Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

We the People Scoop 09 September 2004 Evening Edition

Expand Messages
  • rick@stanley2002.org
    Rick Stanley Constitutional Activist Phone: 303-329-0481 Email: rick@stanley2002.org We the People Scoop 09 September 2004 Evening Edition
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 9, 2004
      Rick Stanley
      Constitutional Activist
      Phone: 303-329-0481
      Email: rick@...

      We the People Scoop 09 September 2004 Evening Edition
      ** Visit the website: http://www.stanley2002.org **
      ** Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! **
      In This Issue:
      1: Westword's Off Limits: a boner for Liberty
      2: The Madness of Emperor George
      3: Arming the Left: Is the time now?
      5: Might want to read this I MUST AGREE TIME TO TAKE VIOLENT ACTION!!!
      6: Sherry's War
      7: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton by William L. Anderson
      8: Banning Guns Has Backfired by John R. Lott, Jr.
      9: Fortress New York
      10: Al Gore Is A War Criminal
      11: what will it take to get off our arses? 
      12: Registered mail receipt
      14: Constitution Day with Rick Stanley in Pueblo (Hopefully)
      15: USA To Outlaw Christianity
      16: Final Countdown to the NWO!!!!!
      17: Warning from former US Army Artillery Officer from Houston to Israeli
      18: The loyal Nine
      19: FOCUS: U.S. Concedes 'Rebels' Control Large Regions in Iraq
      20: "Globalists Adopting Jewish Laws" by A Special Correspondent
      21: Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide
      22: Something to Hide?
      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      1: Westword's Off Limits: a boner for Liberty

      from Westword, Sept. 9-15, 2004, page 18:

      Off Limits
      Walk softly and carry a big shtick


      Finally, former U.S Senate candidate Rick Stanley will
      be back in court on September 10. But before Supreme Court
      Justice Joseph Quinn can hand down Stanley's sentence for
      threatening the two judges who heard a previous Stanley
      gun-violation case, he'll have to read California attorney
      Peter Mancus's 42-point brief outlining why Stanley is not
      only innocent, but a good patriot. Reason No. 25: "Rick
      Stanley is a patriot with big, bold, gold plated [sic]
      balls. He is certainly no limp dick. Instead, hi is a boner.
      His Liberty Erection is firm, straight, and vertical. Stanley
      is a ramrod who stood tall and stands taller despite, and
      because of, the multiple convictions he has racked up in
      his pursuit of Liberty that has exposed Tyranny. His Liberty
      Erection points to an inspiring way to live: LIVE FREE
      OR DIE!"

      Got scoop? E-mail amy.haimerl@...

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      2: The Madness of Emperor George

      ----- Forwarded message from Tee <eagle11@...> -----


      The Madness of Emperor George

      by Butler Shaffer

      While campaigning for reelection, President Bush declared: "Knowing what we
      know today, we still would have gone into Iraq." That Hussein had no
      weapons of mass destruction nor ongoing efforts to create them, no Iraqi
      ties to al Qaeda or involvement with the attacks of 9/11 were, by Bush’s
      own admission, irrelevant to his plans to attack an innocent nation. Truth,
      in other words, has no meaning in this man’s calculation of his actions.
      Mr. Bush went even further in declaring, on the one hand, "I don’t think
      you can win" the war on terror, but adding that America cannot retreat from
      this war because, to do so, would "show weakness" to the world.

      Most Americans are probably uncomfortable with the thought that their
      president might suffer from madness. The mere contemplation of such a
      possibility simply does not compute within minds that have been conditioned
      to believe in the rationality of the political process which is supposed to
      filter out the unstable, the crazed fanatics, and those of "extremist"
      dispositions. How could a man become and remain president if his thinking
      and actions were dominated by irrational impulses?

      And yet, unless the rest of us are equally affected by madness, how else do
      we explain behavior that not only bears no relation to clearly demonstrated
      truth, but admittedly contradicts that truth? One dictionary defines
      "paranoia" as "a tendency toward suspiciousness and distrustfulness of
      others that is based not on objective reality." Might this definition
      describe a man whose thinking is dominated by the worldwide presence of an
      "axis of evil," and who persists in the childish view that "if you’re not
      with us, you’re against us?" And when there is absolutely no evidence to
      support a war he undertook and insists on continuing, are his acts not
      grounded in a lack of "objective reality?"

      Another dictionary defines "paranoia" as a "mental disorder, characterized
      by persistent delusions." A "delusion" is further defined as a "false
      opinion or belief which cannot be shaken by reason." What better term to
      describe a man unrestrained by revelations that his stated reasons for
      attacking Iraq were totally unfounded but that, even on the basis of such
      falsehoods, he would still have gone to war? Might his insistence on going
      to war – and seeking new enemies to replace the beleaguered Iraqis – not
      qualify as an "obsession," which one dictionary tells us is "an anxious and
      inescapable preoccupation with an idea or feeling?"

      Paranoia is often associated with "megalomania," which dictionaries define
      as "a mania for doing great or grandiose things," or "an excessive
      overestimation of one’s own importance." Did Bush not confirm this symptom
      of himself when he declared that "God wants me to be president?" What more
      exalted delusion of grandeur than to imagine oneself to be God’s anointed
      agent for ferreting out the forces of "evil" on earth?

      In partial mitigation of his deluded mindset, it must be noted that the
      madness of George Bush is the madness of a society that produced such a man
      – and others like him – elevated him to power, and sustains his authority
      even in the face of his continuing patterns of lies, deceptions, and
      arrogance. I wrote, shortly after 9/11, that the attacks of that day "have
      struck deeper into our conscious and unconscious minds than any of us has
      begun to imagine." In varying ways, most of us are still engaged in a
      catharsis associated with these events, with many of us yet unable to
      discover their deeper meaning.

      To begin with, the destruction of the WTC did far more than kill nearly
      3,000 people. It also visually symbolized the ongoing collapse of
      vertically-structured social systems (a topic I have taken up in earlier
      articles in this LRC EBook). Most Americans went into an unfocused rage. In
      a fit of self-righteousness – for which Americans play second fiddle to no
      others – it became important to find someone, anyone, to punish for this
      crime. The alleged perpetrators were all dead, so upon whom could the
      self-righteous direct their anger? The first recipients were the
      goat-herders and other peasants of Afghanistan. Attention was later brought
      to bear upon Iraq, even though there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi
      involvement in the 9/11 atrocity.

      But Iraqi innocence was beside the point. Iraq had been selected as the
      designated scapegoat for America’s unrequited anger, and if the Iraqis
      objected to this "honor" bestowed upon them by America, this provided all
      the more reason to intensify the attack. In June of this year, the
      ultra-jingoistic Bill O’Reilly raged against the Iraqis for not fully
      appreciating the destruction and killing American forces were perpetrating
      upon them. His proposed solution was to "bomb the living daylights out of
      them," a recommendation he also made regarding Iraqi resistance in
      Fallujah. "Why doesn’t the U.S. military just go ahead and level it?," he
      asked, adding "we know what the final solution should be." This is the kind
      of thinking that represents the collective madness in which so much of
      America is enmeshed.

      full article at:

      September 4, 2004

      Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University
      School of Law.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      3: Arming the Left: Is the time now?

      ----- Forwarded message from MJYannone@... -----

      In a message dated 9/4/2004 8:23:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
      clg_news@... writes:

      > Arming the Left: Is the time now? --by Charles Southwell "So I ask you,
      > isn't it time that left-leaning liberals and leftists exercised their 2nd
      > amendment rights and got organized and prepared? Isn't it time, before it's
      > late? Isn't it time, before another Bush coup and the following four years of
      > increased repression and economic ruin?"

      Dear Mr. Southwell:

      With all due respect . . . duh! See the link (below) to Innocents Betrayed.
      Order the movie and stock up on ammo.

      Best regards,

      Mark Yannone
      602 548-7123
      2004 Libertarian candidate
      US House of Representatives for Arizona's District 3
      "Most Americans are not liable for a federal income tax."

      861 Movie: http://www.861.info
      Website: http://www.yannone.org
      Freedom Movie: http://www.yannone.org/philosophy-flash.html
      Innocents Betrayed: http://www.yannone.org/innocents-betrayed.html

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @

      ----- Forwarded message from spiker <spiker@...

      Alamance Independent


      August 31, 2004

      By Mark Andrew Dwyer

      Mexicans will seek all kinds of excuses to justify why are they illegally
      pouring into the U.S. in hundreds of thousands a year through America's
      porous border.

      They will claim that American Southwest is their "historic land", although
      when Mexicans signed in 1848 a treaty with the U.S. in which they ceded
      their claims to these territories, out of est. 4,000,000 people (mostly,
      North American Indians) living in there, only est. 4,000 residents in
      California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico were
      Spanish speakers, and a vast majority of them Spaniards and not Mexicans.
      (The highest published claim I saw was "no more than about 7,500 Spanish
      speakers" in California itself - see [1] - out of a total of about 300,000
      California residents.) Compare this to Mexico's population of about
      7,500,000 at that time to conclude that less than one in thousand Mexicans
      lived in American Southwest at the time when the treaty was signed.

      They will claim that they have rights to American territories because they
      are indigenous people here, kins of North American Indians and California
      Indians, although the main premise of this kinship is Christopher
      Columbus's famous mistake: when he discovered America in 1492, he thought
      that he landed in India and named all the people that lived there
      "Indians". If this kinship by name ("Indians") were a valid argument, it
      would give Mexicans territorial rights against India because of their
      Indian descend.

      They will claim that they are only coming to America to do jobs that
      Americans won't. But if you look at American job market, Mexicans are
      expanding their presence there to the point where they monopolized entire
      sectors of economy in which they managed to drive American workers away by
      depressing the wages prevailing in these sectors. This monopolization begun
      with picking strawberries, but then it carried on to landscaping, gardening
      and housekeeping, then to construction, then to food and hotel industries,
      and on and on and on. In the sectors where they are still
      "underrepresented", they demand quota for new hires on their behalf,
      although in other sectors where they have a practical monopoly there are no
      quotas for underrepresented (and displaced) American workers.

      They will claim that they had to leave Mexico in order to improve their
      lives, but the fact is that as living standards in Mexico (slowly) improve,
      the number of "migrants" is growing rather than decreasing. Once in the
      U.S., although their lives have been dramatically improved, they apply even
      more pressure to increase Mexican population in the U.S. up to the point
      where American births to Mexican parents compete with mass "migration" for
      the lion share of this country's population growth. So, although they blame
      their economic understatus in Mexico for growth of their population in
      America, the fact is that every improvement of that status immediately
      translates on visible increase of their population.

      Their "Mexican historicity" and ethnicity-based claims don't withstand
      scientific scrutiny, though. The native peoples living in Americas,
      although arguably all descendants of Mongolian nomads that found their way
      through Bering's Strait to American continent some nine millennia ago, are
      about as ethnically diversified as peoples in Europe are today. (No one in
      Europe would suggest that the Portuguese have any territorial rights to
      Finland just because they are indigenous European people.) There were no
      social or cultural structures in place that would made of Americas'
      inhabitants one people. They had different cultures and languages, and
      fiercely fought with one another. There was not enough trade or cultural
      interaction to foster any close ties between them. In particular, there was
      no meaningful "kinship" between North American Indians and native residents
      of Mexico.

      For example, the areas of San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Buenaventura, and
      San Bernardino, situated right at the center of what Chicano activists call
      their "historic land", were populated by Yuhaviatam Nation of Shoshone
      Indians that Spaniards nicknamed "Mission Indians". These Indians had about
      as much in common with Mexicans as other North American Indians had, that
      is, nothing, except for their ancient Mongolian ancestry. Another example
      of a lack of any "kinship" between Mexicans and North American Indians
      living in Mexican "historic land" was a recent controversy that involved
      Mexican "migrants" and the Nation of O'odham. According to FOX News (see
      [2]), there was a clash between Mexican "indigenous" people jumping the
      American border in Arizona in order to recapture their "historic land" and
      Arizona's Tohono O'odham Indian Nation that refused to recognize Mexican
      "rights" to Arizona because they - the Navajo Indians, that is - have lived
      there for last 7,000 years.

      We need to recognize that the root cause of the Mexican mass "migration" to
      the U.S. is not their "reclaiming" of the land lost but their rapid
      population growth that largely exceeds that nation's ability to feed,
      educate, and house its population. Recognizing this gives us a valuable
      hint what should we do in order to bringing that "migration" to a complete
      halt. Rather than accepting millions of "migrants" who further perpetuate
      the explosive population growth, this time in the U.S., we should fully
      enforce the American border and make it clear to Mexican authorities that
      we will not accept any surplus of their population anymore. Rather then
      importing Mexican "temporary" workers or otherwise stimulating growth of
      Mexican economy, the aid that quickly translates into more population
      growth and, eventually, more "migration" to the U.S., we should concentrate
      our efforts on stabilization of the Mexican population and throw in no
      money there until such a stabilization has been accomplished.

      As of now, Mexicans are multiplying quickly and populating North America at
      the expense the Western civilization. They are expanding the boundaries of
      their nation further North than the Aztec Empire, that they ostensibly
      attempt to recover, ever did. Their flimsy claims of "Mexican historicity"
      of American Southwest are supposed to give a legal basis for their
      "migrating" to and populating of that region. Their "kinship" and
      "indigenousness" hollow arguments are used to support their efforts to
      crowd out European and African populations in order to make more room for
      their own. Their demands of jobs and other ways of improving their economic
      standing serve their main goal: to sustain exponential growth of their
      already overgrown population

      They are already electing officials to American government that have their
      loyalties South of the American border. As a result, stopping their
      conquest of the U.S. becomes more and more difficult. Once they outnumber
      all others, they will take over the ship America, and then God have a mercy
      on all of us here.


      [1] Taking the Oath - Why We Need a Revisionist History of Latinos in
      America L.A. Times, August 20, 2000

      (For some reason, this link occasionally fails. If so then try to run
      and then click on the link to this article.)

      [2] Ariz. Indian Nation Overrun With Illegal Immigrants

      Mark Andrew Dwyer's past columns can be found here:

      Please, send your comments to

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      5: Might want to read this I MUST AGREE TIME TO TAKE VIOLENT ACTION!!!

      STANLEY NOTE: One more time: I am amazed that Patriots have not stood up.
      Leave it to the liberals to make the stand. Who would have thunk? The
      cowardice of those who "KNOW" what is going on in this country, is truly
      amazing. No one will stand up to them. Why? Look deep inside America. I
      will be watching. Probably waiting for the revolution behind bars. What a
      damn shame.
      Live FREE or Die!

      ----- Forwarded message from Justin Irwin <matrixaudiollc@...> -----

      Democracy Should Be Changed To Republic (They are two very different things)

      Arming the Left: Is the time now? --by Charles Southwell*

      I hope you didn't open this page to read what we already know: that this is
      the most rightwing government we have ever had in the US, even far right of
      Bush I, that our rights are being eroded daily, and that our democratic
      process is all but gone, if it isn't already gone.

      I hope you came here to read about tactics for action that will finally have
      some consequence. I hope you agree that our protests, petitions, letters,
      and on and on, have been utterly ignored. The fascistas that run our country
      laugh at us. They believe they can do anything and that we haven't got the
      guts to revolt, but only to wage a war of words. I have seen the Bush
      cavalcades, as they drive away, his aids sneering and jeering and laughing
      and mocking our protests. They think we are a JOKE. Tens of millions of
      Americans protested the war, but because we posed no REAL THREAT to their
      power, we were UTTERLY IGNORED.

      As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping
      up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. Right now, we are
      ignored because we present no organized power to fight this onslaught of
      anti-democratic, totalitarian government that we are up against.

      It will take time, but it's time to get more left-leaning liberals and
      outright leftists to at least POSE a threat, by getting organized and
      getting ARMED. It's time to get well past this liberal phobia and taboo
      about weapons and force. After all, our liberalism was won with a
      REVOLUTIONARY WAR! they used real guns in that war. The French Revolution
      was also a WAR and they used real weapons there too.

      Perhaps people believe that since the US federal government has the fire
      power to blow up the world X times over, that we have no chance, and that
      the 2nd amendment is therefore moot. I used to think the same thing. In
      fact, this was the major if not the only lasting upshot of the Cold War! the
      Cold war wasn't about one opposing ideology against the other; it wasn't
      about the East vs. the West. In the end, it was about the respective
      governments against their own peoples. The Cold War resulted in the
      repression of the peoples in those countries, and likewise, of peoples
      around the world.

      But, it is still a myth that the US citizens are powerless against their
      government, a government that has become tyrannical and has usurped our
      democratic rights. We are not powerless against it. If we get organized and
      armed, and form a force of hundreds of thousands, we can overcome this
      government, or pose enough of a threat to have power. The government cannot
      drop a nuclear bomb on DC. It cannot risk the lives of whole cities, without
      revealing its own contradictions that is. Further, there is no guarantee
      that the military will remain loyal to a government that continually reveals
      itself as imperialistic and ruthless and having no real concern for its own
      personnel. The Iraqi occupation is teaching many of them that hard lesson.
      They are realizing that not Hussein, but the Bush regime, is their real

      So I ask you, isn't it time that left-leaning liberals and leftists
      exercised their 2nd amendment rights and got organized and prepared? Isn't
      it time, before it's too late? Isn't it time, before another Bush coup and
      the following four years of increased repression and economic ruin?

      We should remain committed to the absolute condemnation of individual acts
      of violence or terrorism. Read Trotsky's essay on terrorism, in the
      political education section of this website. Our reference to Trotsky does
      not mean that we are Marxists. I am merely referring to a good argument for
      any real revolutionaries against terrorism. We want a democratic government,
      which is not predicated on a Marxist state. In fact, we leave that to the
      future of the new movement for democracy, given that the future should be
      democratic and in a democracy, the people will decide. But, our goal is to
      make a future wherein the people CAN and WILL decide!!!!!!

      October 21, 2003

      Also see CLG's Political Education
      <http://www.legitgov.org/political_education.html> page

      *Opinions expressed in CLG's published essays are not necessarily those of
      the Citizens for Legitimate Government


      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      6: Sherry's War

      ----- Forwarded message from SnipeUNblue@... -----


      Sherry's War - Part I
      Every day, Sherry girds herself for her war. She knows the names of her
      enemies, but she has learned not to name them too quickly. For it is unchristian
      in her circles not to love one's enemies. In a letter to WHTT Sherry stated,
      "We should be very careful that any criticism is directed at people as people
      and not according to their race or religion."
      But if encouraged, Sherry's true feelings pour out: "It is established
      fact," Sherry wrote, "that the militant Islamic agenda is the elimination of
      Christianity and of Israel, God's chosen people." Sherry's words leave little
      she truly believes that Muslims are evil enemies of Christianity.
      Sherry considers Palestinians to be part of "Militant Islam" and is emphatic
      in her belief that Israelis are allies in her war. She states, "I support a
      pro-Israel stance because I believe it is Biblical. I have done a lot of
      reading on this and we have been to Israel. The Jewish people cannot even go up
      the temple mount." She adds that her Israeli allies "have been much maligned
      by the press and the other factions in the Middle East, when they have, in
      fact, been trying to defend themselves to keep from being pushed into the sea."
      Sherry's war is very real to her. Her statements may seem to some to be
      exaggerated and based upon racial and religious hatred, yet she bases her
      political beliefs upon her religious doctrine. Sherry is, in fact, a loving and
      person, and not a fanatic as her words suggest. What then do Sherry and her
      husband Lanny believe that fuels these powerful political attachments and
      prejudices? What is their life style, and who are their mentors in this
      anti-Islamic subset of Christianity?
      Sherry and Lanny are model church member in a fast-growing evangelical
      non-denominational congregation. Sherry is a working mom and Lanny is a
      stockbroker. Both consider themselves "born again" and would probably be
      described by
      fellow churchgoers as salt of the earth Christians, the kind of people most
      like to have as neighbors. If one had a problem, great or small, Sherry and
      Lanny were the kind of Christians who would be there. They are sacrificially
      committed to supporting mission work. Sherry is a defender of those who cannot
      defend themselves--the mistreated and the persecuted. They are no doubt
      dedicated to their family and consider Jesus the center of family life.
      Sherry wants to believe a mail-order missionary named Wes, who has visited
      her church and been welcomed from the pulpit several times. Wes operates a
      mission in Sudan whose stated purpose is to train chaplains for the Sudan
      Liberation Army (SPLA). Wes claims that before starting his "permanent"
      mission, he bought and freed "slaves" in Sudan. Sherry has sent money to Wes.
      agonizes over his stories of slave trade, alleged forced-conversion to Islam
      and blood-curdling claims of murder and rape of Christians for no reason except
      that they are Christians, all of which Wes claims is being carried out by the
      Sudanese Government.
      Sherry believes Wes' stories of his sacrificial mission to an army of black
      Christians battling a hoard of light-skinned Muslim killers and tyrants. She
      finds it natural to believe Wes’ story because she is sure Muslims are her
      natural enemy. She does not hesitate to say that Muslims, especially in Sudan,
      want to destroy Christianity and kill Christians simply because they are
      Christian. She considers all this to be fact and beyond question.
      Sherry associates Islam with anti-Semitism and believes Christians and Jews
      are inseparably bound together in a war against Islam. She believes the Bible
      commands her to "bless Israel," at risk of bringing a curse from God down on
      her own head. Sherry believes Israel’s war is a global war with Islam. She
      wants to please God, so she says she will do whatever she can to bless the state
      of Israel.
      Sherry is an avowed pro-life advocate, supporting the right to life of every
      unborn child. But she sees no problem with opposing the rise of Islam by
      whatever force is required, even if innocent people must suffer. Sherry is
      probably sympathetic to the women and children in Iraq and Palestine who are the
      victims, but she does not allow herself to think about them, because she
      their problems beyond her scope. She attributes any such suffering and loss
      of life as "God’s plan." She would note that God also ordered Israelite
      slaughters of Canonites in the Old Testament and had his reasons.
      Sherry believes that the leaders of Israel are often in error, and that they
      have strayed from God’s will, but she defends them nevertheless. She says she
      does not know why God has blessed these people, but he has. To her his
      absolute blessing on the present-day state of Israel is an unequivocal fact,
      upon her understanding of Scripture.
      Sherry was incredulous when someone gave her a We Hold These Truths research
      paper that challenged much of what she had been taught about missions,
      slavery and persecution in Sudan Missionaries, Mercenaries, Missiles and Money.
      report astonished Sherry by naming the very same mail-order missionary, Wes,
      who she was supporting financially, as one of the more questionable
      missionaries in Sudan. The report suggests that most missions in Southern Sudan
      are, at
      best, well intended but ill advised and totally impractical, spendthrift
      money-raising operations. It claims that some missions are knowingly financing a
      full article at:
      part I: http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/010216pw.htm
      part V: http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/010410pw.htm

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      7: An Open Letter to Bill Clinton by William L. Anderson

      ----- Forwarded message from DAN BENGEN <dbengen@...> -----

      Subject: Emailing: anderson102

      An Open Letter to Bill Clinton
      by William L. Anderson

      Dear Mr. Clinton:

      Like many other Americans, I was sorry to hear of your health
      misfortunes. While open-heart surgery has become routine in this country, we
      should never forget that it is a very dangerous and serious operation, and I
      can only hope that you will have a full recovery.

      The purpose of this letter, however, is not to wish you better
      health. No, I am writing this letter because I can only hope that this
      experience will help you to understand what a disaster you and your wife almost
      forced upon this country a decade ago when "HillaryCare" dominated the news. At
      the time, you claimed that "selfish special interests" were behind the failure
      of your wife's plan to ultimately push the country into a Canadian-style health
      system in which government controls all medical care.

      Two months ago, I also found myself in the care of a cardiologist.
      Like you, I came to the hospital after suffering from severe chest pains and,
      like you, the doctor found a number of blockages in three of my arteries.
      However, unlike you, I underwent the less-invasive angioplasty procedure.
      Nevertheless, it always is a frightening experience to know that one's
      circulatory system is not functioning properly and that I surely had been
      facing a heart attack had my wife not insisted I go to the hospital.

      In this politicized age, no doubt someone will say that it is not
      "fair" that Bill Clinton is able to have surgery paid through his insurance,
      while large numbers of Americans do not have health coverage at all. Like the
      "economist" Paul Krugman, they will insist on a "free" government plan that
      provides "equal care for all" at a fraction of the present cost.

      In fact, your former vice president, Al Gore, came out of the closet
      two years ago and endorsed such a plan, and Hillary has been known to declare
      privately that she would like to impose such a system on us. "Single payer"
      systems are the rage of the entire "peace and justice" crowd, along with large
      numbers of others in the political classes. Thus, I realize it would take some
      real political courage on your part to stand up against it and be an influence
      for the good.

      Proponents of such a plan declare that if health care services were
      "free" (that is, no fees for services are charged), then anyone who needs
      health care can receive it without having to worry about the ability to pay. At
      least, that is the pretty picture that politicians who champion this system
      like to paint for us. Reality - and especially economic reality - has a way of
      reminding us of a few truths, however.

      It is obvious that medical care fits the definition of a "scarce
      good," and since that is the case, people cannot have unlimited amounts of it
      at a "zero price." Furthermore, by making medical care essentially a government
      service, those who manage and administer such care will not have a mechanism by
      which to engage in economic calculation. While these may seem like esoteric
      terms to you, in reality, they are matters of life and death.

      When I saw my cardiologist a couple of weeks ago, we discussed the
      "Canadian system," and he pointed out just how inhumane this supposedly
      "humane" and "free" system really is. Remember my timeline: I went to the
      emergency room on Friday afternoon (July 9), was checked in for the weekend,
      and was taken to the cath lab early the following Monday (July 12).

      Immediately after the procedure in which they put dye in my veins to
      find the blockages, the doctor said to prepare for angioplasty, and in less
      than an hour, I was being wheeled back to my room. (I am forever grateful I
      heard the doctor say "angioplasty" instead of "open heart surgery," but I am
      even more grateful to be alive.)

      A friend of his living in Canada, according to my doctor, suffered a
      heart attack and went to the hospital. Realizing the trauma, the medical
      authorities scheduled him for a test - for nine months later. In the interim,
      he was forced to take blood thinners and other medications, but had to live
      with the knowledge that he was a step away from another attack - and this one
      almost surely would be fatal.

      After his tests confirmed arterial blockages, he was sent home to
      wait - and suffer. Despite his having actually had a heart attack, three years
      passed before he had open-heart surgery to correct his problem. In the interim,
      he got by as best he could, but was hardly functioning normally.

      The story I have related is true - and is quite typical of this
      system. Yes, there are conscientious doctors and nurses in Canada, and it is
      not their fault that the lines for care are as long as they are. It is the
      nature of socialism, which not only forces people to bear costs of the lack of
      medical care through missed work, worse health, and - all too often - death,
      but also dehumanizes the care in the process.

      There is something quite dehumanizing about forcing a person to wait
      three years for surgery following a heart attack. Canadians who have suffered
      or who have had family members suffer under this kind of malpractice have
      emailed me with their own tales, and the newspapers in Canada are full of
      horror stories that even the True Believers of the system cannot ignore.

      However, I also receive emails from angry (and often abusive)
      Canadians who declare one of the following: (1) the system is "free" and does
      not discriminate between rich and poor, or (2) the forced egalitarianism of the
      system is morally superior to what we have in the United States, so the medical
      system - as rife with malpractice as it might be - is actually a stairway to a
      spiritually higher plane of life.

      The only problem here is that the system is neither free nor
      egalitarian. As I pointed out before, a scarce good that is in demand cannot be
      provided for free, unless one believes that no one in that system, from the
      lowest orderly to the highest-level surgeon, not to mention everyone who is
      involved in any way with a medical operation works for no compensation
      whatsoever. That clearly is not the case, so we should dispense with the
      fiction that Canada has a "free" medical system. Canadians pay dearly with some
      of the highest tax rates in the Western Hemisphere.

      Second, a medical system that is designed by the political classes
      is one designed with the interests of the political classes in mind. It is not
      designed for those who actually must use the system, as no one suffering from a
      heart attack would impose a three-year wait upon himself for a necessary

      No, we can be assured that those who are wealthy enough will opt out
      for care in another country (like the USA), and that those who are deemed
      politically important will be taken to the head of the line. From presidents
      protected by goons from the Secret Service to the local member of the county
      council, Americans have been propagandized into believing that elected
      politicians and political appointees, not to mention most government employees,
      are the most important people in the country. Important people, of course, must
      be given instant care; everyone else can wait.

      Thus, Mr. Clinton, we know that under the system that your wife
      wants to impose, you never would have been in danger of waiting for surgery.
      Instead, others would have to bear the costs. Now, you have claimed in all of
      your recent speeches to be a person who stands for basic fairness in society;
      perhaps you can see the unfairness of forcing people to wait in line for health
      care services when other methods exist to give them timely service.

      As a loyal American, I hope that your surgery is successful. Having
      faced the Grim Reaper myself, I do sympathize with people who are vulnerable to
      heart attacks and heart disease.

      But I also would be remiss if I were to fail to urge you not to use
      this occasion to call for even more government control of medical care. As a
      former President of the United States, I am not surprised to see doctors act
      quickly to deal with your health problems. However, I am a nobody compared to
      you, yet the care I received was as timely and as high-quality as the care you
      have been receiving. That is because at least some vestiges of a free market
      system still exist in our system, and we need even more free enterprise there,
      not less.

      I wish you the best as you go under the surgeon's care this week.
      But there is even more at stake here than your good health, and I hope you can
      be persuaded to do the right thing.

      William L. Anderson

      September 6, 2004
      William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at
      Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
      von Mises Institute.

      Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

      William Anderson Archives

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      8: Banning Guns Has Backfired by John R. Lott, Jr.

      ----- Forwarded message from DAN BENGEN <dbengen@...> -----

      Subject: Emailing: lott30

      Banning Guns Has Backfired
      by John R. Lott, Jr.

      Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might
      encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned
      a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such
      a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by
      regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

      What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year
      has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified
      number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take
      imitation guns into public places.

      And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns
      must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will
      get a license.

      The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one
      asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it
      is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't
      go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow
      Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

      Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they
      account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent
      years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor
      needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun
      crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to

      Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997.
      Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up
      by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50%
      from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot
      back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

      The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey
      done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in
      the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have
      widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by
      35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

      The high crime rates have so strained resources that 29% of the time
      in London it takes police longer than 12 minutes to arrive at the scene. No
      wonder police nearly always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has been

      As understandable as the desire to "do something" is, Britain seems
      to have already banned most weapons that can help commit a crime. Yet, it is
      hard to see how the latest proposals will accomplish anything.

      a.. Banning guns that fire blanks and some imitation guns. Even if
      guns that fire blanks are converted to fire bullets, they would be lucky to
      fire one or two bullets and most likely pose more danger to the shooter than
      the victim. Rather than replace the barrel and the breach, it probably makes
      more sense to simply build a new gun.

      b.. Making it very difficult to get a license for a shotgun and
      banning those under 18 from using shotguns also adds little. Ignoring the fact
      that shotguns make excellent self-defense weapons, they are so rarely used in
      crime, that the Home Office's report doesn't even provide a breakdown of crimes
      committed with shotguns.

      Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia
      has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after
      its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32%
      higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they
      did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery
      rates showed increases of 74%.

      During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely
      regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to
      carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry
      laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a
      criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some
      training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even
      faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the
      U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the
      1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent

      Many things affect crime; the rise of drug-gang violence in Britain
      is an important part of the story, just as it has long been important in
      explaining the U.S.'s rates. Drug gangs also help explain one of the many
      reasons it is so difficult to stop the flow of guns into a country. Drug gangs
      can't simply call up the police when another gang encroaches on their turf, so
      they end up essentially setting up their own armies. And just as they can
      smuggle drugs into the country, they can smuggle in weapons to defend their

      Everyone wants to take guns away from criminals. The problem is that
      if the law-abiding citizens obey the law and the criminals don't, the rules
      create sitting ducks who cannot defend themselves. This is especially true for
      those who are physically weaker, women and the elderly.

      September 6, 2004

      John Lott [send him mail], a resident scholar at the American
      Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns (Regnery 2003).

      Copyright © 2004 John Lott

      John Lott Archives

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      9: Fortress New York

      ----- Forwarded message from DAN BENGEN <dbengen@...> -----

      Fortress New York


      Sunday, September 5, 2004

      Fortress New York
      Be careful what you wish for: The city's convention set-up might be
      the model for real homeland security.

      More on the convention and the 2004 election

      Columnist, The Orange County Register

      NEW YORK - At the GOP convention podium, Republican speakers urged
      delegates and TV viewers to re-elect President George W. Bush because he is
      best able to protect us from the terrorists who are bound and determined to
      kill our families and destroy our freedoms.

      In and around Midtown Manhattan, convention-goers got a taste of
      life in a society where the overriding goal is to stop attacks at all costs. It
      was the bitter taste of losing one's freedoms, albeit in this case for the
      short duration of this national convention.

      It was Fortress New York. For those of us with the proper papers - a
      neck-load of colored and numbered badges and IDs granting entry to Madison
      Square Garden and surrounding sites - the anti-terror lockdown meant endless
      annoyances, hassles and humiliations. For those who tried to protest the
      convention goings-on, things were worse.

      From CBS 2 News in New York: "Some protesters have complained
      bitterly about conditions at the temporary holding area set up by police at
      Pier 57 in Chelsea for processing convention-related arrests. One former
      detainee ... claimed he was held there for hours on end in 'Guantanamo-style
      pens' - a reference to the U.S. military facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

      After experiencing the goings-on at the convention center and all
      around the city, I am left with a sobering conclusion: I would rather live
      unprotected from terrorist attacks than in a society that resembled New York
      City during convention week.

      Everywhere I went, scores of police officers in riot gear,
      gun-toting military officials, blue-suited secret-service officials with their
      ears wired and assorted private security guards were on call, watching us.
      Metal cattle gates prodded us to the proper place. Streets were cordoned off,
      sidewalks open only to those who show the right ID.

      Sirens were constantly wailing.

      I tired of the daily hassle of getting into the Marriott Marquis,
      the Times Square hotel where the California delegation was staying. Even though
      it is a dozen blocks from the convention site, the security was stiff. Two
      police officers manned a checkpoint at the sidewalk, while 10 or more police
      stood beside their motorcycles. At the checkpoint, all guests had to show their
      room key or photo ID.

      Then, about 50 feet nearer the door was another checkpoint, where
      security guards checked the ID once again. The area between the checkpoints was
      surrounded by metal barricades, so there was no possible way that anyone could
      have sneaked in between those checkpoints, unless they jumped out of a
      suitcase. Don't expect reason to prevail in a police state.

      From Checkpoint No. 2, hotel guests went another 15 feet or so into
      the front door, where two burly security guards again checked the same ID. At
      the lobby area, one had to again show ID to enter the elevator area, where one
      could finally get back to the room.

      The guards didn't want to hear any grumbles. One doesn't question
      procedures in a police state.

      The entire city operated in a similar way. The elaborate procedures
      kept changing day by day, depending on the particular authority who was
      handling any given checkpoint. One day, we were ordered - in typical, New
      York-blunt style - to turn on our computers before placing them into the X-ray
      machine. The next day, the guard barked: "You don't need to turn on your
      computer if it's going through the X-ray."

      Whatever. In a police state, one does what one's told. One doesn't
      argue, even on the occasions when the guards were the ones with the wrong
      information about proper credentials.

      In a police state, every functionary has a tiny bit of authority.
      Many functionaries are pleasant and polite, just doing a job and following
      orders. Others are power-mad creeps, who use that authority to put anyone who
      looks at them funny through unfair hassles.

      No matter how thorough the plan, the rules aren't always clear to
      those of us who must abide by them. There's no due process; you do what you're
      told lest you end up on Pier 57 with the kooky protesters. It will get cleared
      up eventually - after you've slept on a concrete floor for two days and missed
      all of your deadlines.

      One colleague mistakenly entered the wrong sidewalk area. One of New
      York's Finest yelled at him, "Yo, get offa da sidewalk." "Where am I supposed
      to go?" my friend asked. "Across da street!" As he crossed the street, the cop
      patrolling that area yelled at him to get offa da street. You can't win in a
      police state. But you dare not disobey the incomprehensible orders.

      At the protest march last Sunday, police didn't let the press near
      the protesters. They stood as the thick, blue line separating us from them. I
      was unthreatening: well dressed, properly credentialed, in the proper place.
      But when I opened my sport jacket and reached for my cell phone on my belt, I
      looked up at a police officer who stared at me, acting as if I were drawing a

      Had he made a mistake and shot me, most people would have said,
      "That's too bad, but it was an honest mistake." The story would have been
      buried deep within the newspaper. That's how things go in a police state. The
      police are right; the victims must have brought it on themselves.

      Now, most of the officers who checked our badges were professional
      and polite, and sometimes downright friendly. One night, in lower Manhattan,
      our group of lost convention-goers asked a cop for advice on a good bar. He
      walked us to an Irish pub, introduced us to the barkeep, and we were treated
      like royalty the entire night.

      That's how police states operate, also: If you are friends with the
      right official, you get privileges.

      Strangely enough, many people easily accommodate themselves to a
      world of checkpoints, meddling, barricades and ID-showing. Many of the
      convention-goers and media were ingratiating and openly thankful to the men and
      women who were searching them, prodding them and demanding papers.

      It made me passive-aggressive. I always showed the wrong side of the
      room key to the third Marriott guard, just to yank his chain. I was polite, but
      the resentment built up. That's what happens to some people when they are
      constantly bossed around.

      Whenever I criticize intrusive government actions or misbehavior by
      police or federal agents, someone will say: "If you didn't do anything wrong,
      you don't have anything to fear." Well, I certainly didn't do anything wrong as
      I obediently navigated the inconsistent and intrusive security rules that
      governed life at the GOP convention last week, but I would greatly fear a world
      that operated in a similar way.

      By the way, despite the creation of a fortress, the New York Daily
      News reported significant breaches in security, as delegates handed out unused
      badges. An uncredentialed reporter was inside the arena, listening to the vice
      president's speech, within five hours. So even with a police state, there's no
      guarantee of safety.

      Life is a risk. As Benjamin Franklin said, those who trade away
      their freedom for a little security deserve neither.

      CONTACT US: sgreenhut@.../commentary or (714-796-7823

      Copyright 2004 The Orange County Register | Privacy policy | User
      Freedom Communications, Inc.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      10: Al Gore Is A War Criminal

      ----- Forwarded message from MA PA <drymarc2003@...> -----

      Also: Iraqi Resistance Report for events of Wednesday, 1 September 2004 through
      Friday, 3 September 2004


      Gore Is A War Criminal

      by William S. Lind

      September 4, 2004

      When President Al Gore was inaugurated in January 2001, few Americans imagined
      that before his first term ended, our country would be at war with Sweden.
      Indeed, Mr. Gore's campaign suggested he would reduce American commitments
      abroad, avoid foreign adventures and forgo "nation building," which American
      voters long ago realized costs heaps of money and does not work.

      That may have been what American voted for, but it is not what we got. What we
      got was the wildest, most adventuristic and most disastrous foreign policy
      since Woodrow Wilson ?who won the 1916 election with the slogan "He kept us out
      of war" led America into World War I a month after his inauguration.

      How did it happen? The answer is to be found not in Washington, but in
      Copenhagen. There, the governing coalition is dominated by the Greater Denmark
      Party, whose goal is to retake for Denmark all the lands it once governed:
      Norway, southern Sweden, even northern England. The Party's semi-secret slogan
      is "From the River (Thames) to the Sea (the Baltic)."

      The Danish Government knows it is not powerful enough to achieve that goal on
      its own. It needs someone else to do most of the fighting. And it has found
      that "someone else," in the United States.

      When the Gore Administration came to power, it promptly turned America's defense
      and foreign policy over to a small group of people who were de facto members of
      the Greater Denmark Party. Some had actually participated in drawing up
      Denmark's new grand strategy, which called for defeating all Denmark's
      opponents (with American help) so completely they would accept whatever terms
      the Danes offered. Now, from their key positions in the Pentagon, the U.S.
      State Department and the White House, they have made America into the Greater
      Denmark Party's tool, at vast cost to America's national interests, its
      treasury, and the lives of its soldiers.

      Just who are these people? Many years ago, they began calling themselves
      "neo-barbarians," which was soon shortened to "neo-barbs." They see themselves
      as heirs to Viking kingdoms of a thousand years ago, and are determined to
      realize their fantasy, at whatever cost (to others). Real barbarians scoff at
      the neo-barbs; as one paleo-barbarian leader recently said, "These guys are
      such wusses they think you pillage first then rape. None of them ever swung a
      battle axe in combat, and they would puke at their first sight of a

      Nonetheless, the neo-barbs have intimidated most of their critics into silence.
      Not only do they denounce them at every opportunity for "anti-Vikingism," they
      long ago seized control of the nation's herring supply. Anyone who points out
      that the neo-barbs are unregistered foreign agents quickly finds himself

      The result of this colossal sell-out of America by its own leaders is all too
      well known. President Gore's administration has backed the Greater Denmark
      Party to the hilt. It has ruined our relations with the rest of Europe,
      undermining whatever friends we had in the region. It has done what no enemy
      could ever do; it has made America hated.

      Worse, following demands for "regime change" in Sweden, Norway and Pago-Pago, on
      the basis of a charge of "building 60-gun ships of the line" (since proven
      false), the United States invaded Sweden.

      At first, the war appeared to go well. The U.S. Army swept into Stockholm in a
      few weeks, with little resistance. But it turned out that was part of Sweden's
      strategy. Taking Stockholm did not mark the end of the war, but its beginning.

      The Swedes quickly proved to be adept guerilla fighters. One of their most
      deadly weapons is the IED ?the Inedible Device. Swedish guerillas regularly
      sneak rutabagas into the Americans' mess halls and even insert them in MREs,
      with catastrophic consequences. American soldiers hit with an IED thereafter
      refuse to eat anything and starve to death. Another Swedish ambush technique is
      to stop American troops on the street and tell them Swedish jokes. The
      Americans die of boredom waiting for the punch line, which does not exist.
      Worst of all, the Swedes have simply gone on being Swedes, paying high taxes
      and enjoying a wide variety of government services. All American efforts to
      transform Sweden into a laissez-faire capitalist paradise simply fall on barren

      Despite America's expenditure of tens of billions of dollars and almost one
      thousand lives, the Swedes are taking their country back. Stockholm's Gamle
      Stan is now a "no go" area for American troops, with children throwing Swedish
      meatballs and even being rude. In Skana, which was initially friendly to the
      Americans, old Saabs now regularly pull in front of American convoys, choking
      our troops with two-stroke exhaust. Recently, the Swedes recaptured their naval
      base at Karlskrona and quickly built a new fleet of 40-gun frigates to Mr.
      Chapman's superb design. A squadron has escaped into the Atlantic, causing the
      American Department of Homeland Security to warn that our coastal cities may
      soon suffer Swedish bombardment. While the Gore Administration still claims its
      invasion of Sweden "made the world safer from random sailing warships," the
      fact is that there was no danger of Swedish naval bombardment before we
      attacked and now there is.

      Thankfully, the monstrous folly of America's enslavement to a Danish political
      party will soon end. This year sees another presidential election, and
      Republican candidate Bob Taft is stumping the country demanding an end to the
      Swedish war, the expulsion of the neo-barbs from public office and the return
      of sanity in American foreign policy. All over America, Taft's campaign train
      is being met by wildly enthusiastic crowds, crowds that include many Democrats.
      Taft's clear, courageous stand against an inane war and the people who caused
      it has him soaring in the polls. Gore may be beaten worse than Hoover in 1932.
      There are even rumors that Gore and his neo-barb appointees are negotiating
      with Taft for a post-election pardon from charges of war crimes, including that
      rather inclusive Nuremberg standard, "planning aggressive war."

      Yes, folks, in America democracy still works. When issues like war and peace are
      on the line, the system offers American voters a clear, unambiguous choice.
      Everyone knows that Gore's real slogan is, "Four More Wars." The contrast with
      Bob Taft's foreign policy for Americans, an end to wars for foreign interests
      could not be clearer. Once again, in a time of national peril, our democratic
      system has brought forth a candidate of genuine conviction, moral courage and
      unwavering principle.

      Isn't it great to be an American?


      William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free
      Congress Foundation. He is a former Congressional Aide and the author of many
      books and articles on military strategy and war.



      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
      - H.L. Mencken


      STANLEY NOTE: Just a little fun.

      @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
      11: what will it take to get off our arses? 

      ----- Forwarded message from SnipeUNblue@... -----

      I know what it would take. it would take someone high up inside the
      government to go on national TV at prime time and lay it all out. Someone like
      Powell, or a top General with Gernerals or someone like Bill Clinton. It would really
      take someone inside the plot to blow a whistle. Only then would you see people
      march on the capital.


      Reading Articles Is Not Enough
      by Victor Thorn & Lisa Guliani - May 7, 2004

      By now, all of us know that an evil cabal of bloodthirsty war-mongers (both
      inside and outside our government) executed the 9-11 terrorist attacks, yet
      none of us are storming Washington, D.C. with guns, torches, and shovels
      in-hand demanding their heads on a stick. Considering what these psychopaths
      to us, there shouldn't only be thousands of us --- there should be millions
      of us joining together as a cohesive whole. But we aren't. Why? Why are we
      simply reading from our computer screens each day and not thinking back to the
      horror and trauma that bubbled within us on the morning of September 11, 2001?
      Why aren't we still tapping into this sense of rage? We all know what
      happened then, and we all know what's happening now. Writing articles and
      them around the Internet doesn't scare the government, and it's not enough
      bring the guilty parties to justice. It is now time for action. Reading
      articles is not enough.

      We also know that a secretive government-operations-unit planted bombs in
      the Murrah Federal Building and murdered 168 innocent people in Oklahoma City.
      Yet none of us are outraged enough to foment a revolution. Reading articles
      is not enough.

      We all watched in horror as men, women, and children were burned to death in
      Waco at the hands of our own government. Yet it didn't move us enough to
      raise holy hell on earth and seek vengeance. Reading articles is not enough.

      Likewise, the lies that led to our soldiers' blood being spilled in the
      Middle East have all been brought out into the open, but we still sit
      by as if the matter was out of our hands or beyond our control. We don't
      give enough of a damn to fight for our hard-earned money as the government
      keeps taxing us closer and closer to slavery. Why? Reading articles is not

      What is it going to take to finally get us off our asses --- to the point
      where chains couldn't keep us down? Where we're irate enough to force some
      action? Where, like Howard Beale in Network, we open our windows and scream to
      the world, “We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any
      Reading articles is not enough.

      Don't we get it? These New World Order psychopaths have killed our own
      people on our own soil, and now they're sending our sons and daughters to a
      godawful desert to ‘rebuild' a nation while ours is crumbling around us.
      the manufacturing jobs that made this nation great are now being shipped to
      China and other third-world countries while our workers settle for less. To
      insult to injury, our national debt is so astronomical that it threatens to
      bankrupt our economy, and the price we pay for gasoline is criminal (even
      though we own the second largest oil producing region in the world). Finally,
      really make us squirm as they stick the knife in even further, our traitorous
      leaders open our borders to millions of illegal aliens that are destroying
      the very fabric of our social structure. Reading articles is not enough.

      We could continue this list for pages, but as we said, words on a page won't
      change our circumstances. We need a revolution. Should we say it again " if
      we don't want to lose everything that we've grown accustomed to having, we
      need a REVOLUTION! That's the only way we're going to initiate change.
      Nothing else will do it, especially when our two-party electoral system is so
      stacked against us. So, every day that we simply sit in front of our computer
      monitors and read articles without taking ACTION is another day wasted.
      the bitter and brutal reality of our current situation, and it's about time
      somebody stepped to the plate and said it. Reading articles is not enough.

      We realize that these words are disturbing, but we have to ask ourselves in
      the starkest terms possible: what matters to us? What do we care enough about
      to act upon? Do we even care enough about ANYTHING to take action --- to
      stake our lives upon? Our country and our way of life are being destroyed
      our very eyes by war, outsourcing, illegal immigration, debt, criminally
      high fuel prices, and a horrendous tax system that pads the pockets of those
      are grinding us into the ground. Reading articles is not enough.

      Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to act upon our convictions. It's time to
      seize the moment. It's time to grab the bull by the horns and take control
      our own destiny. Passivity is no longer an option, nor are divisions among
      us. We don't care if you're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, an
      anarchist, a pacifist, a Green, a Libertarian, a voter, a non-voter, a
      radical, a
      liberal, a conservative, an activist, a populist, a Catholic,<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.