 1960s and 70s.  That was then; this is now.

I also note that you did not offer any names.  Thank you for the response because silence CAN speak volumes.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:06:11 PM

  (0+)

I love you! *giggle*

YOU darlin are awesome, great choice Munich! 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM

  (0+)

I joined Infragard a little over two years ago.  I identified myself at the time as a senior level engineer with a major telecommunications corporation.  Anyone who walked in the door, and filled out a simple one page form could join.  By the way - I was asked more questions which were FAR more intrusive to join this message board than I was asked when joining Infragard.

At NO time has any member of the FBI or reprsentative of the FBI or representative of Infragard - or ANYONE ever asked me to provide information from the MASSIVE databases which I have access to (nor would I give it to them). 

Our group meets a couple times a year - with an 'educational' theme - where we have lectures on various topics of concern to IT folk.  Nothing 'insider' is given to us. No secret handshakes. We don't even have an 'ID Card' or anything.   Even though we are the 2nd largest city in our state, there is simply NOTHING covert happening at these meetings.

If you are curious - just attend a meeting of your own.  Because some attendees are law enforcement - it is understood that some people choose to NOT sign in.  So you wouldn't have to worry that 'someone has your name'.

Just go to a meeting - and you will see that this is just a tempest in a teapot. NOTHING IS HAPPENING at these meetings.  Nothing is happening behind the scenes.   No 'Shoot to kill', no 'trading of data'.  Just an effort on the part of IT professionals interested in Security can communicate with each other to keep abreast of the latest threats.   There is probably more gossip going on at a PTA meeting than you will find at an Infragard meeting.

(sigh) - MikeT  

by Mike Taylor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:05:26 PM

  (0+)

Well, then...you are apparently not aware of the statements made by HSD and the FBI about what a successful program this is turning into.  The FBI has "deputized" 23,000 individuals from the business sector to facilitate this program and have made public statements about it.  Deputizing in effect makes the individual a part of law enforcement with same powers. 

Maybe you are just not in the loop of those who "need to know".  I do not mean that to be sarcastic.........these government groups are always constructed on levels based on access to information and the right to be informed. 

Personally, I am repulsed by the idea of citizens spying on, reporting on or in any way facilitating government intrusions.  Please don't extrapolate that into the ridiculous.  There is not a person out here who would not report threatening activity............but most of us are repelled by the idea that our neighbors, friends or family members might be reporting just for the sake of doing so.   

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM

  (0+)

Yeah, yeah...  Big Brother.  I admire that scene from the movie "Bourne Supremacy" when Jason Bourne shocks Pamela Lande with his Big Brother capabilities - click here :

Bourne:  I wanna come in.

Lande:  Okay. How do you wanna do it?

Agent [running phone call trace]: We need 35 seconds.

Bourne: I need someone I know to bring me in.

Lande: Who?

Bourne:  There was a girl in Paris.  She was part of the program.  She used to handle logistics.  Alexander Strasse, 30 minutes, under the World Clock.  Send her alone.  Give her your phone.

Lande:  What if I can't find her?

Bourne:  It's easy.  She's standing right next to you.

Is anyone watching you, Ms. Oakley...?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:59:31 PM

  (0+)

You are such a troll. One thing, however, you did not answer the questions posed by a poster about the InfraGuard and your association therein. So whatsup Murph?

Secondly, Jose Padilla was a US citizen and allegedly a "dirty bomber". However, we know he was a camera man for AL Jezeera(sp), and so. Journalist, camera ppl, all just employment, eh? Funny thing after they violated his Habeas Corpus, beat him almost to death, stood trial for what? Not dirty bombs--never even brought up. There's another US citizen they beat all to hell in that Gitmo crap hole, was a driver supposedly for OBL. Guess he is finally going home. If I could only recall the names of the three I just read the other day, I would give you four. However, I don't.

As far as the literature left on my door, there is No solicitation, AND appears that my building out of 16 buildings of apts, happened to be so graciously honored with their crap. I guess they under-estimated me.

Under estimating AOL on your part, and what they did , can be verified by simply going to truthout.org and clicking on ALL the accounts of ALL the AOL customers that were blocked(at the top). Excuse from AOL to the Director, "reputation". Lame. Guess that reputation wasn't so bad after all because they stopped censoring it.

You claim that corporations yield more power than the Constitution. I disagree as that is called fascism and GlenN Beck claims we don't have that.  Gaawd, could GlenN Beck be wrong? Oh help me Lord. Furthermore, if it is so legal to infringe on my choice of reading  and their spying is legal, why did Qwest refuse?--REFUSE on the grounds it wasn't legal to do it. Then the poor souls stock fell.

That's no conspiracy that's fact and it is staring you and your fascist republicans right in the face. Last I counted, there are 300 million Americans, and power is in numbers. Appears the Democrats are out numbering you folk. Appears 66% of the American ppl question the nine-eleven flag.  OMG, could we all be conspirators? Bush is down to a measely 19%. Lower than Nixon by far.

I disgree with the writer on the UN theory. The UN will be the only organization that will aid the American ppl when flit hits the shan. I also disgree that they will turn the prisoners into soldiers. Ha. No way. Prisoners won't Obey like little subservient toy soldiers. The plan they have for them (in my "conspiratorial" mind) is most likely awful.

When one is a cripple, one has time to do a lot of reading, research and my most fave is case work scenario.

Let's just say when one sense goes another one is opened.

Btw, your picture is agressive and anti social at view. I hope someone is watching YOU.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM

  (0+)

I've answered that question (in many forms) numerous times previously.  I'll let you fine folks chace down my responses.

Your responses are symbolism without substance.  As to the troll remark, that's your opinion and I wouldn't dare to impose upon it.  The picture?  It's new.  Some members expressed angst and were offended by my wear of a "mean" beret.  Thus, I was encouraged to change the image. 

Get over it, at least it's not you is all I can offer you there.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 3, 2008 at 11:50:56 PM

  (0+)

Can you name all the times that Martial Law has been imposed at the Federal level in localized areas?  For reference, the entire country has never been under Martial Law... never.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM

  (0+)

And what exactly should we call this Tom?

Not only the flooded areas, but New Orleans driest and wealthiest areas too.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:51:15 AM

  (0+)

Grant Shadow was a drill that went on for EIGHT months.  saw it with my own eyes the day it began n DC. That is what I woke to. Funny how the began in DC where one of the bggest anti-war marches in history was getting ready to take place

On this same day 6 of 12 bio sensors at the Mall went off for Tularemia. Hypothesis was it was caused by the boots on the ground kicking up all the dust, funny how they didn't menton it rained that day. Funny too that they ddn't report it tl 6 days later when many were ll and funny the CDC still states no one became ill with tularema...funnier still I have a lab report that says I tested POSITIVE for Tularema two Tularema Titer tests later, months of illness and 3 rounds of cipro. 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM

  (0+)

sorry, that's GRANITE SHADOW.

oh and here is the Tularemia story .

Just another coincidence right? 

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:22:03 AM

  (0+)

Ms. Roberts:

Why didn't we hear about this on our "Corpstream" media?

Pentagon to test invisible gases in Crystal City

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM

  (0+)

you know how they are, but I would love to have you write about it for us at MTR. ;)

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:40:46 PM

  (0+)

I think there are some Japanese-Americans who would quibble with that remark,sir

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM

  (0+)

Hello people
The best thing to do with a troll is not to respond. They are LOOKING for ANY opportunity to make trouble, and they will TWIST things to suit their AGENDA (good job, Marti, for naming it exactly for what it is) and thus, you will never be right. The troll will always be right and you will always be wrong, any way you slice it. We have seen that here.

Thanks for all the discussion thread though, Tom and everybody: I am going to email this to Rob Kall right now and request that Tom be booted off this forum.

Once again: Silence is golden. Respond not. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The troll does not exist. Let him flaggellate his arms in his wild way in which he seeks your attention. Let him throw his provacations into your lap. DON'T RESPOND! DON'T FALL INTO THE TRAP!

ABOVE ALL, DON'T EVER LET A TROLL DIVERT THE FOCUS FROM THE REAL ISSUES!

TREAT HIM LIKE HE IS AS CLEAR AS THIN AIR AND SAY "BAH HUMUG." SHRUG, LAUGH AT THE ABSURDITY---IT REALLY IS HUMOROUS ACTUALLY, ISN'T IT, TO SEE WHAT A FOOL HE IS MAKING OF HIMSELF AND NOBODY ELSE---AND MOVE ON TO THE REAL ISSUES. GOODBYE MR TROLL! HE WILL GIVE UP AND GET BORED. GOOD!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:22:02 AM

  (0+)

Tom Murphy has questioned who I am ,what I said and has even made an oblique threat against me. I support Rob's web site because he let's it rip . The day he bans someone like Murphy for his views is the day I will no longer support Rob. When I see the clowns ,whom I've educated myself about their b/s, I scroll right by but support their right in America to spout any drivel they can come up with. Let the masses learn for themselves about people who could think,comment and act like this.

by tjb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:52:24 AM

  (0+)

The label of "troll" is not new for me here at OpEdNews.com.  But while we're discussing the issue of trolls, let's take a closer look at the term's definition. 

Troll: "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion," - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll .

Now, with respect to this article alone, let's review my comments that have resulted in me being labeled a "troll" and compare them to the criteria in the definition.

(1) Have some of my comments been "controversial and... irrelevant or off-topic messages"? 

Well, my comments have been controversial in the sense that they differ from others' assertions on the article's content.  Given this difference or gap, there's bound to be some friction (from both sides) as we jockey to assert our own points.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with these activities, which other term "debate".

Have my comments been irrelevant or off-topic?  Some may have been irrelevant as a particular thread was chased and personal attacks were made, and certainly, this comment is off-topic with regard to the article and its content.  But on the whole, my comments are addressing points raised either by the article itself or by comments left about the article by others.  

Therefore, my comments on these are not off-topic.  Some may construe them as irrelevant but I believe that this is because of their inherent biases, which only allow those readers to view my comments through a selective filter.  I cannot control or change these biases or filters, but I would request that readers be honest with themselves with regard to motives.  This would mitigate the frequency and intensity of truly irrelevant remarks.

(2)  Were my comments made "with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response"?

I very much believe that I cannot "make" another person do or think something.  If someone reacts in a particular manner, then only that person is responsible for that action.  Claiming otherwise is granting me powers I do not possess.  The only thing that I know I CAN control is me. 

While emotion has its place, I do not think it should rule or direct online discussions.  Emotions tend to be unique to the reader or poster and, therefore, highly subjective.  Although emotion-laced words convey a sense of passion or commitment, they also add unnecessary confusion to the issue being discussed.  Words such as "uniform too tight", "ilk", "scumbags", "go salute yourself in the mirror" are colorful but immaterial to the discussions.

This being the case, I'll ask if I've used my words here in an apparent and obvious manner (i.e., intentional) that could ONLY result in the above words being used as responses.  If we're being honest, then the answer is "no".

(3)  Finally, were my comments made to "generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion"?  I think I answered this in Item 1 and suggested that most of my comments were not off-topic.

So, am I troll?  Or... do we have people commenting here that do not want to read another's perspective on the same issue?  And because this is a primarily progressive web site, the expectation of these people is that such non-progressive views should not be tolerated, let alone posted here at OpEdNews.com. 

If this "rings" more to the truth than my being a troll, then I suggest two recommendations that will hopefully assist these people:

(1)  Work on adjusting your expectations accordingly and your aceptance to "things beyond your control" will increase significantly.  You'll find that subjective emotion will not be your first response but objective reason will start to replace emotion.

(2) If you continue to claim me to be the troll without first checking your motives and cleaning your side of the street, then you're glorifying ignorance in the form of internal and external biases at the expense of a well-rounded discussion of the issue.  This decision, like that of using emotion in a response, is entirely yours and not mine to make because I cannot, do not, and would NOT want to control you.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:38:20 AM

  (0+)

"Pride goes before destruction, and an arrogant spirit before a fall. So it is better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly and meek, than to divide the spoils of war with the proud." -- Solomon, in Proverbs 16:18

It is the wise person who realizes how very little they know, and the fool who thinks he knows everything.

The leaders of the "Christian Right" and the right-wing Neo-Conservative Movement in America know not what they do.

They are the arroganly proud and militant fools who are the blind who lead the blind.

They will be shocked to finally realize how and why it will be the humble and meek who shall indeed inherit the earth, along with the those who have been proud and militant but will be humbled and made contrite in the face of truth.

Tom, you would be wise to repent, and turn your life around.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:55:33 AM

  (0+)

"Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance." - Hippocrates

AND

"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them." - Christian Nevell Bovee

Methinks you are professing an opinion about an issue with which you are largely ignorant, Ruth.  But "thank you" for taking my personal inventory, and I trust that yours is intact and prospering, as well.

This personal stuff is getting a bit silly, people.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:45:43 PM

  (0+)

And it's not my opinion.

The truth is eternal, and universal, and it has been told by many truly wise ones, like Solomon, Jesus, Gautama, Lao Tzu, and so many others it would take too long to mention.

And that truth is that the arrogantly proud and militant will indeed be humbled and made contrite in the face of truth, which will finally enable the humble and the meek to inherit the earth.

You may not believe it, but then you don't believe a lot of truths.

That's a shame, a real shame.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:20:43 PM

  (0+)

"The truth is eternal, and universal, and it has been told by many truly wise ones, like Solomon, Jesus, Gautama, Lao Tzu, and so many others..."

“Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus” - truth is the equation of thing and intellect, which Saint Thomas Aquinas restates as, “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality."

I tend to be a believer in the Scholastic Theory as it relates to Logical Truth.  And as a believer, I'm also tend to practice that which I believe.  Do the same applications hold for you, Ruth?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:57:22 PM

  (0+)

And since you claim to believe in "scholastic theory as it relates to logical truth," you should consider this.

The great genius Albert Einstein despised war, and he said: "A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself as something separated from the rest... [but it's] a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness."

Einstein also said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein also said: "All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."

Ironically, the fulfillment of all real, literal religious prophecies is not how most religious people think it will be. In fact, the person who even now fulfills the prophecies of the one to come is very reasonable, and very logical, and he points out the wisdom of people like Einstein along with all the spiritual teachers who have taught eternal, universal truths common to all religions.

You, whether you consider yourself religious or not, unwittingly side with the leaders of the "religious right" who seek and fight and kill for worldly power, wealth and domain, all in the name of God and Country. They claim that God is on their side, but whether they claim to be Christians or Muslims or Jews, they are not "right" or "righteous" as they claim to be. In fact, they are wrong.

You apparently consider yourself wise, and good. You think your words written here should really put all of us who disagree with you to shame.

The shame, however, is on you, whether you know it or not.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:34:15 PM

  (0+)

I admire Mr. Einstein, but religion, morality, and truth (spiritual) were not his forte. He, like you and I, Ruth, was human and wrestled with his own doubts about what and/or who God was.

I consider myself religious and do believe in God or as some prefer a Higher Power as I understand Him. I'm also an American who has defended its Constitution against foreign enemies. Both of these have serious commitments or oaths associated with them. Therefore, I am cognizant of those times when the two may appear to conflict with one another.

I believe I have chosen my path knowingly with regard to these influences and have not traveled it unwittingly. So, I accept fully the responsibility associated with my actions or omissions. However, my decision to serve my country was not based on another telling me that this was "right" or "righteous".

My decision to serve was based upon my desire to give back to the country a fraction of the benefits or good that it had given to me. In doing so, I took an oath to defend the Constitution – not the president, congress, judicial, church, etc... This is important, Ruth, because it removes your presumption that I serve the "religious right" or any other.

War, however horrific, is a part of the human condition. As much as we may want to will it away, human activity may direct such violence into our life's path. If one is honest with themselves at such a crossing, then they shall remember their commitments appropriately.

I consider wisdom and its acquisition a dynamic process. Now, the application of that wisdom is another issue altogether. Do I consider myself wise? In a word, "maybe". But I do consider myself grateful for that which I have received thus far in life. And hopefully, the combination of what wisdom I have acquired and applied, in conjunction with my gratitude, has granted me humility.

I know who I am, Ruth. I know what I'm doing, Ruth. And I know where I'm going, Ruth.

Within those statements exists an understanding of what is good and what is bad. And while I can say that I certainly pursue the good, I can also say that because I'm human I do not always succeed in that pursuit. But I view life as progress and not perfection. Pursuit of the later will surely result in a conflict at some point in one's life.

You give my words far too much power, though, to think that I could possibly control how you or another would react after reading them. Any reaction or feelings that you or another has to such words, including shame, are yours to own and not mine. I can ONLY control me and lay no claim to you.

And I have no shame for my service to the Constitution. If you are suggesting that I could have shame of such things and not know it, I would respectfully disagree with you. As I stated previously, I know who I am, Ruth.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:15:28 AM

  (0+)

That was a nice speech, and I can tell you think it was well thought out.

However, you say you "took an oath to defend the Constitution –– not the president, congress, judicial, church, etc." But in my view, that’s just pretentious and self-serving rhetoric.

You see, the problem is that you take orders from the Commander in Chief, who has not followed the Constitution, and has disobeyed American law, International law, and the Geneva Convention.

In fact, your Commander in Chief claims he is "doing God’s will," and part of his hidden agenda for gaining a foothold in Iraq is to "fulfill prophecy" as interpreted by his "Christian" advisers.

You probably don’t know this, but his religious advisors have convinced him that his war in Iraq is "God's Will" and fulfills the prophecy of the warring "sixth angel" who "poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates..." (Revelation 16:12) They don't realize that chapter is mostly symbolic, just as so many things are in the New Testament, and they know not what they do.

You probably also don’t know that Bush’s occupation of Iraq was planned in 2000, well before the invasion of Iraq, in documents that discussed "American global leadership" that will "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests," and called for a "dominant American role in the Mid-East." It described American armed forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American frontier." And, as incredible and amazing as this is, that imperialistic Bushite blueprint supports and expands an earlier document that says the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

So, you may like to think you’re simply defending the Constitution, but we all know different.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:01:31 PM

  (0+)

Ruth, really?!  Tsk, tsk.  Self-serving rhetoric...?  Ah, so we're back to taking my inventory - again?  And here I thought we had dispensed with that silliness, but... no.  Regardless, this ability to assess others you've never known - other than through words - seems to be a "gift" of yours, Ruth.  I'm sure it must be a great burden to carry, knowing the thoughts and motives of others.  Then again, we all have our own crosses in life to bear, do we not?

And now it seems you profess seer-like abilities as you read into the very mind of "evil" itself - George W. Bush and his Christian imps.  You knew that Iraq was planned in 2000.  You knew that the imps were informing Mr. Evil that his way was defined in the misinterpreted Book of Revelations.  You even knew, through deductive reasoning alone, that Mr. Evil would violate, rend, and tear asunder not just the Constitution, but American and International law, the Geneva Convention, and little Johnny Smith's third term report card!

Wow...  And yet you appear to have done nothing to stop Mr. Evil...  Well, that MUST be frustrating, Ruth... very frustrating - which is probably why I tend to live in reality and not a magical land of Evil, "truth", and... Ruth.  That way, I can actually respond to my surroundings appropriately and not just in my mind-drafted world were dark suspicions, self-serving people, Christian imps, and... Mr. Evil lurk around every thought - just waiting to impose their impearlistic and fascist (in a self-serving rhetoric sort of way) conquests.

Our discussions within this thread have been interesting, but your path is clearly not akin to mine.  I wish you well and will keep you in my thoughts and prayers, requesting that you heed the guidance and beauty of lowering your expectations, accepting the results (whether or not they met your expectations), and checking your motives before you take the inventory of another before first checking your own.

Best wishes on a safe journey through life...

Tom Murphy

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:11:24 PM

  (0+)

I didn't read any further than that, because, like so many right-wing zealots, your last resort is to be arrogantly condenscending and try to belittle and provoke those who point out the error of your ways.

I'll say no more to you. It would only be a waste of my time. But you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM

  (0+)

Ruth is absolutely right. People like you have to resort to condescendingly belittling and trying to provoke those who point out the errors in your beliefs and thinking.

But she forgot to mention that you also resort to heavy sarcasm, also in an obvious effort to provoke people and reduce them to being angry at you, while you carefully pretend not to be angry, but "reasonable" and "logical."

And your last post reveals you are ignorant of the PNAC, the right-wing "think tank" which produced the documents Ruth was referring to.

Ruth was quite right. You, young man, ought to be ashamed of yourself. You need to wake up, and grow up.

But I'm not even going to bother to debate with you, because that is obviously a waste of time.

Like Ruth, I'll let you have the last word, which you will no doubt insist on. People like you always do.

by Sarah Morgan (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 178 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:05:12 PM

  (0+)

Where it was offered by you, Ms. Morgan, I will have the last word. Not that I need it as you assert but because it was offered.

Ruth, you didn't read any further than tsk, tsk? Ah, so you do have an ego and it was affronted. Well, I'll take your inventory now, if only briefly. Apparently, you feel almost entitled to rebuke another when they ere with respect to your own expectations – not theirs. This rebuking comes from your apparent wisdom, given your life experiences and decision to pursue only the "truth". Almost as if... you were a... prophet.

As I've stated elsewhere and previously, Ruth and Ms. Morgan, I cannot make you DO or FEEL anything. If you react negatively to my words, then that is your responsibility alone to own; not mine. I'm surprised, given your "wisdom", that you would so readily usurp your control to me in the form of a provocation. Then again, most "hippie chicks" are into the "let's assign responsibility everywhere else but to the originating person" approach to life and its concerns.

I do not "pretend" to be reasonable and logical here because I am. This isn't to say that I'm perfect – far from it. But with online discussions, emotion has no place and only confuses the discussed issues further, as witnessed in your responses. If you're angry by that, then again – I'll point out that this emotion is yours to own and manage; not mine. Me, myself, and I cannot make you do or feel a blessed thing on this earth. You, and you alone, have that ability.

As to the sarcasm, I'll take responsibility for that. But what is sarcasm other than a passive-aggressive approach to an issue? My assertive approach with you, Ruth, was wasted given your unnecessary insistence upon focusing on my inventory by declaring that I needed to be ashamed. Shame may be Ruth's opinion, but it certainly doesn't make the thought valid nor pertinent to the discussion.

My responsibilities require that I perform my own personal inventory. And as I stated previously, I have no shame associated with this matter.

I am very much aware of the PNAC documents that Ruth referenced, Ms. Morgan. She is neither aware nor would she (and obviously now you) accept the fact that the PNAC documents in question detail the positioning of America as a force to ensure peace and prosperity for the global community - http://www.newamericancentury.org/ . As the surviving superpower in the 1990s, America had the means - and more importantly will – to commit itself to causes often dismissed or paid lip service by other nations and the U.N. Here's a listing of such causes since 1997 – the founding of PNAC:

1997 - Albania. On March 13, 1997, US military forces were used to evacuate certain U.S. Government employees and private US citizens from Tirana, Albania.

1997 - Congo and Gabon. On March 27, 1997, President Clinton reported on March 25, 1997, a standby evacuation force of US military personnel had been deployed to Congo and Gabon to provide enhanced security and to be available for any necessary evacuation operation.

1997 - Sierra Leone. On May 29 and May 30, 1997, US military personnel were deployed to Freetown, Sierra Leone, to prepare for and undertake the evacuation of certain US government employees and private US citizens.

1997 - Cambodia. On July 11, 1997, In an effort to ensure the security of American citizens in Cambodia during a period of domestic conflict there, a Task Force of about 550 US military personnel were deployed at Utapao Air Base in Thailand for possible evacuations.

1998 - Iraq. US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.

1998 - Guinea-Bissau. On June 10, 1998, in response to an army mutiny in Guinea-Bissau endangering the US Embassy, President Clinton deployed a standby evacuation force of US military personnel to Dakar, Senegal, to evacuate from the city of Bissau.

1998 - 1999 Kenya and Tanzania. US military personnel were deployed to Nairobi, Kenya, to coordinate the medical and disaster assistance related to the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

1998 - Afghanistan and Sudan. Operation Infinite Reach On August 20th, air strikes were used against two suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a suspected chemical factory in Sudan.

1998 - Liberia. On September 27, 1998 America deployed a stand-by response and evacuation force of 30 US military personnel to increase the security force at the US Embassy in Monrovia.

1999 - 2001 East Timor. East Timor Independence Limited number of US military forces deployed with UN to restore peace to East Timor.

1999 - NATO's bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo Conflict.

2000 - Sierra Leone. On May 12, 2000 a US Navy patrol craft deployed to Sierra Leone to support evacuation operations from that country if needed.

2000 - Yemen. On October 12, 2000, after the USS Cole attack in the port of Aden, Yemen, military personnel were deployed to Aden.

2000 - East Timor. On February 25, 2000, a small number of U.S. military personnel were deployed to support of the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET).

2001 - September 11 terrorist attacks-New York World Trade Center, Washington Pentagon, Shanksville plane crashes.

2001 - Afghanistan. US invasion of Afghanistan. The War on Terrorism begins with Operation Enduring Freedom. On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters."

2002 - Yemen. On November 3, 2002, an American MQ-1 Predator fired a Hellfire missile at a car in Yemen killing Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, an al-Qaeda leader thought to be responsible for the USS Cole bombing.

2002 - Philippines. January 2002 U.S. "combat-equipped and combat support forces" have been deployed to the Philippines to train with, assist and advise the Philippines' Armed Forces in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."

2002 - Cote d'Ivoire. On September 25, 2002, in response to a rebellion in Cote d'Ivoire, US military personnel went into Cote d'Ivoire to assist in the evacuation of American citizens from Bouake.

2003 - 2003 invasion of Iraq Second Persian Gulf War. March 20, 2003. The United States leads a coalition that includes Britain, to invade Iraq with the stated goal of eliminating Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

2003 - Liberia. Second Liberian Civil War On June 9, 2003, President Bush reported that on June 8 he had sent about 35 combat-equipped US military personnel into Monrovia, Liberia, to help secure the US Embassy in Nouakchott, Mauritania, and to aid in any necessary evacuation from either Liberia or Mauritania.

2003 - Georgia and Djibouti "US combat equipped and support forces" had been deployed to Georgia and Djibouti to help in enhancing their "counterterrorist capabilities."

2004 - 2004 Haïti rebellion occurs. The US sent first sent 55 combat equipped military personnel to augment the US Embassy security forces there and to protect American citizens and property in light. Later 200 additional US combat-equipped, military personnel were sent to prepare the way for a UN Mulitnational Interim Force.

2004 - "War on Terrorism": US "anti-terror" related activities were underway in Georgia, Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and Eritrea.

2006 - Pakistan. 17 people including known Al Qaeda bomb maker and chemical weapons expert Midhat Mursi, were killed in an American MQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border.

2006 - Lebanon. US Marine Detachment, the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit[citation needed], begins evacuation of US citizens willing to the leave the country in the face of a likely ground invasion by Israel and continued fighting between Hezbollah and the Israeli military.

2007 - Somalia. Battle of Ras Kamboni. On January 8, 2007, while the conflict between the Islamic Courts Union and the Transitional Federal Government continues, an AC-130 gunship conducts an aerial strike on a suspected Al-Qaeda operative, along with other Islamist fighters, on Badmadow Island near Ras Kamboni in southern Somalia.

And, of course, there's current on-going operations - click here .

As can be seen, much of the PNAC "means" is the effective use of surgical, military pressure. In order to ensure superiority associated with a superpower, modernization of its military forces is essential. The PNAC documents detail those ideas in the theoretical and practical. Nothing more; nothing less. If the group had "more sinister" goals, I sincerely doubt they'd hang it out there for all to see and question. But... there are some that want to take even this group's personal inventory – and see only evil. What a surprise there, huh!?

I appreciate the reference to "young man". At 42, I'll take it because it shows that the nightly application of Oil of Olay is working. I disagree about the shame, though, as mentioned previously. I agree about the growing up request; we all do that naturally.

If you meant that comment, though, in reference to my mental capability (of course, you did – silly me), then I'll respond by saying, "We're older but no more the wise; we learn the art of compromise..." Compromise, though, is not in your vocabulary. Your sense of entitlement would not permit it given your morally superior position gained by your life experiences and pursuit of the truth.

After all, the "truth" can never be compromised, can it? And thus we see why prophets are dangerous creatures.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM

  (0+)

Thank you.

by Cheri Roberts (16 articles, 15 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 435 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM

  (0+)

I would never tell you to leave these comment sections. Fire up dude. However, when I said "troll", I really got a response. I didn't realize it as "bait and hook" but hell, it sure appears to have worked out that way. I said it because it was true. Redundantly you hop on these threads and start debatingand it's exactly what we get from this Administration, almost verbatim.

I have read the many of your posts, and as I see it, I can hear what you are saying by merely watching FoxNews, or listening to $300 Million dollar man, Rush Limbaugh.

I am living in a heavy armed state. Unlike me, everyone else has a gun. The ppl in my state kiss their guns and vote republican. However, seems these white male republicans, are actually voting for Obama or writing in Ron Paul.

There is an awakening in America. Never underestimate the resilience of the American ppl. We come from the Founder's blood line and we don't Care if we have a uniform. Some of us will spill our blood to RESTORE THE RULE OF LAW.

One more thing, I have read the testimonies and manuscripts from the trials of Gitmo, et al. through HRW, and you are wrong. These ppl were tortured and the verification from the UN's condemnation and Canada's condemnation, Italy's condemnation, and Britain's condemnations is further evidence that America's name has been soiled(putting it mildly) all over the world.

When the PNAC's goals are not able to be accomplished as they "thought" they could do, an extermination will occur, in various ways. When this process is at it's heights. countries around the world will rescue the hungry, helpless, and dying in America. When Bush leaves office (if he indeed does?), the Uprising will be set into motion. Like a screaming spolied tantrum throwing BRAT, Bush will attempt his Martial Law and that will unfold the greatest battle of all time.

The Land of the dry bones..."you will bury your own" and other valid remarks from Russia, will come to pass. It's in motion. I have no "proof".

Just that extra sensory that has developed over time due to lack of other sensories.

I can smell mold, check your refrigerator.  heh heh.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM

  (0+)

I would like to point out that Mr Murphy's comments are exactly right. The patriot act, military commissions act, s. 1959... these don't affect you. Just think of all the "good Germans" who were never directly affected by the rounding up of jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Why should we concern ourselves with Halliburton building concentration camps in Amerika? It's not like there's any history of that sort of thing here.

We shouldn't worry about Bush using the dictatorial powers he's been given, I mean, the U.S. has no history of supporting dictators, or imprisoning political dissenters. Certainly no Amerikan citizen has ever been sent to an internment camp out of fear. No newspaper editor would ever have been sent to prison in Amerika for speaking out against war, or the abuses of government. 

I realise I have a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, but come on, what harm could possibly come from losing that? I realise I have the right to free speech, but why would I want to express my opinions at, I don't know, a political rally? Why should I expect truth or transparency from my government, when it has so many corporate interests that are so much more important than my interests, or those of the people. I mean, the military industrial complex is people too.

Come on folks, give Murphy a break. He just wants us all to be good Germans...er, Amerikans.   

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:20:20 AM

  (0+)

There are too many of us.  There are obviously many more contries in the world with larger populations than our own.  However, no other people consume as many resources as we do.  For as long as there has been civilization there has been a corrupt ruling class.  And up until the last 30 years this ruling class has been squeezing their surfs for all their worth.  But there is a change in policy, one that was not welcome but unavoidable.  It seems that infinate power money and influence in a finite world is not sustainable as the population grows.  China understood this and brought the one child policy.  Sing the praises of democracy and freedom all you like, the brutal hand of communism is at least honest.  We are the enemy because the ruling class now understands finite resources can only be controlled with a finite population consuming them.

by erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:30:48 AM

  (0+)

The Military Commissions Act absolves the Bush Admn. of all illegal acts committed retroactive to 1988.

What crimes did they need to absolve themselves of?

How about violations of US Code, Title 18, section 1001, Lying to Congress?

How about violations of the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremburg Charter?

How about violations of the Clean Air Act which allow coal-burning power plants to emit more mercury into the air?

How about cutting six million dollars from the US Army Corps of Engineers budget for the maintenance of levees costing thousands of lives and sixty billion in rebuilding?

This whole country is a free speech zone. You can get behind a barbed-wire enclosure and sign up to kill innocent Iraqis who have never done anything to the US, but not me.

Bush has violated our own military doctrine of Just War. The Iraq adventure is not a war, it is nothing more than mass murder in support of ancient technologies that could be replaced without loss of lives, but not without loss of oil industry monopolistic control of the US fuel economy.

Why do you think Standard Oil supported Prohibition in the 1920's? Because alcohol-- ethanol, made from corn-- was an available motor fuel and Standard Oil needed a monopoly. Remember, the GOP had just thrown out their own popular President, Teddy Roosevelt, because he ran for a second term on his record of busting the trusts-- monopolies-- that limited corporate control and exploitation of the people and the environment.

If you can't perceive the abolition of most of the Bill of Rights by Bush it may be because you need to read it again. Warrantless home invasions, elimination of due process mean Bush can do exactly what King George III's army did before the founding of this country. Maybe you want to give up everything that Washington fought for. Give up the fourteenth Amendment that guarantees the rights of freed slaves and has been co-opted by corporations to give themselves all the rights of individuals, but none of the responsibilities.

You evidently think holding people incommunicado indefinitely is the American Way. It's not. We are a nation of laws, not a tyranny governed by any one man's say-so. No one is above the laws free men have established to enable true freedom and prosperity. You can't raise wheat or children if you're defending yourself against military force. You can't have international trade if your trading partners can be jailed forever on the word of one man with a decided bias.

Your bias is nothing but rationalization of your indefensible position-- ethically, rationally and legally unjustifiable until Bush changed the rules in defiance of US law.

Killers have no future. Murder is the supreme social crime and aggressive war is the supreme international crime. It cannot be denied.

by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:38:50 AM

  (0+)

was the moment George Bush was appointed president in 2000 and implemented the project for a new American century. 9/11 was merely the icing on the cake. If we really wish to get technical, we became the enemy the moment we formed labor unions at the turn of the last century and the moment we began to question the acts of government and demand equality. The only people who are not the enemy are the wealthiest as you point out and those who remain quietly content and controlled. This same group of wealthy despots gave us the Sedition Acts during the Wilson years, attacking foreigners and anarchists. Then the red scare of McCarthism and here we are again today with the same nonsense. 

The other day I was watching 60 minutes. They were talking about a new weapon, a ray gun of all things that the pentagon has developed. While running tests on it for the cameras they placed mock peace protesters carrying signs with peace and love stenciled on them. The unit sits a half mile away and can be pinpointed on any person. Once it is fired, it feels like being scalded with hot water. The ray apparently penetrates the surface of the skin to make direct contact with the nerve endings. The pentagon says they want to use it in Iraq to save lives. But the real reasons seem quite obvious. It is a tool to keep us(the peace protestors and civil rights advocates) in line, to discourage us and to put any notion of civil disobedience, peaceful or otherwise to rest. It's uses for torture can also be fathomed. The bottom line is, We the People are the enemy, just as you point out. Anyone who stands to oppression is an enemy of the state, a state in fact that no longer exists under constitutional law.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:58:19 AM

  (0+)

While we're at it, Bush has enabled corporations to continue to dump their production costs in our air, water, and soil. Even at the cost of global climate change, which the US Army says is the supreme threat facing our nation. That amounts to treason.

If these corporations had to pay for the cost of cleanup, they would cease and desist. 

New rules allow Shell Oil to increase their dumping of mercury into Lake Michigan-- the only water source for millions of Americans-- and Bush has also delayed the release of scientific studies done by US Government agencies that show increased levels of disease and birth defects from toxic pollution of Lake Michigan.

Crimes against US law, crimes against humanity, crimes against common sense, but most of all crimes against the Christianity Bush so piously espouses.

So, in conclusion, I guess Murphy's law applies to Murphy, himself. But he is welcome to come here for wisdom and understanding. 

by martinweiss (41 articles, 6 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 503 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM

  (0+)

Why do we never get an answer when we're knocking at the door?

Questions about hate and death and war?

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM

  (0+)

I disparaged our "president" (sic) ... our pathetic excuse for a president to a Thailand student, who I was helping my bro, ... the professor, teach American culture.  Her response?

"We can't say things like that, over here."

My bro is now teaching in China, and I am having a difficult time finding blogging spots that are compatible with China and the US at the same time.

What Bush has proven, is that morons do not make good presidents, and vice presidents, who act as someone who has delusions of grandeur, make lousy beasts in The White House. 

By the way, my bro thinks Bush is a modern-day, Lincoln. "Like sea shells, you sea one you sea them all!" 

by Dale Hill (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 107 diaries, 350 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:49:58 PM

  (0+)

I have avoided air travel because I trust your government as much as it trusts you as a people.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 at 4:05:27 PM

  (0+)

No wonder he's so stupid!

He won't shut up long enough to listen to anything, or anybody.

What a freakin' bore!

"Hijacking Catastrophe: Fear & Selling of the American Empire"

Part 1 of 8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckq95HgGeUc

Part 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY2kIU4z4QQ

Part 3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=y95ssDWFQlQ

Part 4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5rA5ATfMaM

Part 5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKcHw-AxWZw

Part 6
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYLF8vN9OQ8

Part 7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeFt34iaM98

Part 8 of 8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmbmpEm_qDA

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:01:15 AM

  (0+)

WOW....reading the comments to this article reveals why our species is in its present predicament.

The Acrimony contained in this string of comments is off the charts.

The hatred for America is equally so. (If I hated where I lived like you all, I would move in a Missouri minute. Its a big planet with lots of really cool places to live.)

I'm betting the you cannot move because you lack the financial wherewithal...your understanding of how the world works is mirrored in your understanding of how to accumulate wealth. (Yeah Yeah....the big cruel world "conspired" to keep you "poor".)

It all ads up to immature short sighted spoiled brats who feel compelled to micromanage the larger world which they permitted to disempower them.

You can't run with the big dogs, so you just chase cars. Funny how those cars always leave you in the dust.

by James Strait (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 193 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:13:12 AM

  (0+)

I always wait for these kinds of posts. they always appear.

There are always those individuals who seem to think that losing our sovereignty, losing our rights, wars of aggression, blacklisting by the government, selling off our infrastructure, killing off our manufacturing base, crsuhing the tax-paying middle class, is all ok just as long as they can make a buck.

For many of us, preserving our country....our loyalty to and love of country far exceeds $$$.

Your assumption that it must be only those who are down and out who object to this wholesale destruction and dismantling of our country is not only absurd, but without basis. You have no idea who is out here and what they may have much less what their net worth would be.

From your post, I can assume you listen to Limpbaugh, or Anne (Andy) Coulter. This is the same kind of baseless and rediculous garbage they spew on a daily basis.

Maybe there are still those of us out here who prize our country far more than our wealth. But that idea wouldn't work within the radical rights extremist line. A false sense of superiority coupled with unfounded imperical attitudes will eventually come around to bite you.

Never assume that those who don't agree with you only disagree because you think they don't have the same level of wealth that you imply you have.

by Marti Oakley (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 84 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:23:24 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Strait, you are sadly ignorant of the situation, or in denial. 

I quote my favorite author:

The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. That phrase has been said so many times it has become a worn-out cliche. Practically no one talks about it any more, and most people just think nothing can be done about it. So it has just gotten worse and worse during the last 27 years, especially in America.

Even worse, when a good, conscientious, influential person does bring the subject up as a political issue, rich right-wing conservatives immediately accuse the good person of "trying to start class warfare." They claim that the American political-economic system is fair. They claim that the rest of us do not get poorer because the richest few get even richer. Some of them even claim that their wealth is a "reward from God." And they claim that all wealthy people deserve what they have, that the poor simply deserve their lot, and that poverty is an inevitable, natural condition created by the poor themselves.

Almost none of that is true, and it's time to acknowledge that the huge and increasing income gap and income disparity is simply not fair, nor is it "natural." And the inequitable distribution of wealth is absolutely not fair or natural, despite what those who profit from it claim.

For example, it absolutely not fair or natural that 90 percent of the total wealth of the nation is pilfered, hoarded and controlled by the wealthiest one percent of the population.

It is not fair or natural that in recent years the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of large American corporations raked in at least 500 times more income than average workers, and at least 1,000 times more than their lowest paid employees.

It is not fair or natural that the wealthiest few live so very luxuriously and even palatially, while the working poor who work full time and sometimes have to take two jobs to try to support their families, cannot afford some of the most basic necessities of life, like sufficient food, housing, medicine, utilities, transportation, etc.

It is not fair or natural that the disabled and elderly have to live on such meager fixed incomes that they are even less able to afford the most basic necessities of life.

It is not fair or natural that even according to the obsolete and far too low "official" government poverty standard, more than 14 million American children live in poverty. It is not fair that even according to the inaccurate and underestimated government poverty reports, 74 percent of those 14 million poor children live in families with at least one parent working full time! And it is especially not fair that the actual numbers are far higher than that.

It is not fair or natural that about 20 percent of the population live below the poverty line, which has pretty much been true even since the early 1960s, when that fact was first pointed out in Michael Harrington’s book, The Other America. That 20 percent figure has remained incredibly steady ever since, even though it has fluctuated somewhat, but it got even worse since the so-called "Welfare Reform" established by the Republicans in 1996, even though the "official" government statistics now don’t reflect how bad it actually is. That legislation not only made things worse, it has prevented us from being able to accurately know how bad the situation is.

But, actually, we can and do have a very good idea of how bad it is, simply by knowing how badly needed all the homeless shelters, food banks, soup lines, and toy drives are. If we really know the situation and consider all that, it’s not difficult to see what’s really going on.

None of that is fair or natural, and there are many other things going on that are just as unfair. And there is just no way that anyone can honestly and truthfully claim otherwise.

I tell you truly, the problem is systemic. It is actually the result of deliberate, legislated, legalized inequity and injustice. It is cold-heartedly planned and calculated, and corrupt legislators have enabled corrupt business and corporate executives who have bribed the corrupt legislators. And it is high time we deal with it, and fix it.

UNQUOTE.

Quoted from:

http://reformationcomingsoon.bravehost.com/Poverty.html 

by Ruth (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 273 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:28:09 PM

  (0+)