^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Board: NEWS BB ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Topic: IN THE NEWS... ^^^^^^^^^^^^ =============== Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: ALL Date: 04/30 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:13 PM Herr Rehnquist has struck again. The person who got his original appointment as a reward for being Nixon's faithful hatchet man in the Justice Department has found a reason to depart from the Conservative's "strict constructionist" approach to the Constitution in this week's decision in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party. Rehnquist has discovered "penumbras and emanations" in the Constitution previously unknown to Constitutional scholars: "The Constitution permits the Minnesota Legislature to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy TWO party system." (My emphasis.) There is NOTHING (also my emphasis) in the Constitution that says anything about political stability or the two party system. (As a matter of fact there were NO real parties in 1787, the Big Bang being too recent for history to cool down enough for them to coalesce.) This Rehnquist interpretation is just something that he and the Conservatives on the Court conjured up in an attempt to protect the status quo (their political patrons) from any new democratic forces that may soon arise in opposition. The Tenth Amendment used to be the Conservative's big gun. States Rights was the philosophy that would regulate the political process on a level far removed from Washington. Now the Court wants to FORCE all of America to conform to the interests of the two big parties. They brook no dissent. No more fusion tickets, the endorsement by several parties of the same candidate for office, a tactic often used to help build alternative parties. The Rehnquist Court believes that the protection of corrupt major parties is now more important than the free exercise of political association that had been guaranteed by the First Amendment. The walls have moved in a little closer. =============== Reply 1 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/02 From: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Time: 1:25 AM Rick, It appears you have quite properly dissected this bit of jurismisprudence and passed judgement on it most correctly. He has merely made it offical that we live in judicial dictatorship made ever safer by the construction of a huge new North American police state. This is another sign that the great wheel of time is still turning just as it should and always has. A crumbling empire always exhibits such signs as those you've pointed out in your post. This is all unfolding just as it should and always has. It's kind of good to know what is inevitable so one can adjust or relocate or merely sit back and ---> laugh at the whole silly business. It seems as soon as humans form any system, they begin to sychronize with it. It grows, takes on a life of it's own, like a runaway machine bent on it's own survival and expansion. The system soon becomes oblivious to the influence of individual free will and begins to stamp it out at all cost. Unbeknownst to the "system", it has by that time become a host to a hoard of parasites and soon ends up a rotting corpse. Look around. It's beginning to smell a little worse each day. Regards, TL =============== Reply 2 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/03 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 8:36 PM Very good post, TL. I agree with most of it but the part that the parasites are unbenownst to the "system." The System began as an honest attempt to create an honest, representative government so that us People could prosper on a clear, level playing field, one without any clumps of wealth and power that would trip us up, or exile us from the field into the wilderness. That was 1787. This is 1997. During the 210 intervening years a Wall of corruption gathered and like a glacier scoured the political/economic landscape S-L-O-W-L-Y but surely until we witness conditions like those you point out. The Wall stamps out individual free will EVEN THOUGH free will was the PURPOSE of the system originally. When an individual manages to peer beyond his immediate surroundings the Wall appears to him as so large and unresponsive that he prefers to avoid rather than oppose it. Those who "merely sit back" are not likely to laugh when they observe the Wall and remark to themselves, "say, wasn't that icy behemoth a few yards back when I last saw it?" It's dangerous to ALL, even those who "adjust or "relocate." The spin doctors for the Wall never even admit its reality, but instead accuse the opposition of paranoia. Like any glacier this Wall moves inexorably forward. We the People need to imitate Nature to save ourselves from being crushed. The last ice age ended with an increase of temperature and the last political oppression We suffered ended with a Revolution. We need to turn up the HEAT. HEAT melts the Wall and kills the parasites. All that's left is the Constitution. =============== Reply 3 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/04 From: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Time: 2:09 AM Rick, The slow moving glacier you speak of reminds me of the analogy about "boiling a frog." Slowly raise the temp until it's too late. I agree that restoration of constitutional guidelines would go a long way, but I just don't see enough understanding among "themasses" to get it rolling. And if revolution of a violent nature arises, it will likely be more of a destructive than constructive nature. Why? We've lost all sense of "reason." The anchor has been lost. One change I'd suggest that is radically forward looking would be this. No longer would anyone be permitted ----> to have an attorney speak for them in court. Defendants would have to stand up and answer all charges. If they decided to lie, they'd have to learn to be good liars rather than hire one. In addition all witnesses would be required to square their testimony to mandatory lie detector tests. I suspect this would go a long way toward eliminating the huge advantage enjoyed by the holders of great wealth in our faltering judicial system. In addition to those changes, I'd eliminate public defenders. No, not shoot 'em all like Shakespeare suggested, just defund and abolish the whole stinking program. In it's place, the defendant would have the option of placing---> his story as told under lie detector monitoring, into evidence. After all, testimony under oath, was the earliest and best means of switching on the internal lie detector in each of us known as concience or the fear of God. Since that has gone by the wayside for many, I say better living thru technology. Besides, polygraph operators come cheaper than attorneys. Imagine the OJ trial under these guidelines. Later, TL =============== Reply 4 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/04 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 11:47 PM The problem with lie detectors is that the worst criminals don't HAVE a conscience, and many politicians don't believe in God anyway, (beyond the weekly Sunday photo-op.) As to the possibility of the Revolution turning violent, we have the Right to self-defense, and the government has been gunning us down with impunity for years. By not opposing them we only encourage them to keep killing us. When a few of them start falling and the rest of them realize how exposed they really are, they'll come around. We finally got the Waco and Ruby Ridge hearings only after OKC. =============== Reply 5 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/05 From: BSFP42B DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW Time: 7:25 PM Rick, I've been urging people to abandon the major parties and support minor parties for the past few years, so, like you, I don't agree with the decision you're writing about. However, keep in mind this decision does NOT say that minor parties cannot nominate the same candidates that major parties nominate!! It simply says that if an individual STATE passes a law preventing the minor party from nomininating a major party candidate, then the US Constitution can't overrule the state law. In other words the Sup. Court (and Rhenquist) AGREE with you - the US constitution says absolutely NOTHING about parties. So therefore the minor party can't use the US constitution to overturn a state law that the minor party feels is harmful to it. I don't like that Minnesota law - but it is the job of the Minnesota voters to force a change, not the job of the US Supreme Court. In other states, New York, for example "fusion tickets" are permitted and fairly common. Another question did Rehnquist use the word "penumbra" in this opinion? And if so, could you quote how he used it. Penumbras and emanation doesn't sound like Rehnquist style of writing. =============== Reply 6 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/05 From: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Time: 9:49 PM Rick, While I'm not a strict passivist, in terms of self defense, I don't believe in the "initiation" of force against others to have my way, or prove political points. In fact, if civil disobedience becomes necessary, it is usually quite effective. However if there's one thing history teaches us, it is that violence seems to be the preferred method of settling things, most likely because it tends to work and work quickly. While violence begets violence, and two wrongs never make a right in the sense of retaliations, self defense is -----> another subject. Regards, TL =============== Reply 7 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: BSFP42B DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW Date: 05/06 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:05 PM No, Rehnquist didn't use "penumbras and emanations" out front, but they were "between the lines." It seems in this decision the Tenth Amendment came into conflict with the First and the Court chose to elevate the Tenth. This flies in the face (contradicts) a previous recent decision in which the Court held that laws which restrict the First Amendment Right of corporations or other special interest groups to contribute to a candidate or party are illegal. In other words, the Court is telling us that a corporation can give money to a party under the First Amendment, but a party cannot give its endorsement under the same amendment. Money talks in America and the Court has now endorsed this reality. An entity that gives MONEY to the political process is protected by the First Amendment BUT an entity that gives WORDS is not. Crazy? Welcome to America 1997. To be consistent, the Court will HAVE to support any state law that restricts political contributions, don't you think? If the Courst says in Timons that the Tenth takes precedence over the First, any state that restricts corporate gifts to candidates and parties must be upheld! So there's a silver lining after all. =============== Reply 8 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/06 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:05 PM Randy Weaver tried civil disobedience and look what happened to his wife and little boy. The number one lesson of history is the ruling class will rarely surrender power voluntarily. They get and keep their position with VIOLENCE, that's what they understand, that's what they live by, and that is what they'll die by. The current government of China, that the Washington/Wall Street Axis admires so much, has a Little Red Book quote on this very subject: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Lon Hirouchi knew that, the ATF knew that, and now We the People will learn that to our great advantage. Civil disobedience is the cat's paw, the TEETH will follow. It doesn't matter what color the cat is as long as it kills rats. =============== Reply 9 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/08 From: QNMP10A M MCKINNON Time: 3:38 AM RIGHT ON !!! =============== Reply 10 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: BSFP42B DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW Date: 05/15 From: BGBB48A GERALD MASSIMEI Time: 2:20 PM HELP! A YOUNG, AMERICAN PATRIOT NEEDS HELP! Please forgive the intrusion but, from what you have written on the BB's, I get the feeling that we are of like mind. Please forward this note to anyone you know who may be interested. The winning of the upcoming trial would be a major victory for "our" side. They say that charity begins at home. In this case "home" is the United States of America. This worthy cause is about a young man of great courage who is taking on the socialist/multi-national corporate elements of our government, the "One World" type, at great personal risk. His name is Michael New and he was recently dishonorably discharged from the military because he refused to obey an order, as a US soldier, to exchange his G.I.uniformt for that of a United Nations "Peace Keeper." This is not just an issue about a lowly Army specialist who received a bad conduct discharge. It is about the sovereignty of our country, and whether American military personnel can, against their will, be forced into becoming mercenaries, serving under FOREIGN commanders in foreign uniforms. Back in 1812 we fought a war over the very same thing, did we not? They say "Put your money where your mouth is." If that's what you want to do, then get on the internet at: http//www.infinet.com/~jaylor/mikenew.html and learn about a real patriot. Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Massimei =============== Reply 11 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/15 From: BGBB48A GERALD MASSIMEI Time: 2:20 PM HELP! A YOUNG, AMERICAN PATRIOT NEEDS HELP! Please forgive the intrusion but, from what you have written on the BB's, I get the feeling that we are of like mind. Please forward this note to anyone you know who may be interested. The winning of the upcoming trial would be a major victory for "our" side. They say that charity begins at home. In this case "home" is the United States of America. This worthy cause is about a young man of great courage who is taking on the socialist/multi-national corporate elements of our government, the "One World" type, at great personal risk. His name is Michael New and he was recently dishonorably discharged from the military because he refused to obey an order, as a US soldier, to exchange his G.I.uniformt for that of a United Nations "Peace Keeper." This is not just an issue about a lowly Army specialist who received a bad conduct discharge. It is about the sovereignty of our country, and whether American military personnel can, against their will, be forced into becoming mercenaries, serving under FOREIGN commanders in foreign uniforms. Back in 1812 we fought a war over the very same thing, did we not? They say "Put your money where your mouth is." If that's what you want to do, then get on the internet at: http//www.infinet.com/~jaylor/mikenew.html and learn about a real patriot. Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Massimei =============== Reply 12 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: QNMP10A M MCKINNON Date: 05/15 From: BGBB48A GERALD MASSIMEI Time: 2:20 PM HELP! A YOUNG, AMERICAN PATRIOT NEEDS HELP! Please forgive the intrusion but, from what you have written on the BB's, I get the feeling that we are of like mind. Please forward this note to anyone you know who may be interested. The winning of the upcoming trial would be a major victory for "our" side. They say that charity begins at home. In this case "home" is the United States of America. This worthy cause is about a young man of great courage who is taking on the socialist/multi-national corporate elements of our government, the "One World" type, at great personal risk. His name is Michael New and he was recently dishonorably discharged from the military because he refused to obey an order, as a US soldier, to exchange his G.I.uniformt for that of a United Nations "Peace Keeper." This is not just an issue about a lowly Army specialist who received a bad conduct discharge. It is about the sovereignty of our country, and whether American military personnel can, against their will, be forced into becoming mercenaries, serving under FOREIGN commanders in foreign uniforms. Back in 1812 we fought a war over the very same thing, did we not? They say "Put your money where your mouth is." If that's what you want to do, then get on the internet at: http//www.infinet.com/~jaylor/mikenew.html and learn about a real patriot. Sincerely, Dr. Jerry Massimei =============== Reply 13 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: BGBB48A GERALD MASSIMEI Date: 05/15 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 10:47 PM Mr Massimei, If yer tryin' to build support for this clown who couldn't figger out he's supposed to take orders, then spammin' a BB ain't the way to do it... thought you oughtta know... -Ed- =============== Reply 14 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/16 From: NDHK10A ANDREW BUSH Time: 3:43 AM Ed he's been beating this dead pony for a long time. Trial over, found guilty and may already be serving the time. Sure am sick of his old news. But perhaps the poster isn't as informed about the facts as he'd like I to think. He does look for a sympathic ear anytime he can and his spamming of lots of subject here is truly getting annoying. Hope he can read, and then reads this. Barb =============== Reply 15 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: NDHK10A ANDREW BUSH Date: 05/16 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 11:09 AM Barb, I sympathize with his aim of trying to raise support for a cause in which he believes so passionately... but spamming will only get one approbation and on many services get you several thousand flames in return... he needs to rethink this... -Ed- =============== Reply 16 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/16 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:19 PM <<>> You can't be referring to Michael New now can you? The same Michael New who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America? Can't YOU figure out he did EXACTLY as he should have? Don't you recall all those Nazis who were "just following orders," and where that got them? Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. =============== Reply 17 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/16 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 10:59 PM Mr Gombas, Mr New was given a direct order to deploy... Comparing this nutcase with Nazi's simply shows how thin yer argument is... -Ed- =============== Reply 18 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 0:14 AM He was given a direct order to deploy into the command of a non-American/U.N. officer. This officer NEVER swore an oath to preserve, honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. =============== Reply 19 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/17 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 0:26 AM Mr Gombas, And yet everyone else obeyed the lawful order of their commanding officer to deploy... Or is your notion that folks in the military oughta have a vote when they get an order, to see if some barracks-lawyer can find an objection? -Ed- =============== Reply 20 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 2:37 AM An order cannot be lawful if it is not Constitutional. An officer who is sworn to defend the Constitution cannot order a soldier who is sworn to defend that Constitution to surrender that duty. When you must take orders from a foreign officer who probably never even heard of the Bill of Rights you have abandoned your post and have become a pawn in the hands of someone whose #1 priority is NOT America. The trouble with the others is that they were trained too much in the use of weapons and not enough in the use of their minds. The Bill of Rights comes not from the barrel of a gun, but from the Mind of God. THIS is what they are sworn to defend, not the officers of a foreign entity. =============== Reply 21 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/17 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 1:17 PM Mr Gombas, RE: "An order cannot be lawful if it is not Constitutional." And who decides if the order is Constitutional? A grunt? Seems to me he appealed and was told in no uncertain terms to get on the damm boat... The order was lawful and in a combat situation the idiot woulda be liable for -- and shoulda gotten -- the death penalty... -Ed- =============== Reply 22 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 9:34 PM If a person is competent to take the oath to defend the Constitution he is obviously capable of deciding if an order is lawful. An oath is not a game. It is not something one takes just to get what he wants. It must become part of his character and merge with his mind and become the focal point of his activities and the reference point by which to judge his world. The oath becomes an on-going intellectual exercise and a soldier cannot throw it away simply because some authority figure with a gun tells him to. Part of the oath says "to the best of my ability..." Some folk are perfectly willing to obey orders without a second thought, or even a first thought, because thinking is just plain too difficult for them. They NEED to be told what to do. But occassionally someone like New comes along and actually understands his oath and takes it seriously. This riles the higher ups who have spent a career kissing up to civilian politicians and hate being shown up by a lowly enlisted man. Honor, to them, means keeping up the facade. To men like New, however, honor means serving the American Flag and ONLY the American Flag. =============== Reply 23 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/17 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 9:55 PM Mr Gombas, RE: "If a person is competent to take the oath to defend the Constitution he is obviously capable of deciding if anorder is lawful." So yer sayin' that the military should put any order to a vote... kin see it now, we're under fire, the LT says we gotta bug-out to the west... he gathers the men and says, "OK, now how many of you agree that my order is lawful... let's see a show of hands..." Think that might be a problem? -Ed- =============== Reply 24 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/18 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 7:35 PM You keep trying to claim that I am urging a vote amongst the ranks on this issue. Where in my writing do you see ANY mention of doing this. You seem to be like one of those activist Federal judges who manage to see whatever they want to see in the Constitution. The issue is very simple. Our military personel are sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. They have never been sworn to defend the U.N. Charter. Why should you or anybody else choose to believe a soldier must disavow his oath just because a chain of command that begins with a corrupt politician orders him to? Let's not let America become like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany which terrified soldiers into doing the dirty work of the powerful. If the Clinton Administration wants to force our People to serve a flag other than the Stars and Stripes, let Congress pass a law in the open arena of public opinion, if it can. Until then, let conscience be our guide. =============== Reply 25 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/18 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 9:34 PM Mr Gombas, Yes, the issue is very simple. When given a direct order by your commanding officer you obey it. And if you refuse to do so, you get the consequences... And at a court martial you can make yer case the order was unlawful, and if you lose you getta spend some time in jail and/or booted out of the military... You don't like them rules, stay the hell out of the military or take yer lumps like an adult... -Ed- =============== Reply 26 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/19 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 8:29 PM You obviously don't take oaths seriously. Looks like most People in the military don't either. People should honor their oath and do something simply be- cause, and only because, it conforms to the oath. Most People, however, do what they're told because they fear punishment and in their hearts hold oaths to be meaningless. In America today, fear of punishment by authority is now above serving Country and God, so help me. Oaths = jokes. =============== Reply 27 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/19 From: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Time: 11:30 PM Mr Gombas, Here's a thought, kid. Why don't you trot this crap over to the Veteran's BB? I'm sure that a number of folks over there will be happy to explain to you that New deserves to sit jail for a long time... -Ed- =============== Reply 28 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/20 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 7:48 PM Check out the Army topic. =============== Reply 29 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Date: 05/20 From: BSFP42B DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW Time: 7:48 PM Rick, Ed, I wasn't around for WWII, but didn't American troops occasionally serve under allied commanders who were British or French? I don't see that the UN is all that different. =============== Reply 30 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/03 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 8:36 PM Very good post, TL. I agree with most of it but the part that the parasites are unbenownst to the "system." The System began as an honest attempt to create an honest, representative government so that us People could prosper on a clear, level playing field, one without any clumps of wealth and power that would trip us up, or exile us from the field into the wilderness. That was 1787. This is 1997. During the 210 intervening years a Wall of corruption gathered and like a glacier scoured the political/economic landscape S-L-O-W-L-Y but surely until we witness conditions like those you point out. The Wall stamps out individual free will EVEN THOUGH free will was the PURPOSE of the system originally. When an individual manages to peer beyond his immediate surroundings the Wall appears to him as so large and unresponsive that he prefers to avoid rather than oppose it. Those who "merely sit back" are not likely to laugh when they observe the Wall and remark to themselves, "say, wasn't that icy behemoth a few yards back when I last saw it?" It's dangerous to ALL, even those who "adjust or "relocate." The spin doctors for the Wall never even admit its reality, but instead accuse the opposition of paranoia. Like any glacier this Wall moves inexorably forward. We the People need to imitate Nature to save ourselves from being crushed. The last ice age ended with an increase of temperature and the last political oppression We suffered ended with a Revolution. We need to turn up the HEAT. HEAT melts the Wall and kills the parasites. All that's left is the Constitution. =============== Reply 31 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/04 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 11:47 PM The problem with lie detectors is that the worst criminals don't HAVE a conscience, and many politicians don't believe in God anyway, (beyond the weekly Sunday photo-op.) As to the possibility of the Revolution turning violent, we have the Right to self-defense, and the government has been gunning us down with impunity for years. By not opposing them we only encourage them to keep killing us. When a few of them start falling and the rest of them realize how exposed they really are, they'll come around. We finally got the Waco and Ruby Ridge hearings only after OKC. =============== Reply 32 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: BSFP42B DENNIS BARTHOLOMEW Date: 05/06 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:05 PM No, Rehnquist didn't use "penumbras and emanations" out front, but they were "between the lines." It seems in this decision the Tenth Amendment came into conflict with the First and the Court chose to elevate the Tenth. This flies in the face (contradicts) a previous recent decision in which the Court held that laws which restrict the First Amendment Right of corporations or other special interest groups to contribute to a candidate or party are illegal. In other words, the Court is telling us that a corporation can give money to a party under the First Amendment, but a party cannot give its endorsement under the same amendment. Money talks in America and the Court has now endorsed this reality. An entity that gives MONEY to the political process is protected by the First Amendment BUT an entity that gives WORDS is not. Crazy? Welcome to America 1997. To be consistent, the Court will HAVE to support any state law that restricts political contributions, don't you think? If the Courst says in Timons that the Tenth takes precedence over the First, any state that restricts corporate gifts to candidates and parties must be upheld! So there's a silver lining after all. =============== Reply 33 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: TTTT25A THOMAS LEWIS Date: 05/06 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:05 PM Randy Weaver tried civil disobedience and look what happened to his wife and little boy. The number one lesson of history is the ruling class will rarely surrender power voluntarily. They get and keep their position with VIOLENCE, that's what they understand, that's what they live by, and that is what they'll die by. The current government of China, that the Washington/Wall Street Axis admires so much, has a Little Red Book quote on this very subject: "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Lon Hirouchi knew that, the ATF knew that, and now We the People will learn that to our great advantage. Civil disobedience is the cat's paw, the TEETH will follow. It doesn't matter what color the cat is as long as it kills rats. =============== Reply 34 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/16 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 10:19 PM <<>> You can't be referring to Michael New now can you? The same Michael New who took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America? Can't YOU figure out he did EXACTLY as he should have? Don't you recall all those Nazis who were "just following orders," and where that got them? Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. =============== Reply 35 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 0:14 AM He was given a direct order to deploy into the command of a non-American/U.N. officer. This officer NEVER swore an oath to preserve, honor and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. =============== Reply 36 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 2:37 AM An order cannot be lawful if it is not Constitutional. An officer who is sworn to defend the Constitution cannot order a soldier who is sworn to defend that Constitution to surrender that duty. When you must take orders from a foreign officer who probably never even heard of the Bill of Rights you have abandoned your post and have become a pawn in the hands of someone whose #1 priority is NOT America. The trouble with the others is that they were trained too much in the use of weapons and not enough in the use of their minds. The Bill of Rights comes not from the barrel of a gun, but from the Mind of God. THIS is what they are sworn to defend, not the officers of a foreign entity. =============== Reply 37 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/17 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 9:34 PM If a person is competent to take the oath to defend the Constitution he is obviously capable of deciding if an order is lawful. An oath is not a game. It is not something one takes just to get what he wants. It must become part of his character and merge with his mind and become the focal point of his activities and the reference point by which to judge his world. The oath becomes an on-going intellectual exercise and a soldier cannot throw it away simply because some authority figure with a gun tells him to. Part of the oath says "to the best of my ability..." Some folk are perfectly willing to obey orders without a second thought, or even a first thought, because thinking is just plain too difficult for them. They NEED to be told what to do. But occassionally someone like New comes along and actually understands his oath and takes it seriously. This riles the higher ups who have spent a career kissing up to civilian politicians and hate being shown up by a lowly enlisted man. Honor, to them, means keeping up the facade. To men like New, however, honor means serving the American Flag and ONLY the American Flag. =============== Reply 38 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/18 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 7:35 PM You keep trying to claim that I am urging a vote amongst the ranks on this issue. Where in my writing do you see ANY mention of doing this. You seem to be like one of those activist Federal judges who manage to see whatever they want to see in the Constitution. The issue is very simple. Our military personel are sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. They have never been sworn to defend the U.N. Charter. Why should you or anybody else choose to believe a soldier must disavow his oath just because a chain of command that begins with a corrupt politician orders him to? Let's not let America become like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany which terrified soldiers into doing the dirty work of the powerful. If the Clinton Administration wants to force our People to serve a flag other than the Stars and Stripes, let Congress pass a law in the open arena of public opinion, if it can. Until then, let conscience be our guide. =============== Reply 39 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/19 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 8:29 PM You obviously don't take oaths seriously. Looks like most People in the military don't either. People should honor their oath and do something simply be- cause, and only because, it conforms to the oath. Most People, however, do what they're told because they fear punishment and in their hearts hold oaths to be meaningless. In America today, fear of punishment by authority is now above serving Country and God, so help me. Oaths = jokes. =============== Reply 40 of Note 1 ================= Board: NEWS BB Topic: IN THE NEWS... Subject: WALLS MOVING CLOSER! To: CHCH29A ED O'FARRELL Date: 05/20 From: REVOLUTIONSOLUTION Time: 7:48 PM Check out the Army topic.