BOBT12
Forum Replies Created
-
The Patriot wrote on Nov 30 2007, 07:06 AM:Starting tomorrow a new law will take effect that allows police officers to snap your picture if you're pulled over and do not have a valid license. The law is to help with identity theft. There are people who are worried about their civil liberties, but as long as they don't break the law there's nothing to worry about. Basically, as long as you obey the new law (have a valid dl) then you're not breaking the law. It's the criminals who have to worry.[post=”4343″][/post]Isn't that what they always say as they trample upon people's freedoms?
-
The Patriot wrote on Oct 31 2007, 11:20 AM::ph34r: ?I? am not here to argue the law with you in MY court room? :ph34r:
Recently (August 07) while my wife was traveling in her brother?s automobile, without tags, registration, or insurance. She was stopped by a (North Carolina) local city police officer. The officer asked, “Do you own the vehicle?”. She said, ?No, it?s my brother?s.? He ran the VIN and could not find it titled in North Carolina, but found it titled in Florida. He then asked, “Do you have a license?”. She said, ?Yes, I have a LICENSE but I don?t have it on me?. He asked if it was a North Carolina LICENSE? She said, ?No, it is a Florida LICENSE?. He checked it out and it came back in good standing. The Officer then cited her for ??16 Without having in full force and effect the financial responsibility required by G.S 20-313. The defendant was the Owner of the motor vehicle that was (registered) (required to be registered) in this State G.S 20-313. The officer then let her proceed to her brother?s house two blocks away.
October 30, 2007 was the court date in DISTRICT COURT.
We arrived at the time and date stated on the citation, The Judge (Priest) entered, we all stood. , The Judge (Priest) informed everyone to say here and enter a plea of Guilty, Not Guilty, or Dissmiss when they heard their name called by the D.A. My wife said, ?Here, Not Guilty? Three and a half hours later at the end of a break the D.A. called my wife to the BAR. He asked her if she had Insurance on the vehicle now, and she replied, ?No, the vehicle is not mine? ( My wife said she saw more writing on the D.A.?s copy of the Citation that was not on hers in the space marked ?? 16,) He then asked her if she was still going to plead not guilty? She said, ?yes?, and then he replied, “Fine, have a seat (while laughing at her). The D.A. left the court room, and returned a few minutes later. The Judge (Priest) re-entered the court room, and about an hour later my wife was called to the front of the BAR (She was the last case heard). The D.A. read the charge, the Judge (Priest) asked for her plea again. My wife stated, ?Not Guilty?. The Judge (Priest) said ?State your case?. My wife read the charge directly from the citation, then stated that, “She was not the owner of the vehicle and that the statute did not apply because she was not the owner.” The Judge (Priest) stated, “That is not what you are being charged with”. “You?re being charged with OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT INSURANCE” (a totally different statute). My wife stated, “No, the citation reads ?Without having in full force and effect the financial responsibility required by G.S 20-313. The defendant was the owner of the motor vehicle that was (registered) (required to be registered) in this State G.S 20-313”. The Judge (Priest) then stated something I never in my life thought I would ever hear, ? “I” am not here to argue the law with you in MY court room”! I find you guilty of the charge and sentence you to forty-five days in the dept. of corrections, suspended, and give you 45 days unsupervised probation. She then stated, “You are not to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and tags, and you must pay a fine of twenty-five dollars. She then asked my wife if she could pay the fine today? My wife said ?yes?, but when she saw the fine and court costs ($125.00) my wife said, ?I don?t have that amount today.? The Judge (Priest) said, ?That?s a problem, since you have to pay that fine by 5:p.m. today?. My wife said, ?That it was impossible.? The Judge (Priest) said, ?You have to pay it within-in 30 days.” My wife said, ?ok? and another court date was set. 😮
QUESTIONS
1) There was no way to file documents prior to the hearing? true or false?
2) There was no way to state that she was there on special appearance? true or false?
3) She gave the court full Jurisdiction with her plea of not guilty at the very start when her name was called? true or false?
4) There was no way to remove the Jurisdiction to an Article III court before giving them Jurisdiction? true or false?
5) The D.A., Judge (Priest), Officer did a bait and switch with the statute to find her guilty? true or false?
Is there any where WE can find answers/explanations to these questions so that if and when there is another situation like this we can be better prepared?
The Patriot and Patriot?s wife
[post=”4318″][/post]The Patriot: QUESTIONS
1) There was no way to file documents prior to the hearing? true or false?
BOBT12: You would need to look up the state laws regarding this matter.
The Patriot: 2) There was no way to state that she was there on special appearance? true or false?
BOBT12: It depends on the rules of procedure of that court.
The Patriot: 3) She gave the court full Jurisdiction with her plea of not guilty at the very start when her name was called? true or false?
BOBT12: In most cases, the judge, or Magistrate, will put in a “Not Guilty” plea anyway.
The Patriot: 4) There was no way to remove the Jurisdiction to an Article III court before giving them Jurisdiction? true or false
BOBT12: I do not think so this is a state issue. You must look up state laws, and the state's constitution is a good place to start
North Carolina State Constitution: Sec. 13. Forms of action; rules of procedure.
(1) Forms of action. There shall be in this State but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action, and in which there shall be a right to have issues of fact tried before a jury. Every action prosecuted by the people of the State as a party against a person charged with a public offense, for the punishment thereof, shall be termed a criminal action.
(2) Rules of procedure. The Supreme Court shall have exclusive authority to make rules of procedure and practice for the Appellate Division. The General Assembly may make rules of procedure and practice for the Superior Court and District Court Divisions, and the General Assembly may delegate this authority to the Supreme Court. No rule of procedure or practice shall abridge substantive rights or abrogate or limit the right of trial by jury. If the General Assembly should delegate to the Supreme Court the rule-making power, the General Assembly may, nevertheless, alter, amend, or repeal any rule of procedure or practice adopted by the Supreme Court for the Superior Court or District Court Divisions.
The Patriot: 5) The D.A., Judge (Priest), Officer did a bait and switch with the statute to find her guilty? true or false?
BOBT12: You may need to appeal the decision.
North Carolina State Constitution: Sec. 12. Jurisdiction of the General Court of Justice.
(1) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to review upon appeal any decision of the courts below, upon any matter of law or legal inference. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over “issues of fact” and “questions of fact” shall be the same exercised by it prior to the adoption of this Article, and the Court may issue any remedial writs necessary to give it general supervision and control over the proceedings of the other courts. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to review, when authorized by law, direct appeals from a final order or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
(2) Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals shall have such appellate jurisdiction as the General Assembly may prescribe.
(3) Superior Court. Except as otherwise provided by the General Assembly, the Superior Court shall have original general jurisdiction throughout the State. The Clerks of the Superior Court shall have such jurisdiction and powers as the General Assembly shall prescribe by general law uniformly applicable in every county of the State.
(4) District Courts; Magistrates. The General Assembly shall, by general law uniformly applicable in every local court district of the State, prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of the District Courts and Magistrates.
(5) Waiver. The General Assembly may by general law provide that the jurisdictional limits may be waived in civil cases.
(6) Appeals. The General Assembly shall by general law provide a proper system of appeals. Appeals from Magistrates shall be heard de novo, with the right of trial by jury as defined in this Constitution and the laws of this State.
The Patriot: Is there any where WE can find answers/explanations to these questions so that if and when there is another situation like this we can be better prepared?
BOBT12: Yes, review the constitution and laws of the state.
-
The court seem to resemble criminal organizations. They regularly unjustly restrict free speech, as in the above case, to the point that no defense is permitted.
Further, the courts seem to cherry pick the jury for those most ignorant of rights are selected, with the use of restrictive “oaths”.
Of course, if you cannot make bail (bail is set at unreasonable levels), you have little chance at communication in order to prepare a defense. I have personal experience with this with Mark and Trudy
-
Bing,Jul 18 2007, 08:19 AM
The Pro Se trap is this:
When you make an appearence in any Court as a Pro Se, you in effect concede that the Court has in rem or in personum jurisdiction,
BOBT12:If you want to raise an issue of in personam jurisdiction, you must make a special appearance and present reasons why the court doesn't have jurisdiction over you, otherwise the court will assume jurisdiction. Once you discuss the merits of the case, the court will assume that you are appearing in a general capacity.
Bing:and you in effect, become an Officer of the Court in your capacity as counsel to yourself, and this makes you subject to sanctions by said Court.
BOBT12:I do not believe this is the case. You have a right to council, under the sixth Amendment, or you may waive this right and speak for yourself.
Bing:If you think the Court does not had jurisdiction, you need to make clear that you are Sui Juris and that you are not “making an appearence”.
BOBT12:You are either making a general appearance, or a special appearance.
Bing:If you understand the above, perhaps you can go and explain it to Bob Schulz, who even at this extremely late stage, when he appears in Court, still insists that he is Pro Se. Go Figure.
Bing
BOBT12:Of course, Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) can be raised at anytime. Let's say that you are charged with murder, however, the victim is later found alive and healthy, then there is no SMJ to proceed upon, and the case must be dismissed.
-
mnichnolas wrote on Jul 6 2007, 11:07 PM:Thanks BOBT12, I was beginning to lose faith in this forum.? At least I received one rational response.[post=”4083″][/post]
You are welcome, may peace be unto you. Welcome to the forum.
Since there's no active Draft, your friend must have voluntarily enlisted in the military.
Quote:Enlistment is a contract, but lt is one of those contracts which changes the status of the individual… The pivotal fact which changes the individual's status from that of civilian to that of soldier is the taking of the oath of allegiance. – 53 American Jurisprudence, 2d, “Military and Civil Defense.”Thus, it seems your friend voluntarily became a soldier.
Nevertheless, this might be of interest:
Quote:Unconscionable bargain. An unconscionable bargain or contract is one which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. – Black's Law Dictionary, fifth Edition.This is something your friend will have to decide for himself.
Finally,
Quote:?My son, if sinners [warmongers, in this case] entice you,Do not consent
If they say, ?Come with us,
Let us lie in wait to shed blood;
Let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause;
Here are other good websites:
http://www.objector.org/advice/contents.html
-
mnichnolas wrote on Jul 5 2007, 09:06 AM:How sad and confused you must be. If you harm another human living soul, or his property, you are breaking the common law. So how could being a part of an organization that was created by a fraudulent contract, be worth representing? When all you are doing is acting as an agent on behalf of a fraudulent organization who breaks the three and only fundimental laws of a Sovereign; Do not harm another living being, another's property, or commit fraud upon a contract.[post=”4055″][/post]
If your friend feels that it goes against his conscience to kill, or continue to kill, he should stop! Say No to Unjust War!
“Soldiers Can Choose to Stop Fighting”
Quote:The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed. Awareness of the history of atrocities and destruction committed in the name of America ? either through direct military intervention or by proxy war ? is crucial. They must realize that this is a war not out of self-defense but by choice, for profit and imperialistic domination.http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe…ew.cgi/63/21805
Quote:By Akiko FujitaRepublished from Yahoo! News
“The war in Iraq would make him “party to war crimes” and he would not go.”
TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) ? A U.S. Army officer said on Wednesday that fighting in the war in Iraq would make him ?party to war crimes? and he would not go.
First Lt. Ehren Watada?s supporters?including clergy and a military family group?said he is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq and risked being court-martialed.
The Pentagon said Watada was among a number of officers and enlisted personnel who have applied for conscientious objector status.
?The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the Army?s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes,? said Watada in a taped statement played at a Tacoma news conference.
His superiors at the nearby Fort Lewis military base would not let Watada leave the base to attend the press conference. Another news conference took place in Watada?s native Hawaii.
Watada, 28, had been scheduled to be deployed to Iraq for his first tour later this month. He joined the Army in 2003, and has served in Korea.
Watada said his moral and legal obligations were to the U.S. Constitution ?not those who would issue unlawful orders.?
Nearly 2,500 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 40,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
In recent weeks, Marines have been accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, raising concerns about abuse of force.
Paul Boyce, Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said Watada?s case was being reviewed, adding it ?is not the first case, nor is his case particularly unique.?
Joe Colgan, whose son Benjamin was killed in Iraq, said sending sons and daughters to Iraq was ?unpatriotic.?
?I ask that we all think about our moral conscience and what we have done in God?s name,? said Colgan.
(Additional reporting by Will Dunham in Washington D.C.)
Here is a wonderful story of why soldiers should not blindly follow orders.
Quote:By Akiko FujitaRepublished from Yahoo! News
“The war in Iraq would make him “party to war crimes” and he would not go.”
TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) ? A U.S. Army officer said on Wednesday that fighting in the war in Iraq would make him ?party to war crimes? and he would not go.
First Lt. Ehren Watada?s supporters?including clergy and a military family group?said he is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq and risked being court-martialed.
The Pentagon said Watada was among a number of officers and enlisted personnel who have applied for conscientious objector status.
?The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the Army?s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes,? said Watada in a taped statement played at a Tacoma news conference.
His superiors at the nearby Fort Lewis military base would not let Watada leave the base to attend the press conference. Another news conference took place in Watada?s native Hawaii.
Watada, 28, had been scheduled to be deployed to Iraq for his first tour later this month. He joined the Army in 2003, and has served in Korea.
Watada said his moral and legal obligations were to the U.S. Constitution ?not those who would issue unlawful orders.?
Nearly 2,500 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 40,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
In recent weeks, Marines have been accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, raising concerns about abuse of force.
Paul Boyce, Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said Watada?s case was being reviewed, adding it ?is not the first case, nor is his case particularly unique.?
Joe Colgan, whose son Benjamin was killed in Iraq, said sending sons and daughters to Iraq was ?unpatriotic.?
?I ask that we all think about our moral conscience and what we have done in God?s name,? said Colgan.
(Additional reporting by Will Dunham in Washington D.C.)
Emphasis added.
Ehren Watada is exercising his individual will. How can Mr. Bush overrule his will over himself? Watada is not content with following orders, or laws than are unjust, and unreasonable. Because of this he may risk harm. Nevertheless, doesn't he risk harm if he goes to this illegal war, over 3,000 U.S. soldiers dead, and 20,000 injured? How much more harm does he risk by following his conscience?
This is a question that is greater than a career, and yes, perhaps even prison. This is about life and death. There are at least 50,000 innocent deaths in Iraq. If he saves just one innocent life by not fighting would it be worth his suffering?
He may inspire more to follow his lead. Of course this is what the government is trying to prevent. This is why the government seeks punishment, and spreads fear.
There are about 5,000 others in the military who are resisting. I don't pretend to know what the outcome will be. Yet, if enough resist, Bush will have to go fight in Iraq himself. Then we will see how long this war will last.
In any event, Ehren Watada doesn't believe in this war, he will not kill or die for it. I say good on him, may more follow his example!
Quote:We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world – a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us….No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest ****heads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us – they are the Ku Klux Klan. I p**s down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. F*** them.” Hunter S. Thompson – Author, Novelist, JournalistAN ANGRY SOLDIER wrote:I left the service six months ago because I got pregnant while he was home on leave and three days ago I get a visit from two men in uniform who hand me a letter and tell me my husband died in that ****ing festering sand-pit. He should have been home a month ago but they extended his tour and now he's coming home in a box.http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cf…tid=4365&page=2
I think that this is a very good view on what we should ask of ourselves, and government:
Quote:What follows is my text. If you read it yourself, you will see that I went longer than three minutes. I might have just reduced it all to: down with the warfare-welfare state, and up with peace and free trade.War and Morality
By what ethical standard should we judge the state? One tradition, which we might call anti-liberal, asserts that there are special laws of morality that apply to the state alone. Another tradition, the liberal tradition, says that states must abide by the moral standards that apply to everyone in all times and all places…
Emphasis added.
http://guerrillanews.com/articles/1720/My_…e_Antiwar_Rally
Quote:“War without [just] cause is murder, not war.”“An administration that resurrects the threat of nuclear Armageddon so that its cronies in the military-security complex can become still richer is evil beyond compare. ”
Yes, the Perpetual War that was warned of by the Constitutional framers, the sort of war to profit the politically corupt at the expense of the people. Yet the people, seeing this, still seem unable to unite against this global disaster.
I am asking myself, what gives the US the right to make other nations follow our ideas, and make them into what the US government thinks that they should be? Why are we nation building?
The US got involved in this current conflict based on lies from the Bush administration. This nation is violating its own Constitution by starting this war. This WAR was/is not in defense of this nation, not counting the Bush administration's “pack-of-lies”. The US should get out of this situation as soon as possible. All of this confusion, merely displays the friuts of war (mostly death and destruction).
http://www.reopen911.org/inaug.htm
However, I believe your friend is under the Military Code of Justice. It appears that your friend signed documents that put him outside of the Constitutional arena, thus, may be subjected to a court martial, rather than a trial by jury. They may grant him Conscientious Objector status (very difficult to get this), some prison time (a mild possiblity if they are unhappy with your friend), or a less-than-hororable discharge (pretty good chance). However poor these options may seem, they may beat a hole in the head, or killing those he doesn't have just cause to kill (murder).
WAR IS A RACKET
http://www.aposse.org/commons/warisaracket.htm
Can we bring the troops home, NOW? This war is being paid for with a great deal of BLOOD and treasure.
The US should stop exporting war. What we send out into the world, may return to haunt us. In the final analyzes it is We The People who own the government, and not the reverse.
By the way, there hasn't been a declared war since 1941.
Quote:Concerned about the dangers of unchecked executive power, the Founding Fathers deliberately assigned Congress the sole authority to make war. But the last time Congress did so was in 1941, after the Japanese attack on Peal Harbor ? since then, every president from Harry Truman to George W. Bush has used military force in pursuit of imperial objective without congressional authorization. In vivid detail, War Powers recounts this story of subversion from above. Drawing on congressional hearings, Supreme Court opinions, media reports, and scholarly accounts, legal historian Peter Irons examines how the Constitution has been trampled upon as presidents have usurped a shared, solemn power ? eschewing congressional approval and often suspending civil liberties in the process.More Information
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?sh…war+is+a+racket
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/end-days-ame…=Big+Government
-
Bing wrote on May 23 2007, 01:02 PM:Ron Paul is arguably the ONLY honest person serving in the US Congress.
He upholds his oath of office and tries to protect and defend the USA Constitution. Thus, it is not surprising that Ron Paul is marginalized by his corrupt Congressional brethern, who generally shun him like the plague, as does the mainstream print and broadcast media.
And their shunning actions speak volumes.
I did not see the debate, but have learned from others that Ron won handily.
All that said, the cabal of corrupt media interests will never align themselves behind Ron Paul because they know he can not be bought or bribed, like soo many other American politicians. As it is, they are fawning over what's-her-face, that chick married to Prez Clinton, the serial philanderer and liar, and Barack Obama.
Bing
[post=”3895″][/post]Emphasis added.
It seems that the media is afraid to have Ron Paul in the debates:
Quote:Please share with concerned friends and Digg this. . .Quote of the Day:
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” — George Orwell
Subject: Include the anti-war candidates in all presidential debates
The War in Iraq is the second biggest expansion of the federal government during the Bush administration. It is also the most disastrous. The war in Iraq is also is the biggest issue of the day. But some in the Republican Party want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend the problem doesn't exist.
We want to make them choke on that sand.
So far there is only one Republican candidate for President who is daring to oppose the war in Iraq — Congressman Ron Paul. As we saw after the FoxNews debate, the Big Government crowd in the Republican Party wants to silence the anti-war viewpoint by silencing Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has been excluded from the June 30th presidential forum in Des Moines, Iowa. Because candidates who will speak against war provide an educational function that must be heard by the public, we would like to ask you to CONTACT the organizers of this debate with a CIVIL EXPRESSION OF YOUR RIGHTEOUS OUTRAGE AT THIS EXCLUSION.
Please send the following message to the organizers of the Iowa debate . . .
“Please give us a real Presidential debate, not an echo chamber. Please reverse your policy of excluding the only anti-war Republican candidate from your debate. Please take immediate action to include Congressman Ron Paul.”
Personalize it. Firmly, but politely, tell them what you think. You can send your message here.
It is our position, as part of our educational mission, that all anti-war candidates in all races must be heard in all debates, so citizens can benefit from a full airing of all views on this most important of all issues.
We are legally non-partisan. We are temperamentally anti-partisan. We dislike political parties, and all mindless partisanship. Therefore, we don't want to make it look like we're just picking on the Republicans, or just coming to the defense of Ron Paul. Quite the contrary . . .
We also think the Democrats' position on the war stinks too. The Democrats have consistently failed to do the right thing. They talk against the war, but they fail to take the only direct and responsible action available to them to actually stop the war.
Congress has a Constitutional right to de-authorize the war. The Democrats have a majority with which to pass such a resolution. But they have not done this. Instead, they try to avoid the real issue by attacking the funding of the war — an issue on which they lack the votes to bring about real change.
Congressional Democrats are frauds, and they too deserve to feel a little pain for their bad faith. Please also send a message to Congress urging them to de-authorize the War in Iraq.
Finally, we want to remind you that . . .
The Producers of “9/11 Press for Truth” have given us permission to post the video on our website, where you can watch it, and make your own evaluation of it for free. The video is posted here.
If you would like to have a “9/11 Press for Truth” DVD mailed to your home, here's how to get it . . .
If you're an existing monthly credit card pledger in good standing as of June 15, 2007, all you have to do is increase your monthly pledge by at least $1, and we'll send one to you.
If you're NOT an EXISTING monthly credit card pledger then you can start a monthly credit card pledge of at least $6, or make a one-time credit card donation of $35 or more, and we'll send you the DVD. (Sorry, for technical reasons we cannot make this offer for PayPal pledges or donations).
You can make your contribution here.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
This may also be of some interest:
Quote:!!!Your action is needed!!!It comes directly from Ron Paul's Campaign:
<>
Iowans for Tax Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance will host a
presidential candidates forum on Saturday, June 30th in Des
Moines.? Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sam
Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, and Tom
Tancredo will participate.
Ron Paul, however, will not participate.? Why?? Because he wasn't
invited.
We heard about this forum from numerous supporters in Iowa who
asked why Dr. Paul was not going to participate.? Those supporters
assumed that Dr. Paul was invited.
The campaign office had not received an invitation so we called
this morning; thinking we might have misplaced the invitation or
simply overlooked it.? Lew Moore, our campaign manager, called
Mr. Edward Failor, an officer of Iowans for Tax Relief, to ask
about it.? To our shock, Mr. Failor told us Dr. Paul was not
invited; he was not going to be invited; and he would not be
allowed to participate.? And when asked why, Mr. Failor refused
to explain.? The call ended.
Lew then called Mr. Steve Sheffler, president of the Iowa
Christian Alliance, to talk with him.? Mr. Sheffler did not
answer so Lew left a message.? He has yet to respond.
Why are the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance
excluding the one Republican candidate who scored at the top of
every online poll taken after the MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN
debates?? Why are they denying Iowans the opportunity to hear
from the Republican presidential candidate whose popularity is
growing by the day?
We couldn't get answers to these questions from Messrs. Failor
and Sheffler.? Maybe you'll have better luck.? Their contact
information is below.
It's ironic that on the same day we learned the Iowans for Tax
Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance excluded Dr. Paul from
their candidates forum, we received a call from ABC News
confirming Dr. Paul's participation in its nationally broadcast
August 5th debate to be held in Des Moines.
Kent Snyder, Chairman
Ron Paul 2008
Contact Information:
====================================
Edward Failor
Iowans for Tax Relief
2610 Park Avenue
Muscatine, Iowa 52761
Phone: 563-288-3600 or 877-913-3600
Fax: 563-264-2413
E-mail: itr@taxrelief.org
Steve Sheffler, President
Iowa Christian Alliance
939 Office Park Road, Suite 115
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Phone: 515-225-1515
Fax: 515-225-1826
E-mail: slscheffler@iowachristian.com
PLEASE ACT ON THIS INFORMATION AND CONTACT THE ABOVE OFFICIALS
DEMANDING AN ANSWER TO WHY Dr. PAUL IS BEING DELIBERATELY
EXCLUDED FROM THIS FORUM!
Sam Ettaro
AFTF Media Director
Yours in Freedom and Truth,
Gary Franchi
AFTF National Director
http://www.freedomtofascsim.com
All Your Freedoms, Inc., P.O. Box #1213, 264 South La Cienega Blvd., Beverly
Hills, California 90211
-
Quote:“Lee O'Connor has served the Department of Justice and the American people with distinction and honor,” said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Good-bye ms. O'Connor, you won't be missed. Please take your boss with you.
-
This is very disturbing. A more accurate name for the charge is Willful failure to be enslaved.
-
While the court may have dismissed this case, yet, it still pointed out the the WTP suit raised issues not raised in the past. Mainly, that there's historical support that suggest the government should give a response to petitions to Redress Grievances. Thus, there's a reasonable basis to appeal to the Supreme court. Who knows if the Supreme court has the courage to take up the issue?
ROGERS wrote on Circuit Judge:concurring: The text of the Petition Clause of the First Amendment does not explicitly indicate whether the right to petition includes a right to a response. Appellants ask the court to consider the text in light of historical evidence of how the right to petition was understood at the time the First Amendment was adopted. Essentially, they contend that the Petition Clause should be read in light of contemporary understanding, which they suggest indicates that the obligation to respond was part and parcel of the right to petition.As the court points out, we have no occasion to resolve the merits of appellants' historical argument, given the binding Supreme Court precedent in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, 441 U.S. 463 (1979), and Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984). Op. at 9. That precedent, however, does not refer to the historical evidence and we know from the briefs in Knight that the historical argument was not presented to the Supreme Court.
Emphasis added.
I think Bob Schulz and We The People have done a great job in getting this far. Nevertheless, this is a time when the government, and many people, do not seem to believe in God given rights, original intent, natural law, or common sense. We tend to treat the Supreme court (all government really) like the Supreme being, rather than a collection of human beings, with human failings. It is more important to follow our conscience. How is your conscience moved by the above?
-
Bing wrote on Apr 25 2007, 03:11 AM:Thanks for sharing that, BobT12.
Bing
[post=”3823″][/post]My pleasure.
-
Get the troops out of Iraq now.
Quote:War and the Police State: Complicity of the American Peopleby Donna J. Thorne
Global Research, April 21, 2007
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth?. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not..? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know.. it ? now.” Patrick Henry, 1775.
In this era of perpetual warfare, escalating domestic tyranny, government-sanctioned torture, and a Nazi-like pursuit of Middle-East domination, one would expect, at the very least, an audible outcry from the People who proclaim resolute devotion to the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Yet for the most part, Mainstream America continues to assume a posture of apathy, bitterness, or eery silence.
When confronted with hard facts and scientific evidence linking key government officials to the attacks of 9/11, ostensibly intelligent, levelheaded people angrily and defiantly reject said information without a moment's deliberation. Sincerely compassionate and peace-loving individuals support the criminal invasion of Iraq and close their eyes to the U.S. slaughter of 600,000 Iraqi civilians, choosing instead to believe in the myth of American supremacy, at the heart of which lies the notion that foreigners alone are capable of such atrocities.
And now, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the subsequent establishment of Homeland Security, previously rigid supporters of civil rights quietly tolerate the piecemeal deconstruction of the U.S. Constitution under the pretext of protection, and to their own peril, disregard increasingly strident warnings and signs of a growing and imminent police state. Clearly, Mainstream America has surrendered to the subjugation of a power-crazed, despotic administration whose control continues to expand exponentially with each passing rumor of imminent peril .
Why,when confronted with a black-and-white record of autocratic offenses, are so many sensible Americans ignoring and even endorsing the current administration as it openly paves a tyrannical road to (censored)? Are we so deluded by rhetoric and weapons-grade propaganda, that we are no longer able to distinguish truth from fiction, thereby allowing, if not abetting our own enslavement ?
Inarguably, a collective set of circumstances exist to explain the acquiescence of the American People. What follows is the first in a series of explorations by which this writer will attempt to identify possible core factors contributing to the scourge of apathy in American society today.
Fear, the Nemesis of Rationality
One cannot analyze the dynamics of a post 9/11 society without examining one of its principal characteristics: fear, anxiety, dread, apprehension? in a word, Terror. To those who benefit from its proliferation, fear is a currency, a commodity, and a powerful marketing tool. If one is aware of the devices by which leaders have garnered power and support for any given war or agenda historically, one can easily discern the same machinations at work today. A key ingredient to any successful war rally or acquisition of power is the exploitation of fear through the manipulation of perception.
On September 11, 2001, corporate media and the government elite launched an aggressive political and media campaign upon and against the American people. With Madison-Avenue expertise, purveyors of fear heightened our perception of imminent threat by inundating the airwaves with continual, repetitive, easily-learned sound-bytes, words brimming with emotionally-charged meaning, “?Bin Laden, Taliban, Axis of Evil, Saddam Hussein, Terror-Threat, Terrorist?” with just enough intensity to successfully persuade the American people to procure security at any cost.
Comprehensive and firmly-entrenched fear is the means by which the current administration manages to sell the “War of Terror” and, allowed to flourish, has solidified mechanized cooperation from the masses as our leaders appeal to the most basic of all human needs– security.
The groundwork has been laid. Today, newly identified “threats” are announced with almost predictable regularity. Now firmly embedded in the collective unconscious of America, fear is employed to rationalize unprecedented dictatorial powers in the White House, to justify the erosion of privacy and the stripping of human rights once sacredly guarded by the Constitution. Yet, what should one expect from an administration whose platform is built upon a substratum of fear, except for fear itself?
Fear attempts to silence dissenters. As the Truth Movement gains momentum and amasses credibility, the fear profiteers have begun heralding yet another “threat” to National Security – inquiring minds. This is both good news and bad news. We are no longer ignorable. Fearing exposure, the Czars of Propaganda know that “Truthers” must be branded and discredited if government corruption and corporate fraud is to flourish unabated. This said, prepare for an intensified Smear-and-Fear Campaign. Any group or individual who vocally questions the official story of 9/11 or who exercises the right to demand Government accountability will be labeled “Anti-American and Anti-Patriotic”.
A well-documented strategy of propagandists throughout modern history, dissolving credibility through character assassination is a calculated tactic utilized to persuade the uninformed public to turn a deaf ear, to, in effect, remain uninformed. It remains to be seen if this line of attack will succeed, and success is dependent upon each individual proponent of freedom. As with the human longing for security, the natural desire for affiliation and acceptance works in favor of the war-mongering, power-hungry elite, for they know only the bravest of the brave will dare risk ostracism for a noble cause.
Fear begets fear and dulls rationality. Under fear's influence, the autonomic nervous system shifts into fight-or-flight mode. Perhaps this either-or response clarifies the bipartisanship of laboring freedom fighters and the willingly deceived. The former empower themselves with knowledge. The latter, so fearful of annihilating reassuring illusions, continue to defend the crimes of their pseudo-conservative leaders, and in so doing, stave off the anxieties which would surely accompany enlightenment. So desperate to believe in an imaginary benevolent Big Brother, We the People unknowingly and sometimes willingly turn a deaf ear to the truth, choosing instead to believe a lie. We lull ourselves into complacency or forced submission. We allow fear to breed a culture of silent ignorance and unthinking loyalty by which dictatorial regimes are allowed to flourish.
We would do well to remember, a fear-struck population is easily led.
Global Research Articles by Donna J. Thorne
Quote:So desperate to believe in an imaginary benevolent Big Brother, We the People unknowingly and sometimes willingly turn a deaf ear to the truth, choosing instead to believe a lie. We lull ourselves into complacency or forced submission. We allow fear to breed a culture of silent ignorance and unthinking loyalty by which dictatorial regimes are allowed to flourish.[Posted By ShiftShapers]
-
Bing wrote on Apr 11 2007, 08:20 AM:devDelay wrote on Apr 11 2007, 06:26 AM:Something is seriously wrong when the government cannot even recognize its own positively enacted law. This is starting to frustrate me.[post=”3790″][/post]
Yeah well, good, you should be frustrated.
Take your frustration and continue to educate yourself. And correct folks when they abuse language and try and foist their presumptions upon you, like calling you a “U.S. citizen”.
The ignorance of the State Dept employees is partly due to the fact that for decades, the lying and corrupt US Government, with ample assistance from the print and broadcast media, have hijacked and abused language in order to manipulate American Citizens and turn them into docile slaves who never question authority.
Keep pressing. Pressing. Pressing.
And never, ever, ever, never give in to these tyrants! Never!
Bing
[post=”3791″][/post]I agree, the fight must continue.
Quote:Confusion and corruption are the main supports of tyranny…Corruption leads to slavery; integrity to freedom. -Cato -
Bing wrote on Apr 5 2007, 03:30 AM:I agree that GW Bush, VP Cheyney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and their cabal of corrupt and lying Neo-Cons, lied to the American People about Iraq invasion.
I was too stupid to have believed there were WMDs in Iraq back in 2003, so I was pro-invasion when the war started, but when I learned differently in 2004, and that Pres Bush lied many times, well, I turned against the war and posted as much on the internet.
That said, it is a war, and American troops are in a nasty fight. I am not so foolish to think that some video shot by some dude named “Doc”, depicts a war crime, when there is so much evidence and facts that we don't know.
In an urban milieu against an insurgency, and especially in OOTW, American Soldiers should be given far greater latitude to defend themselves.
Just like tens of millions of other Americans, I think Pres. Bush is a disgrace and a liar who should be impeached and put in prison. That said, not every engagement in Iraq rises to the level of a war crime and we are fighting a sophisticated enemy whose propaganda machine is superb.
Remember, in war, truth is the first casualty.?
Bing
[post=”3773″][/post]Emphasis added.
Thanks for your reply, I agree with most of it.
Remember also that wars may take place with, or without, shots being fired. To paraphrase Niccol? Machiavelli, or perhaps Sun Tzu (I cannot locate the exact quote): During war, plan for peace. During peace, plan for war. This seems to be the outlook of a number of office holders for quite some time.
I will conclude with the timely pre Iraq war comments of US Senator Robert Byrd:
Quote:Published on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.orgReckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences?
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech – Wednesday, February 12, 2003?
?
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation's — hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq [currently under consideration for Iran]. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly “sleepwalking through history.” In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
Emphasis added.
-
Bing wrote on Apr 4 2007, 07:18 AM:Whoa!!
Hold on!! I simply don't accept your unproven assertion any war crimes were committed by any USA Soldiers as depicted in your video. I watched the video without any audio.
Iraq is a war zone.
[post=”3766″][/post]The viewers are free to form their own opinions about the video. However, Iraq is a war zone only because the Bush camp lied and made it a war zone.
If you want to see what was said LOOK HERE!
Bing wrote:Second, how do you know that the territory where the target was engaged, was, under the Rules of Engagement then in effect, not a “free fire zone”?Third, it is quite possible that if a USA Soldier were wearing heat seeking thermal imaging vision apparatus, that it may have revealed a heat signature consistent with 2 cars packed with explosives or small arms/weapons. If such was the case, then all bets are off and those Iraqi tangos got what they deserve.
It seems that an investigation might be in order, don't you agree?
Quote:Terrified US soldiers are still killing civilians with impunity, while the dead go uncounted.An American patrol roared past us with the soldiers gesturing furiously with their guns for traffic to keep back on an overpass in central Baghdad. A black car with three young men in it did not stop in time and a soldier fired several shots from his machine gun into its engine.
The driver and his friends were not hit, but many Iraqis do not survive casual encounters with US soldiers. It is very easy to be accidentally killed in Iraq. US soldiers treat everybody as a potential suicide bomber. If they are right they have saved their lives and if they are wrong they face no penalty.
?We should end the immunity of US soldiers here,? says Dr Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Kurdish politician who argues that the failure to prosecute American soldiers who have killed civilians is one of the reasons why the occupation became so unpopular so fast. He admits, however, that this is extremely unlikely to happen given the US attitude to any sanctions against its own forces.
Bing wrote:You want to see a war crime, go to http://www.ogrish.com and watch Muslim terrorists cut the heads off of innocent men, Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, and Iraqis. And lest we forget, the ritualisti beheading of American Nick DeBerg.Were the people getting shot in the video the same ones on http://www.ogrish.com? Did they invade the U.S. of A.? Do two wrongs make it a right?
Quote:More evidence surfaces of Marine SlayingsThe BBC has uncovered new video evidence that US forces may have been responsible for the deliberate killing of 11 innocent Iraqi civilians.
The video appears to challenge the US military?s account of events that took place in the town of Ishaqi in March.
The US said at the time four people died during a military operation, but Iraqi police claimed that US troops had deliberately shot the 11 people.
A spokesman for US forces in Iraq told the BBC an inquiry was under way.
The new evidence comes in the wake of the alleged massacre in Haditha, where US marines are suspected of killing up to 24 Iraqi civilians in November 2005 and covering up the deaths.
The incident is being investigated by the Pentagon.
The US military has announced that coalition troops in Iraq are to have ethical training following the furore surrounding the alleged killings.
For the next 30 days, they would receive lessons in ?core warrior values?, a military statement said.
The news of ethical training for US-led troops is likely to be greeted with cynicism by many Iraqis, the BBC?s Ian Pannell in Baghdad says, as the troops have long been accused of deliberately targeting?
Bing wrote:Your video is nothing but bovine scatology writ large.It's not my video, as you can see from the quote. However, I think viewers should see what is going on, which the major media outlets seem to be ignoring for the most part.
Quote:On March 23rd, the online independent news outlet Information Clearing House broadcasted a video depicting the brutal slaying of Iraqi civilians by U.S. occupation forces. At the end of the video, a disclaimer appears, that claims that ?No unarmed people were hurt during shooting.? This claim, however, is not evident in the footage itself. This is certainly not the first time such killings have taken place in Iraq, nor is it the first time the mainstream media has chosen to ignore such war crimes.The bottom line is that the U.S.A. had no good basis to invade Iraq, since the INTEL was based on LIES! Now the best option is to bring the troops home!
Quote:The Uniform Code of Military Justice contains a clause that legally obligates any solider or officer to disobey any order that is in violation of international law. Therefore, every U.S. armed forces personnel in Iraq has the legal duty to abandon the battlefield immediately. We do not support you in your complicity and cooperation with this illegal and imperial war. We do, however, support you in your legal and moral obligation to lay down your weapon and refuse to fight. We will support you when you refuse to be cannon fodder for empire.One Big War Crime: Through Inaction, We Are All Complicit
America is more than four years into this illegal war. There have been more than 3,503 coalition deaths, and between 655,000 and 1,000,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. This industrial conversion of the living to the dead has cost the American people more than $412,450,947,641, with no sign of slowing down or stopping of its own volition any time soon.
How much longer will the American people, and the people of the world, tolerate this human tragedy? How much longer will we placate our consciences with ineffective and State-sanctioned dissent before we realize our true power, as workers, to shut this war machine down? How many more people will have to die?
Emphasis added.
Who will be next: Iran, Syria, China….
It is self-evident that this cesspool (based on: rob, rape, enslave, murder thy neighbor for fun and profit) is being spread around the globe with military force, as Bush says, you are either with us or against us.
Then this administration goes on to say that we are involved in a war that's going to last sixty years! They don't even bother to offer any concrete basis for this outrageous estimate, what will stop the war from going to one hundred years or more? How long did WWI and WWII last? Isn't this Perpetual War? It certainly is not about the defense of the nation.
Yes, the Perpetual War that was warned of by the Constitutional framers, the sort of war to profit the politically corupt at the expense of the people. Yet the people, seeing this, still seem unable to unite against this global disaster. After a sixty years bloodbath, does anyone think the cesspool will somehow cleanse itself? Or will the cesspool seek out and destroy the uncorrupted, and swoon over their New World Order (NWO)?
Lets stop the bloodbath NOW!