No police state, you think?
Federalized State Guard, National Guard and Police Train to Dominate American Citizens, Take Over Local Governments
Troops Equate Civil Disturbances with Terrorism, Citizens are called "rebels"
Alex Jones | August 11, 2005
Now fighting terror means tackling people. They've taken the State Guards and converted them into Stasi goon squads that engage in law-enforcement activities across the country. Last year, we reported on the Alabama Defense Force which has been setting up random checkpoints and searching women and children in Alabama. The same system has been set up in Texas. We have their internal field manuals. It's all about gun confiscation, mass arrests and total control.
Former Congressman Bob Barr has been all over national television warning the American people about current military restructuring that will put military forces on street corners. He asks, "Do we want, as a free people, with the notion of privacy enshrined in the Constitution and based on the very clear limits and defined role of government, to be in a society where not just the police, but the military are on the street corners gathering intelligence on citizens, sharing that data, manipulating that data?"
Meanwhile, The Washington Post is telling us how safe we will be because NORTHCOM, our new military overlords, are preparing to give us martial law to protect us from that evil concept formerly known as freedom, now known as al-Qaeda.
Watch this disgusting clip out of Roanoke, Virginia. Notice how they talk about fighting terrorism after 9/11.
I guess fighting terrorism consists of dealing with rioters. Why does the government think we're going to be rioting? Why have they been quietly building giant force structures for the last eight years?
The news piece points out police aiming their paint ball guns at the "rebels" and sniping them. I've been to ten of these drills in the last eight years. In Belton, Texas, in 2000, I had regular Army march up to me with the police and tell us to turn our video cameras off.
In 1999, we were in Oakland, California covering Operation Urban Warrior. Thousands of active-duty Marines trained openly with foreign troops to interrogate American citizens and confiscate our firearms.
In Swansboro, North Carolina, the Marines actually engaged in live, law-enforcement activities, assisting at checkpoints. In Hebron, Maryland, they practiced taking over City Hall and told our cameraman to turn his camera off. All of this is exhaustively detailed in my films, Police State 2000, Police State II: The Takeover and 9/11: The Road to Tyranny.
This is deadly serious. This is classical tyranny. They are turning America into an armed camp and treating us like slaves while leaving the borders wide open.
Alex Jones is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and political researcher. His news websites, infowars.com and prisonplanet.com, are at the forefront of the exploding alternative media. Jones is recognized by many as the father of the 9/11 truth movement, being the first to question the government’s official story. His newest film is Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State. It details the latest 9/11 revelations. Jones lives in Austin, Texas.
Click here for original article with lots of links.
Feds Take Over Local Governments
Moderator: Super Moderators
Feds Take Over Local Governments
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin
Grrr...
Thanks for the post Iris...I think.
It's interesting to note that Bob Barr, the shrimpy, sour puss I used to love to hate, is turning out to have the heart of a patriot. LOL I LOVE this!
PS: He is still a shrimpy, sour puss.
--
Ex-lawmaker blasts Patriot Act
Republican Barr warns of privacy issues
Amy Sowder
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com
Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
Most people would be hard-pressed to fill a room with card-carrying members of the National Rifle Association along with the American Civil Liberties Union without a shot being fired.
But that's what former Republican Congressman Bob Barr did Tuesday night at Pensacola Junior College when he warned conservatives and liberals alike about the dangers of the USA Patriot Act.
Some provisions of the law enacted in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks will expire in December.
Congress, however, is expected to vote on renewing those provisions, which include unlimited roving wiretaps, home invasions without warrants, seizure of personal finance and medical records -- even what magazines you buy.
He told those in attendance Tuesday that those "sunset provisions" violate the Bill of Rights and urged them to call their legislators.
"We all lose," Barr said to about 100 people ranging from teens to senior citizens. "They have the right to invade your privacy, gain access to your information without a reasonable suspicion that you have done wrong. That's the essence of privacy and freedom."
Barr served as a Georgia legislator in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, is a board member of the National Rifle Association, serves as a contributor for CNN and is a regular columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Retired special agent David A. Akerman, 59, joined the ACLU when President Bush signed the Patriot Act.
"I spent 30 years dealing with terrorism insurgency and U.S. government security operations, and I see no need for it," Akerman said. "I never had trouble getting a warrant from a judge."
Mary Lou McBee, 80, said she feels it's an infringement on her freedom that the Patriot Act permits indefinite imprisonment of immigrants without the government having to prove they are terrorists.
"Just think about the Japanese who were interned in California" during World War II, said McBee, a member of the League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area. "You just have to use common sense."
Geoff Bishop, 31, of Pensacola said he was a Democrat there to learn.
"It's interesting that Republicans also have concerns about the Patriot Act," Bishop said.
Barr, who some consider to be a "traditional conservative," cautioned about the government's increasing pressure on banks to file more and more Suspicious Activity Reports. Banks are filing 800,000 of these reports a year, triple the rate of three years ago, according to an article he wrote on his Web site, http://www.bobbarr.org.
"A person who has no privacy is in the absolute control of the government," Barr said. "Our civil liberties truly are, or ought to be, on our endangered species list."
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/app ... 00330/1006
Homeland Insecurity: Big Brother Is Watching You
by Charlotte Twight
Charlotte A. Twight, professor of economics at Boise State University and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is the author of "Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans" (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2002).
Terrorism is a serious problem for America. But when our elected representatives vote for telephone book-sized laws they have not read, it also represents a serious problem.
That's just what happened when Congress passed the "Homeland Security Act," a 484-page law most House members did not even read. And that should make us all a little, shall we say, insecure in our homeland.
The troubling details are now trickling out. Title II creates a Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection within the Department of Homeland Security. The directorate is given open-ended power to "access, receive and analyze" information from federal, state and local government agencies and the private sector, to integrate this information, and to disseminate it to government and private recipients.
The act's occasional lip service to privacy is a sham. As with recent medical privacy regulations, here too federal officials genuflect toward privacy while they strip it away.
The surveillance system outlined by the Homeland Security Act builds on prior federal laws that mandated creation of many of the databases that will be inputs to the proposed integrated system. Few complained when, over the years, federal officials ordered our banks, our schools, our doctors, our employers, and others to collect detailed information about us. Nor did many complain about the vast array of government databases gradually assembled by the IRS, FBI, SSA, and the Departments of Labor, Education, HHS, and the rest.
Piece by piece, the central government demanded creation of key components, which, if integrated, could be used to create a virtual surveillance state. That integration is now an explicit objective of the Homeland Security Act.
Of course, there are also good provisions in the act, such as a program to arm airline pilots. But that is the point. By combining a variety of measures, good and bad, in a nearly indecipherable 484-page bill, and giving legislators less than 24 hours to examine its contents, key officials facilitated passage of provisions that otherwise might not have been accepted by Congress or the public. Labeling the bill as the "Homeland Security Act" guaranteed that few would dare to oppose it.
Unfortunately, this episode is not an isolated incident. In the past few weeks, we have discovered the Pentagon's planned consolidated database on nearly 300 million citizens. That's right, on all of us. The traditional presumption of innocence is being supplanted by a presumption of guilt. Defense officials now want to know everything there is to know about you--your bank account, the checks you write, your credit card transactions and other purchases, your educational records, your e-mail, your travels, and more--all without a search warrant.
This database proposal is a brainchild of the "Office of Information Awareness," led by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and housed within the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Its stated goal is to consolidate central government access to commercial as well as government databases. By centralizing analysis of such information, the government is doing what some have long feared, with predictable implications for privacy and liberty.
The office's emblem is an eye scanning the world, with the caption 'Scientia Est Potentia' (knowledge is power). That caption is chillingly accurate: Government officials' unrestrained acquisition of personal information about us will give them unprecedented power over us.
What is new about the surveillance contemplated by the Homeland Security Act and the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" system? For openers, surveillance is being centralized at the national level to an unprecedented degree. The government is further destroying barriers between commercial and government databases, seeking nearly unfettered access to private-sector information, and using data-mining to scrutinize innocent citizens. Ever more bureaucrats and business people are being granted access to government-compiled information about us without our knowledge or consent. While the pretense of court authorization sometimes remains, in actuality safeguards preventing surveillance of law-abiding citizens are being cast aside. The central government is openly seeking to spy on all Americans.
Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga., has condemned the creation of these monster databases, but he tried to defend his colleagues in Congress by saying they were not fully aware of what they were voting for. Only in Washington, D.C., would such a "defense" be seriously advanced. This is not the America that I grew up in, but this is the America that will be handed to the next generation. We should all tremble for the future of our nation.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4130
Blair Anti-Terrorism Plan Rekindles U.S. Civil Liberties Debate
BY CHUCK McCUTCHEON
c.2005 Newhouse News Service
\
More stories by Chuck McCutcheon
WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties activists say British Prime Minister Tony Blair's tough new anti-terrorism plan has troubling implications for the United States, but some legal experts and Muslim groups contend the Constitution would stop any similar effort here.
Blair's measures -- unveiled in response to July's subway and bus bombings in London -- would enable Britain to deport foreigners who preach hatred, to close extremist mosques and to bar suspected radicals from entering the country. The prime minister's plan also designates a new crime -- glorifying terrorism -- and strips citizenship from naturalized Britons who take part in extremist movements.
Several of the proposals already have been employed in the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a number of Blair's initiatives will be implemented immediately without a legislative debate that civil libertarians say is essential to prevent the government from seizing too much power.
"Absolutely it can happen here, and it frightens the dickens out of me," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a leading critic of the Bush administration's legal approach in fighting terrorism. "We need to go back and start teaching people what the Bill of Rights means and about their history, so they're not willing to chuck it out the window."
Blair said his proposals focus on foreigners in Britain because authorities believe "the ideological drive and push is coming from outside."
If the United States is attacked again, some officials here would try to follow a similar path, predicted Michael Greenberger, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security and a former Clinton Justice Department official.
Though he declined to comment on the substance of Blair's proposals, Greenberger said, "God forbid there's another serious attack, but if there is, and foreign nationals are involved, I would expect the same debate taking place here."
Timothy Edgar, the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel for national security, was less concerned.
Edgar pointed to a section of the USA Patriot Act authorizing the government to prosecute people who "provide expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups. In January 2004, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled such language unconstitutionally vague, but declined to impose a nationwide injunction against the provision.
"It hasn't worked here, and I see no evidence it will work over there," Edgar said. "There's no question that, just like after 9/11, people are going to want to give government the benefit of the doubt. But that honeymoon will end because the policies are not likely to be effective and will alienate communities and backfire in a way that doesn't make people any safer."
The House and Senate have passed separate bills to reauthorize most sections of the Patriot Act and are expected to work out differences this fall.
Blair's announcement led some Patriot Act supporters to call for tougher measures from President Bush.
"The president has been AWOL on the issue of expelling illegal immigrants and dealing with those who spread terrorist bile here, in Saudi-sponsored schools, and elsewhere," Jed Babbin, former deputy under secretary of defense for Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wrote in an online column in the American Spectator. "What are we, the society that suspends from school 10-year-old boys for making a gun sound over a pointed index finger and folded thumb, willing to do to protect ourselves?"
In response, supporters of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies cite the deportations of thousands of immigrants to Muslim and Arab countries since Sept. 11. Critics say many immigrants were unfairly targeted and that few if any were proven terrorism suspects.
But some legal scholars and terrorism experts said the Constitution places far more rigid restrictions on what can be done in the United States.
For example, Blair's proposed crime of glorifying terrorism "would run afoul of First Amendment doctrines which draw a distinction between glorifying activity in the abstract and inciting people," said Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, agreed that similar measures "would be very difficult to implement here, based on the Constitution. There would have to be a suspension of constitutional rights."
Aug. 10, 2005
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mcc ... 81005.html
Thanks for the post Iris...I think.
It's interesting to note that Bob Barr, the shrimpy, sour puss I used to love to hate, is turning out to have the heart of a patriot. LOL I LOVE this!
PS: He is still a shrimpy, sour puss.
--
Ex-lawmaker blasts Patriot Act
Republican Barr warns of privacy issues
Amy Sowder
@PensacolaNewsJournal.com
Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
Most people would be hard-pressed to fill a room with card-carrying members of the National Rifle Association along with the American Civil Liberties Union without a shot being fired.
But that's what former Republican Congressman Bob Barr did Tuesday night at Pensacola Junior College when he warned conservatives and liberals alike about the dangers of the USA Patriot Act.
Some provisions of the law enacted in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks will expire in December.
Congress, however, is expected to vote on renewing those provisions, which include unlimited roving wiretaps, home invasions without warrants, seizure of personal finance and medical records -- even what magazines you buy.
He told those in attendance Tuesday that those "sunset provisions" violate the Bill of Rights and urged them to call their legislators.
"We all lose," Barr said to about 100 people ranging from teens to senior citizens. "They have the right to invade your privacy, gain access to your information without a reasonable suspicion that you have done wrong. That's the essence of privacy and freedom."
Barr served as a Georgia legislator in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, is a board member of the National Rifle Association, serves as a contributor for CNN and is a regular columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Retired special agent David A. Akerman, 59, joined the ACLU when President Bush signed the Patriot Act.
"I spent 30 years dealing with terrorism insurgency and U.S. government security operations, and I see no need for it," Akerman said. "I never had trouble getting a warrant from a judge."
Mary Lou McBee, 80, said she feels it's an infringement on her freedom that the Patriot Act permits indefinite imprisonment of immigrants without the government having to prove they are terrorists.
"Just think about the Japanese who were interned in California" during World War II, said McBee, a member of the League of Women Voters of the Pensacola Bay Area. "You just have to use common sense."
Geoff Bishop, 31, of Pensacola said he was a Democrat there to learn.
"It's interesting that Republicans also have concerns about the Patriot Act," Bishop said.
Barr, who some consider to be a "traditional conservative," cautioned about the government's increasing pressure on banks to file more and more Suspicious Activity Reports. Banks are filing 800,000 of these reports a year, triple the rate of three years ago, according to an article he wrote on his Web site, http://www.bobbarr.org.
"A person who has no privacy is in the absolute control of the government," Barr said. "Our civil liberties truly are, or ought to be, on our endangered species list."
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/app ... 00330/1006
Homeland Insecurity: Big Brother Is Watching You
by Charlotte Twight
Charlotte A. Twight, professor of economics at Boise State University and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is the author of "Dependent on D.C.: The Rise of Federal Control over the Lives of Ordinary Americans" (Palgrave/St. Martin's Press, 2002).
Terrorism is a serious problem for America. But when our elected representatives vote for telephone book-sized laws they have not read, it also represents a serious problem.
That's just what happened when Congress passed the "Homeland Security Act," a 484-page law most House members did not even read. And that should make us all a little, shall we say, insecure in our homeland.
The troubling details are now trickling out. Title II creates a Directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection within the Department of Homeland Security. The directorate is given open-ended power to "access, receive and analyze" information from federal, state and local government agencies and the private sector, to integrate this information, and to disseminate it to government and private recipients.
The act's occasional lip service to privacy is a sham. As with recent medical privacy regulations, here too federal officials genuflect toward privacy while they strip it away.
The surveillance system outlined by the Homeland Security Act builds on prior federal laws that mandated creation of many of the databases that will be inputs to the proposed integrated system. Few complained when, over the years, federal officials ordered our banks, our schools, our doctors, our employers, and others to collect detailed information about us. Nor did many complain about the vast array of government databases gradually assembled by the IRS, FBI, SSA, and the Departments of Labor, Education, HHS, and the rest.
Piece by piece, the central government demanded creation of key components, which, if integrated, could be used to create a virtual surveillance state. That integration is now an explicit objective of the Homeland Security Act.
Of course, there are also good provisions in the act, such as a program to arm airline pilots. But that is the point. By combining a variety of measures, good and bad, in a nearly indecipherable 484-page bill, and giving legislators less than 24 hours to examine its contents, key officials facilitated passage of provisions that otherwise might not have been accepted by Congress or the public. Labeling the bill as the "Homeland Security Act" guaranteed that few would dare to oppose it.
Unfortunately, this episode is not an isolated incident. In the past few weeks, we have discovered the Pentagon's planned consolidated database on nearly 300 million citizens. That's right, on all of us. The traditional presumption of innocence is being supplanted by a presumption of guilt. Defense officials now want to know everything there is to know about you--your bank account, the checks you write, your credit card transactions and other purchases, your educational records, your e-mail, your travels, and more--all without a search warrant.
This database proposal is a brainchild of the "Office of Information Awareness," led by Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter and housed within the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Its stated goal is to consolidate central government access to commercial as well as government databases. By centralizing analysis of such information, the government is doing what some have long feared, with predictable implications for privacy and liberty.
The office's emblem is an eye scanning the world, with the caption 'Scientia Est Potentia' (knowledge is power). That caption is chillingly accurate: Government officials' unrestrained acquisition of personal information about us will give them unprecedented power over us.
What is new about the surveillance contemplated by the Homeland Security Act and the Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" system? For openers, surveillance is being centralized at the national level to an unprecedented degree. The government is further destroying barriers between commercial and government databases, seeking nearly unfettered access to private-sector information, and using data-mining to scrutinize innocent citizens. Ever more bureaucrats and business people are being granted access to government-compiled information about us without our knowledge or consent. While the pretense of court authorization sometimes remains, in actuality safeguards preventing surveillance of law-abiding citizens are being cast aside. The central government is openly seeking to spy on all Americans.
Congressman Bob Barr, R-Ga., has condemned the creation of these monster databases, but he tried to defend his colleagues in Congress by saying they were not fully aware of what they were voting for. Only in Washington, D.C., would such a "defense" be seriously advanced. This is not the America that I grew up in, but this is the America that will be handed to the next generation. We should all tremble for the future of our nation.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4130
Blair Anti-Terrorism Plan Rekindles U.S. Civil Liberties Debate
BY CHUCK McCUTCHEON
c.2005 Newhouse News Service
\
More stories by Chuck McCutcheon
WASHINGTON -- Civil liberties activists say British Prime Minister Tony Blair's tough new anti-terrorism plan has troubling implications for the United States, but some legal experts and Muslim groups contend the Constitution would stop any similar effort here.
Blair's measures -- unveiled in response to July's subway and bus bombings in London -- would enable Britain to deport foreigners who preach hatred, to close extremist mosques and to bar suspected radicals from entering the country. The prime minister's plan also designates a new crime -- glorifying terrorism -- and strips citizenship from naturalized Britons who take part in extremist movements.
Several of the proposals already have been employed in the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a number of Blair's initiatives will be implemented immediately without a legislative debate that civil libertarians say is essential to prevent the government from seizing too much power.
"Absolutely it can happen here, and it frightens the dickens out of me," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a leading critic of the Bush administration's legal approach in fighting terrorism. "We need to go back and start teaching people what the Bill of Rights means and about their history, so they're not willing to chuck it out the window."
Blair said his proposals focus on foreigners in Britain because authorities believe "the ideological drive and push is coming from outside."
If the United States is attacked again, some officials here would try to follow a similar path, predicted Michael Greenberger, director of the University of Maryland's Center for Health and Homeland Security and a former Clinton Justice Department official.
Though he declined to comment on the substance of Blair's proposals, Greenberger said, "God forbid there's another serious attack, but if there is, and foreign nationals are involved, I would expect the same debate taking place here."
Timothy Edgar, the American Civil Liberties Union's policy counsel for national security, was less concerned.
Edgar pointed to a section of the USA Patriot Act authorizing the government to prosecute people who "provide expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups. In January 2004, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled such language unconstitutionally vague, but declined to impose a nationwide injunction against the provision.
"It hasn't worked here, and I see no evidence it will work over there," Edgar said. "There's no question that, just like after 9/11, people are going to want to give government the benefit of the doubt. But that honeymoon will end because the policies are not likely to be effective and will alienate communities and backfire in a way that doesn't make people any safer."
The House and Senate have passed separate bills to reauthorize most sections of the Patriot Act and are expected to work out differences this fall.
Blair's announcement led some Patriot Act supporters to call for tougher measures from President Bush.
"The president has been AWOL on the issue of expelling illegal immigrants and dealing with those who spread terrorist bile here, in Saudi-sponsored schools, and elsewhere," Jed Babbin, former deputy under secretary of defense for Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wrote in an online column in the American Spectator. "What are we, the society that suspends from school 10-year-old boys for making a gun sound over a pointed index finger and folded thumb, willing to do to protect ourselves?"
In response, supporters of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies cite the deportations of thousands of immigrants to Muslim and Arab countries since Sept. 11. Critics say many immigrants were unfairly targeted and that few if any were proven terrorism suspects.
But some legal scholars and terrorism experts said the Constitution places far more rigid restrictions on what can be done in the United States.
For example, Blair's proposed crime of glorifying terrorism "would run afoul of First Amendment doctrines which draw a distinction between glorifying activity in the abstract and inciting people," said Rodney Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, agreed that similar measures "would be very difficult to implement here, based on the Constitution. There would have to be a suspension of constitutional rights."
Aug. 10, 2005
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/mcc ... 81005.html
Thank you, Sandy. There are many, many more articles like this out there.
Lamestream gnus keeps telling us it's all about fighting terrorism and keeping us safe -- and unfortunately, many (even some here) still believe it. Many think this ia all about a fight between the Democrats and the Republicans -- just politics as usual. They need to get their heads out of the sand and start reading non-mainstream publications -- before it's too late for us all.
If this is wrong, so what? But if it's right, dear readers, can you afford not to take it seriously?
Lamestream gnus keeps telling us it's all about fighting terrorism and keeping us safe -- and unfortunately, many (even some here) still believe it. Many think this ia all about a fight between the Democrats and the Republicans -- just politics as usual. They need to get their heads out of the sand and start reading non-mainstream publications -- before it's too late for us all.
If this is wrong, so what? But if it's right, dear readers, can you afford not to take it seriously?
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin
Allready Going On
All of this has allready been going on.
There has been a civil war inside the military allready happening, it slowly has been leaking out into the population for years.
Code Red - the very name means Friendly Fire at will on the oposing faction.
There has been a civil war inside the military allready happening, it slowly has been leaking out into the population for years.
Code Red - the very name means Friendly Fire at will on the oposing faction.
Dr. Newel
You're absolutley right, Laird. I hope people will copy down the URLs and send them to their friends in emails. Also, making copies of Alex Jones' films for your friends and neighbors will wake them up.Laird wrote: More people need to read this
Dr. Newel, please talk to us about the "civil war within the military."
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin
Laird wrote: More people need to read this
Laird, I agree.
Just a couple years ago a large number of Air Force pilots, some with fairly long careers, were completely abandoning their military profession to work in civilian sectors, largely because they totally oppose the BUSH TWO WARS and counting.
More specifically than the above, they totally OPPOSED BUSH TWO WAR IN IRAQ! They saw the fighting as futile, and that we are involving ourselvs in a quagmire as a virtual civil war unfolds. This is something that the True Believers cannot quite fathom, since they think that the Iraqi's are eager to tote a gun/rifle and fight for their own freedoms, but where are they now? All we see are the POLICE being shot down, but where is the local support for an internal revolution? Does it even exist, when their freedoms are at stake, or do they really care?
More is seen lately, too, in that the young cadets back home in the U.S. are not so willing to loudly applaud their Commander in Chief, merely because he uses their base as another staging event for his PR war compaigning.
In fact, also just heard that in Kansas City, KS, many were NOT SUPPORTING the BUSH WARS, and they said it was because the people there were too financially comfortable, and were refusing to enlist for the BUSH WARS. Hey, isn't that somewhere close to Cherry K's MO, too? Who'd a thunk it? Isn't that close to 'middle America', too??!!
Folks, let us remember: He is the sole president in modern times who has gleefully informed the entire World, "I AM A WAR PRESIDENT!" Let's be clear about that one -- he is not a man of peace.
Ninerism
