Aug 28, 2007

The 6/11 Airplort Plot: Senator Craig Terrorizes Indecency Cop; "This changes everything" for Public Restrooms

This is getting so much attention, by a spasmodic public easily titillated by sensational news, that it deserves an opinion. It has all the sensational and non-evidential conclusions as the events of 9/11, which actually has LESS credible and substantiated evidence than this, and will be presented in allusion to the fashion that the media seems to desire.

According to the prosecutor’s complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.
Rational Analysis by Playing the Skeptic

Such a titillating and tantalizing headline grabber like this (spread by Drudge) makes me wonder just who is behind this benign and overinflated story--i.e. undercover bathroom cop arrests Senator for tapping foot in stall.

The evidence of "indecency" here is ridiculous, (but typical of irrational, presumptive, paranoid thinking by "intelligence" standards, where setting luggage in front of stall makes you an "indecency suspect", and photographing trash bins at Disneyland makes you Al Qaeda "terrorist").
After a man in the adjacent stall left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, “which Sgt. Karsnia’s experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall,” said the complaint.

NOTE: USING A PUBLIC RESTROOM WILL NEVER BE THE SAME FOR MEN. YOU ARE AN "INDECENCY SUSPECT" IF YOU SET YOUR SUITCASE AT THE FRONT OF THE STALL. (There is no where else in a stall to safely put your baggage is there? Any man who would guard his possessions will take them in the stall to prevent theft, and there is no room behind the toilet, and the sides would be too close to adjacent persons in stalls.)
the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame.
Okay, this would disturb anyman, but a "gaze" can be misconstrued (unless you believe that a toilet cop is infallible).
The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia’s stall and then moved it to where it touched Karsnia’s foot. Karsnia recognized that “as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct,” the complaint said.
Foot-tapping is not a sign of being a sodomite in a public restroom, as many men will testify to. That it is a "signal" is a rather paranoid-based and hasty presumption from a heavily indoctrinated and overzealous cop, is typical of modern police "swarm" training, where overzealousness is taught.
Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia’s stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.
Sounds strange alright, if accurate, but what was he really doing? He also could have been setup, the only witness here is one very desperate cop assigned to undercover toilet patrol. One witness is typically insufficient, unless of course it is a cop, whose testimony is treated as if inerrant and the assumption that one would never falsify a report, or lie (or be bribed to).

Establishment Neo-republicans Attack Rather than Defend--Political Motive?

Whenever Sean Hannity does not circle the wagons in defense, but appears to lead the attack, upon such flimsy evidence, it makes me think the neocons have it in for this Senator. This is suspicious.
Suddenly, Romney, who complained at the GOP Debate against "those who think they are holier than thou because they were against abortion longer than me", suddenly becomes, well, holier than thou!

Mr Romney has linked Craig's conduct with former president Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern, as examples of public officials falling short of standards expected of them.

"Frankly it's disgusting," Mr Romney told CNBC.

"He is no longer associated with my campaign [oh, we see why now Mitt]... I am sorry to see that he has fallen short."

Question: Is everyone convinced this is not a snap-judgment, hasty, to separate from themselves a republican Senator on very sketchy evidence, mostly laced with innuendo? (Yes, the plea is what cost the Senator, but it was a Catch-22, for it would have been public immediately). IS THE SENATOR TRULY GUILTY, OR REAL, TANGIBLE, EVIDENTIAL PUBLIC INDECENCY, OR ONLY A CHARGE OF SUCH, WHICH HE PLED UPON COERCION? If it was you, and you knew your innocence, how would you have reacted to the charge?



Is this really a serious charge? Are they really going to pursue a Senator for "foot tapping" and some admittedly unique (but legal) movement (the explanation of which we have not heard) in a public restroom? WHAT! Senators can vote to overthrow, or attempt to, the Constitution through "legislation", but this is a major criminal act requiring immediate removal from office? WHAT HANNITY-INSANITY!! But how the Democrats and "left" love this story so they can dog pile!


1. What is this to distract from? The talk of "recession" yesterday by the former treasury secretary (we covered it here, and it is the BIG but quiet story)? Or dare we forget Sen. Warner's admonition for troop withdrawal?

(always look at this first, and remember Mel Gibson, John Karr, and Imus--all stories that were released for the purpose of public titillation for other agendas).

2. Will this serve another agenda? a pretended clean-up of a "reformed" republican party, worthy of "trust" again?

3. Who wants to get rid of this Senator? Why are Hannity and other republicans conspicuously jumping so fast, without substantial evidence? Why so eager to rush to judgment, instead of typical defense? (yes, sometimes a conspiracy is more rational than what is reported, and it happens frequently, constantly, to control the course of power).

Hint: Even though he is a faithful proclaimer of the neoconservative gospel, that "fundamental jihadists want to kill us all", he opposes REAL ID, (but not all IDs) and has said so publicly on this podcast (linked)
(Would be interesting to get headcount on number of Senator willing to rescind REAL ID, or another key issue--one vote might make a difference).

Anything that gets this kind of media play, especially after 3 months of delay, IS SUSPICIOUS. THIS IS DESIGNED TO DOMINATE THE NEWS, LIKE THE JOHN KARR INCIDENT. Something bigger is going on here....and deserves skeptical coverage and more rational analysis.


But with the overzealousness of Hannity and "establishment" neo-republicans (and "not holier than thou" Mormon and CFR insider Willard Milton Romney) soon we could hear the like in their typical propaganda fashion, and from the "terrorism" merchandisers:
"6/11 changed everything! Public restrooms need security!"

"Office of Public Security" needed.

"FBI increases surveillance in Congressional restrooms, produces watch list of "the indecent" profiles".

NSA watching for "foot-tappers".

"Local Government install cameras in public restrooms; use Homeland Security Funding"
-- Mayor Danny Jones of Charleston will jump right on this one!

"Scannable IDs now required for public restrooms".

...You know, it all sounds so familiar, from the hyper-ventilating propaganda machine.

Maybe you will even see James Woolsey and William Kristol interviewed by FOX.


The public should be skeptical and require a higher standard of jurisprudence than what is portrayed for propaganda purposes through the political-controlled media.


Aug 27, 2007

America in Economic Throws while Media Distracts the Sheep


Several loud warnings have come in the last 6 months about America's economy and financial markets, and all important Fed policy, but the prophets could scarcely be heard over the clamor of celebrity news (American idolatry indeed), sports and entertainment, and of course the mischief, as always, in Washington. Among our posts recently (see tag "economy") dire warnings and unprecedented actions have taken place that affect Americans every day lives, that should have made front page headlines. Finally today Drudge Report posted the article that ex-U.S. Treasury Secretary Summers is warning of recession, in the most serious terms.

This falls on the heels of earlier loud cries from the present U.S. Comptroller General:

Jul 11, 2007

U.S. Comptroller General: "Greatest Threat to America is Fiscal Irresponsibility"

(CBS) This segment was originally broadcast on March 4, 2007. It was updated on July 8, 2007.

When the stock market soars or plunges, everyone pays attention. But short term results aren't that important to the man you're about to meet. David Walker thinks the biggest economic peril facing the nation is being ignored, and for nearly two years now he has been traveling the country like an Old Testament prophet, urging people to wake up before its too late. Who is David Walker and why should we care?

As correspondent Steve Kroft first reported earlier this year, he is the nation's top accountant, the comptroller general of the United States. He's totaled up our government's income, liabilities, and future obligations and concluded that our current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken. And he's not alone. It's been called the "dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows" – a set of financial truths so inconvenient that most elected officials don't even want to talk about them, which is exactly why David Walker does.
"I would argue that the most serious threat to the United States is not someone hiding in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan but our own fiscal irresponsibility," Walker tells Kroft.

So, actually, credit CBS for airing this article on 60 Minutes, yet it went unheeded.

Earlier warnings than this went without much notice or attention, though published in major newspapers:

Greatest threat to U.S. is economic

Last month, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released figures showing that last year for the first time, China supplanted the United States as the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment worldwide - that is, money that goes into factories, equipment, real estate or existing companies. And in a blow to fans of ``freedom fries,'' No. 2 was France. Though other major economies also suffered a drop-off in this category, no nation fell as far in percentage terms as the United States.

One Congressman and now Presidential candidate stands today justified in all of his warnings, such as these:

Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security

October 25, 2004

Once again the federal government has reached its “debt ceiling,” and once again Congress is poised to authorize an increase in government borrowing. Between its ever-growing bureaucracies, expanding entitlements, and overseas military entanglements, the federal government is borrowing roughly one billion dollars every day to pay its bills.

Federal law limits the amount of debt the U.S. Treasury may carry, and the current amount-- a whopping $7.4 trillion-- has been reached once again by a spendthrift federal government. Total federal spending, which now exceeds $2 trillion annually, once took more than 100 years to double. Today it doubles in less than a decade, and the rate is accelerating. When President Reagan entered office in 1981 facing a federal debt of $1 trillion that had piled up over the decades, he declared that figure “incomprehensible.” At its present rate of spending, the federal government will soon amass $1 trillion of new debt in just one year.

Government debt carries absolutely no stigma for politicians in Washington. The original idea behind the debt limit law was to shine a light on government spending, by forcing lawmakers to vote publicly for debt increases. Over time, however, the increases have become so commonplace that the media scarcely reports them-- and there are no political consequences for those who vote for more red ink. It’s far more risky for politicians to vote against special interest spending

In a FOX interview in May, before the first debate, Ron Paul accurately predicted (while being impugned for such) a major cash crisis, housing bubble break (subprime market), and economic downturn that would be severe. Why have the other republicans and democrats not said a word? Because 1) they are ignorant of the entire economic system and Fed, and 2) their policies all involve the maintenance or expansion of big government, and not tax reductions (Bush's tax cut was a piece of lint). LISTEN TO RON PAUL'S PREDICTION HERE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE LAST WEEK BY THE FED'S ACTIONS, AND THIS NEWS:

The Solution?
Get someone who understands economic policy, government debt and spending, financial markets, and the FED, who is willing to take the "drastic action" called for (major tax reductions, limited government) into office now! Listen to this media consultant and investment counselor, Peter Schiff, in this 2 minute clip.

Aug 25, 2007

FOX has a Problem with Fred Thompson; Neocons Push Anti-Gun Giuliani

The "liberal media" is after Fred Thompson, only this time it's FOX news. And not only FOX in their recent coverage but from "conservative pundits" who are clearly pushing Giuliani, dismissing many very conservative issues like abortion and 2nd amendment rights. Here is a snip which shows just that, and note that the neoconservative position--clearly NOT a conservative position--expressed by Charles Krauthammer (neocon insider haunting the Washington Post; Project for New American Century) in pushing down Thompson (and Ron Paul) and promoting Giuliani, along with a coordinated attack (first his actor-speaker skills) aided by Jeff Birnbaum (both are Jewish neoconservatives) in this portion from HeadingRight.

Jeff Birnbaum: Well, I think that Thompson ran into a bit of a problem in his speech the other day before the Veterans of Foreign Wars up in Kansas City. He didn’t seem to know his own applause lines. Even though he’s a practiced actor, he didn’t seem to have rehearsed very much for his speech. He isn’t much of a player in a lot of the serious, substantive debates that are going on. I recently wrote a story about each of the candidate’s views, for example , of the big credit crunch that’s been shaking the markets around the world and Thompson wouldn’t even play either because he didn’t have a proposal or because he didn’t want to speak out because he’s not an official candidate. Uh, none the less –

Brit Hume: In other words, he had no articulated position?

Jeff Birnbaum: Nothing to say and has been shooting at people like Rudy Giuliani over his anti, uh his gun control position which Thompson complained was too much anti-gun. I think that’s in general a problem of the whole Republican race, where they’ve been attacking each other in a way that may pull whoever ultimately wins down, when it gets to the general election.

Charles Krauthammer: You know this could be a first. The Thompson campaign is going negative before it even begins. (Laughing from panel.) I don’t know if it’s ever happened, but it’s historic. Look, he’s a good guy; he’s a nice guy but he was in the Senate for a while, and I don’t think he’s left many traces. He’s an actor who is popular, accomplished in other ways, and uh, has had a boomlet. I think the boomlet was…. is ….

Brit Hume: Peaked?

Charles Krauthammer: May have been spent. [Watch him push Giuliani after discrediting Thompson, along with FOX]. Umh, but what’s really interesting here is — I think the Giuliani effect. This is a guy who defies gravity. Everybody expected six months ago, that yes, he was high in the numbers, because people associated him with 9/11, but when Republicans discover how socially liberal he is, his numbers will plummet, and they haven’t. People, I think [he hopes] are aware of his positions on abortion, etc., and I think the answer is, that Republicans are growing up, and they understand that a president is not going to revolutionize… He’s not going to have a revolution on social affairs. [What about 2nd amendment?] Uh, Reagan did not on abortion. It’s not going to happen and what’s important is the war on terror. Democrats are not reliable. Giuliani’s a guy who in a Democratic year, which is going to be ‘08, can win. After all, he’s a guy who won re-election twice in Sodom and Gomorrah [New York].

Fred Barnes: Yeah, and now you’ve touched on the important issue I think. Here’s what helps him [Giuliani] uh with social conservatives and so on, who obviously don’t agree with him on abortion, others don’t agree with him on guns, because he’s a gun controller, and that is… he gets credit for cleaning up New York tangibly. Now, people visit New York; they know Times Square is different — they know crime is way down. They know New York is very different; it’s not just 9/11. It’s, it’s uh, it’s image, which I think is a largely accurate one of the mayor who changed Sodom and Gomorrah and turned it into a city that it’s safe to visit. Uh, that’s important.

Not very conservative are they? Note Fred Barnes strong statement, that Giuliani "is a gun-controller". But so is Mitt (Willard Milton) Romney of Massachussets, also not a social conservative! Both Fred and Romney are members of the CFR too. (See previous posts).

So just look who the neoconservatives want, and just what they stand for, apparently ignoring moral issues altogether and stripping away our second amendment rights, as Thompson accused of Giuliani. DO THE NEOCONSERVATIVES WANT TO DISARM US? (See our article Gun Owners of America Analysis on Ron Paul; Best Alternative to Leading Candidates). NOTE AGAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL VS. NE0-CONSERVATIVES.

Before you read these links below for yourself, here again are the last two important republican straw polls, in case you missed them in a previous article, proving that Ron Paul is now a first tier candidate, breaking above the front-runners (sometimes trampling them) in straw polls, proving that Giuliani also does "not defy gravity", nor is Fred as popular among thoughtful straw-voters as with the superficial mass public:

----------IOWA RECAP-------

14,302 ballots were cast. The vote tallies, in reverse order, are below:

11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%) **********
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%) ***********
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%) ***********

6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)

5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)

4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)


Illinois Republican Party, August 16th (922 voters)
40% -- Mitt Romney
20% -- Fred Thompson
19% -- Ron Paul
12% -- Rudy Giuliani
4% -- John McCain
3% -- Mike Huckabee
1% -- Sam Brownback
1% -- Duncan Hunter
0% -- Tom Tancredo

Turning Up the Heat on Fred Thompson
By PJM Hollywood
If the sweltering 96 degree heat in Nashville at a fundraiser/reception this week for Fred Thompson is any indication of the political heat he's taking from faithful supporters to get on with it and announce his candidacy for President, ...

Fox News vs. Fred Thompson
By Marc Ambinder
In this case, it's that the news producers and writers at Fox News don't seem very enamoured with Fred Thompson. It's not Carl Cameron -- his reports about Republican candidates are fair and compelling -- it's in the way the network ...
Marc Ambinder -

Has Fox Dismissed Fred?
By Edward
According to alert CQ reader Shelbysbest, an ardent Fred Thompson supporter, Fox News showed a rather dismissive attitude towards the proto-candidate on last night's Special Report with Brit Hume. During the roundtable discussion in the ...


Aug 23, 2007

The Fed's SURGE; Americans Yawn, But Complain of High Cost$

"The US Federal Reserve injected 17.25 billion dollars into the financial system in three actions Thursday, the latest in a series of moves designed to ease a credit squeeze in global markets."
-- Fed injects 17.25 billion dollars into market

The Federal Reserve System does not normally capture American's attention, but today Drudge gave it a push to front stage. The above quote provides nothing the less than ANOTHER alarming "Fed fix" issued within the last weeks, to deal with an UNCONSTITUTIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM THAT SICKENS THE ECONOMY (by printing and injecting paper money from thin air), and unaccountable Federal Reserve banksters, the "moneymasters" behind the curtain that keep America's fake economy from collapse, literally propping it up and delaying normal market "correction" (i.e. tumble).

The housing mortgage market, the stock market, interest rates, the U.S. borrowing dollars from China (at interest)--what insanity--to finance the war, based upon Congresses "funding" approvals (without the funding to fund with), should all be seen within a related context. The unspoken fact is this, that the Fed has the power to bless or curse any government policy, or Congress, or President, through its monopoly control of money supply, sufficient leverage to also control an entire government.

Do Americans even know that the Federal Reserve is NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION?

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" .

-- Congressional Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

Let some quotes from history put just how relevant this is in context:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."

-- President James Madison
And what Mr. Madison was referring to was the power of the England banksters to control the American Colonies:

"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."

--Benjamin Franklin's autobiography

But do not look for quotes like that in modern school textbooks, or from modern politicians lips! Thus we see the power, as Baron Rothschilds himself wrote:

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws".
-- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

Many from history have warned against the unaccountable power of the so-called Federal Reserve, a private international cartel of banks over the U.S.:

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States"

-- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

--Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

But to the superficial public, enthralled with sports and celebrity entertainment, this is so boring--yet they will complain of how much everything costs, increasingly!
(Are we now used to $3 per gallon gas?). U.S. MONETARY POLICY AFFECTS HOW EVERYONE LIVES EVERY DAY, YET BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY ESTABLISHMENTS WILL NOT EVEN SPEAK OF THIS ISSUE. Indeed historically, Andrew Jackson fought the central bankers (and won) who threatened to assassinate him, and others who resisted, namely Lincoln and Kennedy, interestingly, were not able to resist their power to control the money.

There is only ONE CANDIDATE who opposes the unconstitutional, unaccountable power of the Federal Reserve to control America's lives, as well as control government policy by it, and that is Congressman Ron Paul. Where are the other republican candidates on this issue? The silence is deafening.

Ron Paul on the Fed and Its Power and its Economic Consequences

Aug 22, 2007

Bush calls Plans for North American Union a "Conspiracy Theory"; Dr. Jerome Corsi Objects

"While conspiracy theories abound, you can take it to the bank that no one involved in these discussions is interested in, or has ever proposed, a 'North American Union,' a 'North American super highway,' or a 'North American currency.'"

-- President George W. Bush

Before you run to the bank consider this:

Dr. Jerome Corsi was interviewed by Michael Agnello on 58Live Talk Radio (WCHS) not long ago on this very subject, and now according to George W. Bush (attending high level meeting with leaders of Mexico and Canada), who denies the entire scheme, Corsi is just another "conspiracy theorist". Apparently so then is Agnello, who was persuaded by Corsi that the plan to form an "American EU" is very real, though originally skeptical. (Do tell us Michael, how does the label feel now that has been pinned on you?)

Sit up and pay attention republicans and democrats alike, for this is another absolute, unqualified denial (like many others, including 9/11 foreknowledge) by this neoconservative President, and everyone must decide the truth of it, based upon hard facts and evidence, which also will determine whether he is outright lying or not. And considering this is not the only thing he has branded a "conspiracy theory", and since it can be proven that he is lying, should other events not be considered as well, since they were branded such from the same mouth?

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

-- United Nations Speech, Nov. 10, 2001

Apparently Corsi's book is a "malicious lie" and "outrageous conspiracy theory" that SPP is about North American Union. (See the banner link above too). There is no middle ground here, President Bush, fronting for a neoconservative and CFR agenda, is either a deliberate liar or not. It appears that "conspiracy theorists" so-labelled have facts to support their claims, and in more cases than just this one. It is an interesting fact that "security measures" are a large foundational motive for justifying this present Canadian Summit between the three nations (see our previous recent post below), as well as NAFTA treaties and economic concerns. Thus 9/11 has propelled the SPP agenda as much as foreign wars and domestic policy, and revolutionary changes of law. See the big picture? Of course FOX, along with the other major networks, is amazingly silent on this, deafeningly silent. Why not be "fair and balanced" instead? Come republicans, let us reason together--just who's agenda is behind all of Bush's policies?

Could it be that the entire "war on terrorism" based upon the "catalyzing event" (which the Project for New American Century of neoconservatives wrote about in Sept. 2000, which called for a "new middle east" and wars for "benevolent global hegemony") of 9/11 is also perpetuated on lies and false-flags, like the claims to war with Iraq, and many more? Only factual evidence, not mere allegation and repetition, can reveal the truth, and inquiring minds should want to know, instead of trusting a President who has been caught in another blatant lie.

Did we mention before that only republican candidate Ron Paul as President would oppose this agenda? Forget what Don Surber quips about Ron Paul, for as Corsi says about Bush's name calling, "that is the last resort of someone who is losing an argument". It bears repeating, if Americans and West Virginians really want to stop it. (Both Romney and Fred Thompson are also CFR members, as well as Democratic candidates. The deck is stacked). Playing the proverbial ostrich by failing to look and examine the facts, behind "conservative" labels and propaganda rhetoric, will lead to the very real destruction of America. Their long term plan is to join these new big pieces of the global puzzle increasingly toward a world government, by economic seduction or force.


"However, Jerome Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. whose newly published book, "The Late Great USA," uses the government's own documentation to show the advance of a North American Union, said ridicule is the "last resort of someone who is losing an argument."

Such tactics, Corsi said, "underestimate the intelligence of people listening, and people realize that the argument wasn't answered."

See the entire World Net Daily Article here:

(See our other articles tagged "North American Union").

West Virginia legislature should pass the pending anti-REAL ID bill! Feds Increase Pressure on States

Instead of a Special Legislative Session to try and force special lawsuit protections for certain companies, the West Virginia government needs to pass the pending bi-partisan legislation against REAL ID, discussed in previous articles, that would secure that "Mountaineers are Always Free". This is necessary to uphold both the Constitution of West Virginia and of the U.S., to secure both state control of law enforcement (from federalization) and privacy and security rights for all West Virginians, already over-regulated.

Senate Bill No. 685

(By Senators Foster, Barnes, Edgell, Kessler, Prezioso, Unger, Yoder, McKenzie, Boley, White, Sprouse, Minard and Hunter)


[Introduced February 19, 2007; referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and then to the Committee on Finance.]

A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new article, designated §17B-7-1, relating to providing that West Virginia will not participate in the REAL ID Act of 2005 enacted by the United States Congress in Public Law 109-13.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, be amended by adding thereto a new article, designated §17B-7-1, to read as follows:

§17B-7-1. Legislative finding; prohibiting implementation of "REAL ID Act."


This blogger writes the following, which should dispel the manufactured fear and saber-rattling coming from anti-consitutional threats the Federal government (per the 10th ammendment) does not have!

Schneier on Security

A blog covering security and security technology.

August 20, 2007

U.S. Government Threatens Retaliation Against States who Reject REAL ID

REAL ID is the U.S. government plan to impose uniform regulations on state driver's licenses. It's a national ID card, in all but cosmetic form. (Here is my essay on the security costs and benefits. These two sites are also good resources.)

Most states hate it: 17 have passed legislation rejecting REAL ID, and many others have such legislation somewhere in process. Now it looks like the federal government is upping the ante, and threatening retaliation against those states that don't implement REAL ID:

The cards would be mandatory for all "federal purposes," which include boarding an airplane or walking into a federal building, nuclear facility or national park, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the National Conference of State Legislatures last week. Citizens in states that don't comply with the new rules will have to use passports for federal purposes.

This sounds tough, but it's a lot of bluster. The states that have passed anti-REAL-ID legislation lean both Republican and Democrat. The federal government just can't say that citizens of -- for example -- Georgia (which passed a bill in May authorizing the Governor to delay implementation of REAL ID) can't walk into a federal courthouse without a passport. Or can't board an airplane without a passport -- imagine the lobbying by Delta Airlines here. They just can't.

Aug 21, 2007

Ron Paul vs. Other Candidates: Straw Poll Results

From this news is significant. We had posted an earlier Georgia Republican Straw Poll previously here in this article on Surveillance polling, which Ron Paul also won.

Recall also that in the Iowa Straw (see results and analysis here), outside of Romney, the "lead candidates" came in embarrassingly low, including Fred Thompson (they were all on the ballot), who polls high nationally (on a fictitious image by the superficial who answered the phone polls), but Iowa straw-voters (among the most interested) were not impressed. Maybe those are worth another look too, and ask yourself, "why"? WHOSE SUPPORT IS "REAL" AND JUST WHO'S ARE "PUSHED" OR MANUFACTURED?

----------IOWA RECAP-------

14,302 ballots were cast. The vote tallies, in reverse order, are below:

11th place: John Cox (41 votes, 0.3%)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes, 0.7%) **********
9th place: Duncan Hunter (174 votes, 1.2%)
8th place: Rudy Giuliani (183 votes, 1.3%) ***********
7th place: Fred Thompson (203 votes, 1.4%) ***********

6th place: Tommy Thompson (1,039 votes, 7.3%)

5th place: Ron Paul (1,305 votes, 9.1%)

4th place: Tom Tancredo (1,961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2,192 votes, 15.3%)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2,587 votes, 18.1%)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4,516 votes, 31.6%)


Every candidate was included on the ballot (Guliani and McCain even were at the Debate!) whether they "campaigned" or "officially pariticipated" or not. (Note that religion was a big factor in Iowa, if you look at Brownback's website about the campaign battles and religious controversy, and if you consider the Iowa is a high Mormon index state, 2nd to Utah, and it would have been rather simple for Romney to obtain a monolithic vote--his campaign bought thousands of tickets and offered bussing--which is common among Mormon candidates).

FACT: Ron Paul performs better in straw polls (not just post-debate polling, which do not permit multiple votes) than do the leading candidates who poll better in the extrapolated national polling. The following are the latest results.

Ron Paul continued his strong performance in votes requiring active participation and informed voters, racking up wins this week in straw polls in New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Alabama, and placing third in Illinois.

Today's Alabama straw poll win was the most impressive, an incredible 81% showing in a poll of 266 Republicans who paid $35 each to participate, and was billed as
Alabama's only Republican straw poll. Dr. Paul followed that up with a 73% showing in the Strafford County Republican Party straw poll in New Hampshire, after putting in a personal appearance this afternoon. (Huckabee and Tancredo also attended.) He placed third in the largest of the four straw polls, earning 19% of 922 votes cast at the Illinois State Fair.

West Alabama Republican Assembly, August 18th (266 voters)
81% -- Ron Paul
5% -- Mitt Romney
4% -- Duncan Hunter
3% -- Fred Thompson
3% -- Rudy Giuliani
2% -- Mike Huckabee
1% -- John McCain
1% -- Sam Brownback
0% -- Tom Tancredo

Strafford County (NH) Republican Party, August 18th (288 voters)
73% -- Ron Paul
9% -- Mitt Romney
7% -- Mike Huckabee
3% -- Tom Tancredo
2% -- John McCain
2% -- John Cox
2% -- Duncan Hunter
2% -- Fred Thompson
1% -- Rudy Giuliani
0% -- Sam Brownback

Illinois Republican Party, August 16th (922 voters)
40% -- Mitt Romney
20% -- Fred Thompson
19% -- Ron Paul
12% -- Rudy Giuliani
4% -- John McCain
3% -- Mike Huckabee
1% -- Sam Brownback
1% -- Duncan Hunter
0% -- Tom Tancredo

Gaston County (NC) Republican Party, August 14th (41 voters)
37% -- Ron Paul
32% -- Fred Thompson
10% -- Mike Huckabee
7% -- Newt Gingrich
7% -- Mitt Romney
5% -- Rudy Giuliani
2% -- John McCain
The next big test is the Texas Straw Poll on September 1st. In an apparent move to prevent Ron Paul's enthusiastic supporters from dominating the results, the Republican Party of Texas has limited participation to delegates to past state or national conventions. Ron Paul has not been deterred by the tactics, and will be treating the delegates to a pre-vote Texas Pride party at the Worthington Hotel in Fort Worth the night before, featuring Texas blues legend Jimmie Vaughan.

And don't miss this article:

Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Can’t Win

Bush Seeks Neighborly Agenda? North American Union under other pretenses

"...the goal of the North American summit was to seek middle ground on shared concerns about the border and a host of other issues ranging from energy to trade, food safety to immigration. The three-way meeting at a highly secured red cedar chateau along the banks of the Ottawa River focused on administrative and regulatory issues, not sweeping legislative proposals for North America.

Few, if any, formal announcements were expected. The meeting served to address thorny problems between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South and bolster a compact - dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce."

The AP article is the official news which of course is to make the SPP agenda mentioned as merely "neighborly" discussions on issues. Even in this one can see that "security" as well as crisis management is the agenda, while integration is behind it all too. Even now if you go to Canada and show your state drivers license, Canadian Customs pulls you up on screen and can see records about your employment and more (by whose authority?) as they decide whether to admit you as a visitor. THIS IS ABOUT NORTH AMERICAN UNION. REAL ID, merging "security" (military for urban control) and Chertoff's sudden and unilateral Jan. 2007 passport requirement, even for Americans to travel to Mexico and Canada, and their new chip ID, and their previous push for illegal immigration amnesty is all part of it.

They know there is increased opposition in all these measures, this summit is for more than the headline reads.

Unfortunately, you will not find many Republicans protesting this (the CFR "establishment" republicans rule the party agenda), especially among Presidential candidates, except for Ron Paul. Yet if unstopped the U.S. will cede its sovereignty toward the larger global agenda toward world government, this will be the American EU (with a new currency called the Amero), and the states will be as puppets with no sovereignty or control, just as the UK is experiencing in the EU today.

See our other blogged articles and videos on this issue from last month.

Ron Paul just again addressed this issue here:

"The chief project thus far of the SPP is the so-called NAFTA superhighway which would connect Mexico, the United States and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City," warned Republican Congressman Ron Paul in a statement read at one of the morning news events in Ottawa yesterday.

"Millions would be displaced by this massive undertaking which would require the eminent domain actions [expropriations] on an unprecedented scale...........(continued)

Ron Paul Detractors, like Don Surber, Need a Wake Up Call

This post is dedicated to Don Surber of the Daily Mail, and to the republican "establishment", that so far is afraid of debating the candidacy, issues, voting record, and principles of Ron Paul forthrightly while hurling ad hominim attacks alone. What are they afraid of? Is this a reflection of just how the neoconservative and CFR controlled republicans view a traditional republican or paleoconservative--or the Constitution?

Could it be that Don Surber does not represent what all republicans, based upon issues, think? Recently, along with paleoconservatives for some time, more republicans have begun to vocally oppose more Bush policies--e.g. illegal immigration amnesty, North American Union (SPP agenda that has made national news and local talk radio), REAL ID (bi-partisan opposition West Virginia legislation is drafted and pending), provisions of the PATRIOT ACT, and even the Iraq War where Rep. Capito opposed a "surge" (at first) and heavy-weight Senators Warner and Lugar made arguments to draw down in Iraq (after all 70% oppose the war as wrong), and finally talk of "limited government" has returned to be again revived and debated. Funny, even the non-candidate Fred Thompson is starting to sound more like Ron Paul by talking about "states rights".

But why has the Constitution been decimated by THIS PARTICULAR republican administration (hijacked by particular neoconservative RINOs and CFR members like Cheney, who pushes NAFTA)? Why are the "just war" principles of Christianity (sober, regulated rules that determine when war is justified or not) not open for discussion and application, why is gross perjury and secrecy of this administration defended, why is its corruption not condemned, and why is the "threat of terrorism" so grossly and absurdly exaggerated, when the probability is greater of being struck by lightening? (Irrational fears, paranoia, are the cause of fanaticism and dangerous over-reaction, including unjust wars and "security measures"). Why is the new republican party controlled by FEAR and therefore most be overly defensive (rallying the wagons at any criticism whatsoever; branding any critic a "leftist"), too closely attaching Bush himself to the Platform (thus making a man instead of principles the issue), ready to finally overthrow the Constitution itself (completely) under the plea of a greatly exaggerated "necessity"--the tyrant's plea?

Is eliminating the (Communist) Income Tax and IRS, challenging the Federal Reserve and paper money policy, and limiting government's power (consistent with the Constitution) A THREAT TO THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY? Are republicans now for big government or limited--which is it?


Eyes are being opened recently, on an issue by issue basis, while it was once considered "Bush-bashing" (all fake images should be smashed as a rule) and virtual blasphemy to criticize this President, as if to oppose him was to oppose God (as Rove the agnostic crafted it) and be an atheist!

It is the candidate most closely tied to the right position ON ISSUES that should receive a party nomination. Why does the "liberal media" then subtely oppose Ron Paul? Don't you all see why? THINK man...this will be the most important primary, since the Civil War, in American history, where the Constitution hangs in the balance, the very definition of freedom from government oppression. All the flag-waving in the world cannot hide the truth, and republicans should be like the Bereans of Corinth, who "were of more noble mind" because they deliberated and investigated for themselves soberly and did not follow in blind trust, even the apostle Paul, or any other party.
(linked to original source)

Ron Paul Detractors Need a Wake Up Call
Szandor Blestman

I've noticed a number of people on the Internet complaining about Ron Paul supporters recently. Many of them have the same complaint, that Ron Paul supporters are too pervasive. They call them Ron Paul spammers. They claim that a very few people are so dedicated to Ron Paul's candidacy that they have skewed all the polls and made it appear as if Ron Paul has more support than he actually does by voting for him again and again. On Digg, they claim that there is a core of supporters that wait for a Ron Paul article to come out so they can Digg it and catapult it to the front page. If that were the case, they were taking time off when my articles came out.

These detractors need to think for a moment. I don't know which candidates they support, but those candidates are getting support of very few people in the online community. One must wonder why some of these candidates don't have that kind of support. One must wonder why Mitt Romney doesn't have dozens of technologically savvy supporters going online to spam the polls or to create a buzz on Digg. One may wonder the same about John McCain or Rudy Giuliani supporters also, or the supporters of any of the other republican candidates. Could it be that the supporters of the other candidates simply aren't as excited about their candidate as Ron Paul's supporters are? Doesn't it make you wonder why Ron Paul supporters are so excited? And I personally don't think that it is in fact true that Ron Paul supporters are low in numbers and spamming the Internet. In fact, I think the number of Ron Paul supporters is growing day by day despite the fact that the Ron Paul detractors have tried to keep this from happening.

Another tactic some Ron Paul detractors use is name calling. They claim Ron Paul supporters are crazy. Since when is it crazy to speak out about someone you believe will make a difference, especially if that someone is doing something as important as running for president? Since when does following a dream make you crazy? They claim his supporters are on the fringe of society, that they are mostly 9/11 truthers and conspiracy theorists. Well, I don't think that's so true. I think a lot of everyday regular people are supporting Ron Paul. I've talked with a number of people who support Ron Paul and the subject of 9/11 or conspiracies hardly come up. And even if some of them are 9/11 truthers or conspiracy theorists, what's wrong with wanting to know the truth? What's wrong with asking questions, especially when those questions haven't been answered satisfactorily? What's wrong with not believing everything you see on the TV news? Do you believe everything the television news people tell you to believe? If you do, you might want to rethink that position and start getting information from other sources. There's nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting different points of view to try to get a better understanding and a more complete picture of the world around you. They claim Ron Paul's policies are too impractical, that he is too much of an idealist. Since when is being an idealist a bad thing? Isn't that what our founding fathers were? Since when is it impractical to speak of freedom and liberty? Again, our founding fathers risked their very lives speaking out about such radical ideas. How long ago was it that the United States of America became a place where dreams died? When was it that spies were unleashed to see to it those same dreams could not be resurrected?

There's something else Ron Paul detractors don't seem to understand. Ron Paul supporters are supporting more than just Ron Paul, they are supporting ideas. Oh sure, Ron Paul is a very amicable person. Unlike most politicians, he answers questions straight on and doesn't dodge them. He doesn't try to answer in a way that everyone agrees with. He speaks his mind and it doesn't matter to him if he loses votes doing so. He is that rarity of rarities, an honest politician. Perhaps that's why they are so angry, because they know they support someone who is not honest. Perhaps that's why Ron Paul's supporters are so excited, because this is something they've never seen in their lives. But his honesty is not the idea I was talking about earlier, the idea is freedom. The idea is a smaller, less intrusive government. The idea is to give the people back control in their lives rather than having the government decide everything for them. It is the ideas of freedom and liberty that Ron Paul supporters are supporting. It is these ideas that have gotten them so excited.

The main stream media tries to ignore Ron Paul, as do the other candidates. Why do you suppose this is? He scores first in many online polls and still the media ignore him. His supporters generate a loud buzz and still the media ignores him. He came in fifth in a questionable Iowa straw poll and still the media ignores him. Today he came in third in the Illinois straw poll and the media will still probably try to ignore him. Why are they so afraid to report on him? Could it be because they don't want his ideas to get out? Could it be because they're afraid his ideas will resonate with the general public? Could it be that, for whatever reason, they're trying to push someone on us that will somehow promote their interests? Perhaps the main stream media is just behind the times and really doesn't realize what a phenomenon Ron Paul is becoming. I really don't know, but I do know that Ron Paul is everywhere on the Internet and nowhere on the main stream media, with the exception of a couple of cutting edge shows. That simply seems strange to me.

Whatever reason one may decide to berate Ron Paul or his supporters, it might be helpful to step back and consider what you're really against. Are you honestly just mad because there are so many articles out there praising Ron's policies and his stances on the issues? Then why are you reading them? Is there someone with a gun at your head forcing you to read them? Then don't read them and leave the rest of us who want to read about Ron Paul alone. Are you mad because your candidate isn't able to generate the kind of grass roots support and Internet buzz that Ron Paul is able to generate? Then write articles about how great your candidate's big government tax and spend programs are going to be and try to create that buzz yourself. Perhaps you're against a certain issue that Ron Paul is for. Fine, then make that argument and make an intelligent, well thought out argument supporting your point of view, don't simply dismiss those who support an opposing point of view by calling them names. Or, perhaps you're against freedom and liberty. Perhaps you're against the constitution. Maybe you're one of those who feel the constitution is a quaint antiquity and the bill of rights just gets in the way of your security. Perhaps you simply don't want to make your own decisions in your life and feel the government should mandate everything for you from what you learn in school to the kind of job you do to what doctor you see for your health care. Perhaps the idea of an endless war on terror appeals to you. Whatever the reason, you're going to have to defend your position. Ron Paul has rubbed the magic lamp and now the genie is out. The ideas of freedom and liberty are once again loosed upon the world and they are gaining support. Name calling and ignoring Ron Paul and his supporters will not make them go away. People care again. If nothing else, politics in America has changed because of Ron Paul, and I think that's a good thing.

Finally, this humorous video, demonstrates how the GAME IS PLAYED, and how FOX wants to CONTROL WHAT REPUBLICANS THINK, hardly "fair and balanced" here. Just what is Hannity afraid of here?

Aug 14, 2007

Netanyahu's Return? The Likud-Neoconservative Alliance for a "New Middle East"

Sensing the changing political winds, Netanyahu has quietly been preparing for the early general elections that much of Israel's political establishment expects to take place, although no official moves have been made.

-- AP
Netanyahu: Israel's arch-hawk aiming for comeback; Aug 14, 2007

Here are some facts about the Likud party, Netanyahu, his character and associations, from this AP article and others:

1. His character is questionable for a leader, impulsive, unstable:
A loner with few close friends in the political establishment, he was once called by Sharon an "uptight and pressurable individual who panics and loses his wits."
2. The Likud party does not represent the typical thinking of Israel, by any party, but their own small radical cabal:
Likud that had dominated Israeli politics since its first election victory in 1977 managed to scrape together only 12 seats in the 120-member parliament.
3. His close association with the Neoconservatives who control the Executive Branch and the Pentagon in the U.S.--representing a secret alliance with a global and revolutionary agenda.
Ron Paul's speech on "what neoconservatives believe"(video), details their intellectual beliefs in violent revolution, imperialism, "end justifies the means", "lying sometimes necessary", and includes their close alliance with the Likud party in Israel.
4. Per Pat Buchanan's article in Jan. 2007, Who is Planning our Next War?, the Likudnik-Neoconservative alliance has a deliberate agenda for war-mongering for "a new middle east" (not for America's national defense), to which Netanyahu is a central figure:

According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific [coerced] pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel." [Ed. That is how the Iraq war was sold, by Cheney primarily.]

Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war [see example linked to video].

We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.

He further proves in this article how the Democrats will also be pressured to support the same policy. (And do recall William Kristol's recent "push" in a Brit Hume interview for Barrack Obama as a preferred Democratic candidate. The Israeli lobby controls both Republican and Democratic "lead" candidates).

Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units, burst into print with this admonition:

"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

"Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm "must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."

The mainstream media is controlled by Zionist executives , which is why Ron Paul is treated by a VERY PARTIAL media in a manner that clearly has marks of ostracism instead of objective journalism (he opposes unjust war, the Fed Reserve, blind allegiance to Israel, the neoconservative agenda), although he answers them forthrightly, accepting their challenge. Thus we see the "establishment" Republicans and Democrats held captive by the Israeli lobby, who have the power to end their careers through media-political domination.

5. While the article states of Netanyahu, "he has few friends", one of his close friends is none other than Larry Silverstein, lease-holder of the WTC towers, who admitted "pulling" building 7 late on 9/11, and economically profited from 9/11, only purchasing the lease and insuring it against "acts of terrorism" a few months prior to that "catalyzing event", which ironically, justified the push for war per the Neocon stratagy outlined by the Project for New American Century. Silverstein's WTC towers did NOT suffer "collapse" but have all the consistent marks of "explosive destruction" and controlled demolition. This became the justification to implement the wars for a "new middle east". Now is that not interesting!

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". [See example in video here].

Explosive Demolition is self-evident in the WTC destruction, not "collapse".

6. One critic in an editorial summarizes the Israeli-Neoconservative scheme like this:

Bush never understood and still is blind to the fact that Sharon is interested in nuclear domination of the Middle East and a "collapsible Bantustan" for the Palestinians, which would eventually "evaporate" and wind up in a "Jordan is Palestine solution". There would be no Bantustan, no Abdullah peace plan, no nuclear weapons other than Israel's in the Middle East "till the end of time", enforced by America.

As a secondary matter, it would perhaps give the US more leverage over oil/oil prices, ie the Cheney vision. The Feith/ Cheney/Netanyahu/Perle/Woolsey group has been strategizing for a while about a wished for Caspian/Russian oil supply/oil pipeline system to replace OPEC. [Ed. The War in Afghanistan]

This scheme would satisfy the Perle/ Netanyahu/Feith/Kristol vision of a "permanent campaign" against Arabs, Muslims and Third World nations so that the world becomes an American empire, dominated by an Israel/neo- con wire-pulling group "till the end of time".

In other words, a "clash of civilizations", a global civil war, leading to neo-con domination of the American global empire and Israel, de facto, annexing every inch of the territories and the Golan and winding up with the option of "transfer" for the Palestinians.

We can see that the return of Netanyahu would definitely serve to expand war, the oppression of the Palestinians, and to continue the "Clash of Civilizations" toward a PAX AMERICANA world war policy, outlined by the neoconservatives in the Project for a New American Century, with a more provocative Israeli Prime Minister who will not be governed by others who desire peace or diplomacy as a rule for Israel. Netanyahu is more of a threat to peace in the middle east than Ahmadinijad of Iran ever could be because of the abused doctrine of "preemptive war" upon no credible, imminant threat except thru mere allegation and propaganda.

None of this can be justified as "national defense" of America under any imminent threat, which is why the "war on terrorism" scheme based upon the "catalyzing event" of 9/11 was executed to provide a pretext for.

Bear in mind what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed:

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.

America's war policy is driven by a secretive Israeli-Neoconservative alliance (which has divided the Pentagon and CIA into factions, which is why the secretive Office of Special Plans was setup), who also dominate the media, have leverage in both parties, and control the "intelligence" elements as "terrorism experts", engage in active spying (recall Larry Franklin), are noted for lying (recall Libby), operate via Dick Cheney (who is pushing hard against Iran now), as we have pointed out in other articles previous. Netanyahu as PM would only increase their power, and entangle the U.S. in more unjust wars that violate the "just war" theory of Christianity as well as the Constitutional authority, where "war powers" are usurped by the Executive branch, whether republican or democrat.