Comments

• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  Mike Monsoor is no hero.

  Mike Monsoor swore an Oath to protect, defend, and OBEY the Constitution for the united States.

  Article IV, Section 4, of that Constituion forbids the use of the Army and Navy of the united States from any other uses besides “supression of Insurrections and repelling Invasions.”

  Mike Monsoor was in Iraq on an offensive — not a defensive — mission.

  Mike Monsoor was a traitor to his Oath and our Constitution.

  These invasions of our liberty by a Federal government that is out of control will continue as long as those who purport to love liberty pay homage to those who enable that same government to engage in its current, playground bully foreign policy.

  [Reply]

  -August 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
• Julian said:
  

  Have some respect for the dead. This man WAS a hero. Call the president and other politicians the traitors, not the men and women who fight and die so scum like you can sit at home and write bullshit on the net about them. Look Monsoor’s mother in the eyes and tell her his son was a traitor… You make me sick.

  [Reply]

  -August 4th, 2008 at 2:37 am
• Ed C said:
  

  No sir — disgusting is that the media have been cut off from military funerals because they make the bush junta look bad:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yABRVaJw7J8

  Otherwise there would be much more prominent media attention. It’s time for you to wake the hell up.

  If anything is disgusting, it is that sites such as yours that pretend to care about our fallen soldiers are complicit in such crimes.

  [Reply]

  -August 6th, 2008 at 10:19 am
• Ed C said:
  

  I mean, frankly, shithole, it will not matter if, 20 years down the pike, you turn around and decide maybe you were too much of a roll-over punk for the bush/rumsfeld crowd. You’ll just say, “Oh-ho-ho, I guess I made a mistake trusting those assholes.”

  The problem is that while you’re chuckling over your youthful foolishness, a lot of guys who looked to you and your kind for guidance will still be trying to raise money for decent prostheses and shitting into bags.

  How fucking dare you publish shit like this?

  [Reply]

  -August 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  To Julian:

  So you automatically resort to name calling and profanity. That is all you have left when the facts are not on your side. I will call the President a traitor, and another other person who has sworn the Oath to protect, and defend out Constitution, and then reneges on that Oath. I have no more respect for someone who died violating that Oath than I do for a meth addict who died of an overdose. As far as him dying so I could be free to write, you are sadly mistaken. Mansoor’s death makes me no more free than his having lived. What makes me free is Trial by Jury. Have you read the war clauses in the Constitution? Do you know what constitutes a lawful and an unlawful war? Have you read Federalist Paper #69, which says that in the absence of a declaration of war the President’s powers as Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be less than those of the Governor of New York? Have you read “Trial by Jury?” You should educate yourself soon before all of our freedoms are gone.

  [Reply]

  -August 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
• Julian said:
  

  To: T. Allen Caldwell

  I should not have insulted you, I felt angered for the comment you left about Monsoor. For that I apologize, but just as I should not have insulted you, you have no right to say this man was no better than “a meth addict who died of an overdose” I know that this man’s life or death makes no difference in what freedoms we both enjoy, and I am also deeply angered by the betrayals we have suffered under our current leaders….But what I’m talking about is what this soldier stands for. And If not his blood then the blood of soldiers past and perhaps future allows you your liberties.

  Is it Monsoors fault that our government is allowing our leaders to run amuck breaking and changing laws as they see fit? We might as well blame ourselves for paying taxes that contribute to the war effort, or driving cars that raise our dependency on oil, or we can blame half of America for revoting the president back into office. If were saying Monsoor is a traitor then I guess were all traitors in some small way, oath or not.

  This brings me to my next point. It’s true that Monsoor swore to obey the constitution but he also swore that he will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him. Monsoor can’t pick who’s appointed over him or which orders to follow, but before you say that he freely enlisted (and giving him the same respect as a meth addict) you might want to catch up on some reading yourself and look over his bio before making accusations of treachery. You might find it surprising that he enlisted before the September 11th attacks… most certainly before any oaths were broken and any constitutions betrayed.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Monsoor

  My apologies again.

  Sincerely,
  Julian R

  [Reply]

  -August 7th, 2008 at 3:06 am
• Julian said:
  

  To : T. Allen Caldwell

  I should not have insulted you, I felt angered for the comment you left about Monsoor. For that I apologize, but just as I should not have insulted you, you have no right to say this man was no better than “a meth addict who died of an overdose” I know that this man’s life or death makes no difference in what freedoms we both enjoy, and I am also deeply angered by the betrayals we have suffered under our current leaders….But what I’m talking about is what this soldier stands for. And If not his blood then the blood of soldiers past and perhaps future allows you your liberties.
  Is it Monsoors fault that our government is allowing our leaders to run amuck breaking and changing laws as they see fit? We might as well blame ourselves for paying taxes that contribute to the war effort, or driving cars that raise our dependency on oil, or we can blame half of America for revoting the president back into office. If were saying Monsoor is a traitor then I guess were all traitors in some small way, oath or not.
  This brings me to my next point. It’s true that Monsoor swore to obey the constitution but he also swore that he will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him. Monsoor can’t pick who’s appointed over him or which orders to follow, but before you say that he freely enlisted (and giving him the same respect as a meth addict) you might want to catch up on some reading yourself and look over his bio before making accusations of treachery. You might find it surprising that he enlisted before the September 11th attacks… most certainly before any oaths were broken and any constitutions betrayed.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Monsoor

  My apologies again.

  Sincerely,
  Julian R

  [Reply]

  -August 7th, 2008 at 3:11 am
• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  Dear Julian,

  I accept your apology with no more glee or gloating than I felt insulted by what you said. You are truly a man for having done so. I do not wish to make an enemy of you; I wish to establish a dialogue with ANYONE, in an attempt to restore the Republic. After careful reflection, I will apologize to the memory of Michael Monsoor for calling him a “traitor;” his actions (in violation of his Oath) did not fit the legal definition of “treason.” However, I will still say that his actions were “treasonable.” I am going to say some very harsh things. But these are not intended to anger you; I am only trying to get you to think.

  Have you looked at the materials that I have suggested? I did read the Wikipedia article about Michael: I read that he over came “asthma as a child”; he “attended Garden Grove High School … played tight-end … and graduated in 1999.” I wish the story would have diverged there; I wish that he would have accepted a football scholarship, and gone to make a lot of money—keep it all for himself—marry a beautiful wife, raise a wonderful family, and die an old man in his bed.

  But that is not what he chose for himself. I read that he was awarded the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. This, along with everything else I have read about Michael, does not change my opinion of him. Nor was it different from what I expected to find. If he chose to go to Iraq on his own dime, I would have had the same amount of respect for him as I would for a “meth head” that chooses to throw away God’s most precious gift.” I respect everyone’s Freedom of Choice to live their lives as they see fit. All I ask is that you show me the same respect: “Keep your choices off my body,” and out of my wallet! Michael did not have that respect for me. He chose to go to Iraq on my dime and in my good name. At least I can tell the meth head, “No! I have no change (to support your filthy habit).”

  I am just as angry as you are about the betrayals of the Constitution by “our current leaders.” The problem is it goes way, way back beyond the Iraqi-American War. What upsets me most of all is people are not focusing on the real issues. There is too much going on in broad daylight that people are not paying attention to; we do not need to alert them to conspiracies; we need to alert thing to what they are seeing out in the open everyday.

  As far as the blood of soldiers past and future protecting my liberty, I most vociferously disagree with you. There has not been a war fought since the First American Revolution that was necessary for liberty; and that war was only fought to preserve liberties that already existed. Have you read Trial by Jury yet? At least do an Internet search on the trials of William Penn and Peter Zenger. All the wars since then the First American Revolution have only served to lay down another layer of guilt for future generations in an effort to persuade them to march into their graves, thus laying another layer of guilt for the next generation. “If you love our freedoms – thank a juror.” That is where our freedoms come from; and that is how they are preserved.

  Yes, I will say it is “Monsoor’s fault that our government is allowing our leaders to run amuck breaking and changing the Law as they see fit.” If Michael chose not to enlist, along with more than a million others, the powers that be would not be able to use the United States Armed Forces as a decoy to deprive us of our liberty.

  I will not blame myself for the current mess we are in. I have always voted against perpetuating it. In my humble opinion, those who vote for the winner of any election have less of a right to complain than those who did not vote at all. Yes I do pay taxes. There are anti-war leftists who call themselves War Tax Resisters, and refuse to pay their income tax, I applaud them—but with only one hand. These are people who hate our Constitution as much as Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton do. I wish I had the guts to refuse to pay my income tax on constitutional grounds, but I believe my current strategy will have a long-term payoff beyond the damage my income taxes are doing. I will not blame myself for “driving” (i.e. operating) a car either: We import far more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from the Persian Gulf.

  Another point I disagree with you with is that “we can blame half of America for revoting the president back into office.” Rather “I blame 99% of America for revoting Bush’s policies back into office.” Kerry had essentially the same strategy for Iraq as Bush did. Obama is pledging to keep the troops in Iraq just as McCain is. What is the difference? A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. In order to change things people are going to have to start looking outside the current two-party duopoly. The good news is alternative parties do not have to come close to winning any elections in order to change things.

  I agree that “Monsoor can’t pick who’s appointed over him or which orders to follow”; and I agree “that Monsoor swore to obey … orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him.” You did very well almost quoting exactly, word for word the Oath of Enlistment for the United States Armed Forces. But you left out three important words: “according to regulations.” This implies that those who take the Oath are duty bound to refuse orders that violate those regulations, of which the Constitution is the highest regulation. Now as I have taken back my accusing Michael of “treason,” and lessened that accusation to merely being “treasonable,” I will speculate that Michael was not aware of what I have just written to you. I will also speculate that he did not care either. Had he considered it, he might still be alive today, enriching everyone’s lives by scoring touchdowns, finding a cure for cancer, inventing new technologies, or whatever he may have been best at. Instead he is rotting in the ground over a lie. And I am not talking about Bush’s lies concerning WMD. The lies I speak of are far worse, and they stretch from the Rio Grande to the Persian Gulf, and from Hawaii to the North Atlantic. I regret to inform you that Oaths were violated long before 9-1-1. Julian, I too was once a member of the United States Armed Forces. Once I realized the truth, I refused to be apart of a lie. I claimed status not as a Conscientious Objector (Pacifism is a philosophy that I find morally repugnant), but as a “Constitutional Defender.” I claimed that the President had committed treason for involving my generation in its foreign war. My consequences were an Honorable Discharge; I believe they were afraid to prosecute me.

  Members of the United States Armed Forces are not duty bound to obey unlawful orders. Any military officer will affirm that. But the debate is over what is the difference between a lawful and an unlawful order. Please allow me to leave you with some words from the Supreme Court about unconstitutional statutes:

  “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, [sic] and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. … No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” —— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, Cf. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

  [Reply]

  -August 10th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  Dear Julian,

  I accept your apology with no more glee or gloating than I felt insulted by what you said. You are truly a man for having done so. I do not wish to make an enemy of you; I wish to establish a dialogue with ANYONE, in an attempt to restore the Republic. After careful reflection, I will apologize to the memory of Michael Monsoor for calling him a “traitor;” his actions (in violation of his Oath) did not fit the legal definition of “treason.” However, I will still say that his actions were “treasonable.” I am going to say some very harsh things. But these are not intended to anger you; I am only trying to get you to think.

  Have you looked at the materials that I have suggested? I did read the Wikipedia article about Michael: I read that he over came “asthma as a child”; he “attended Garden Grove High School … played tight-end … and graduated in 1999.” I wish the story would have diverged there; I wish that he would have accepted a football scholarship, and gone to make a lot of money—keep it all for himself—marry a beautiful wife, raise a wonderful family, and die an old man in his bed.

  But that is not what he chose for himself. I read that he was awarded the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. This, along with everything else I have read about Michael, does not change my opinion of him. Nor was it different from what I expected to find. If he chose to go to Iraq on his own dime, I would have had the same amount of respect for him as I would for a “meth head” that chooses to throw away God’s most precious gift.” I respect everyone’s Freedom of Choice to live their lives as they see fit. All I ask is that you show me the same respect: “Keep your choices off my body,” and out of my wallet. Michael did not have that respect for me. He chose to go to Iraq on my dime. At least I can tell the “meth head,” “No! I have no change.”

  I am just as angry as you are about the betrayals of the Constitution by “our current leaders.” The problem is it goes way, way back beyond the Iraqi-American War. What upsets me most of all is people are not focusing on the real issues. There is too much going on in broad daylight that people are not paying attention to; we do not need to alert them to conspiracies; we need to alert thing to what they are seeing out in the open everyday.

  As far as the blood of soldiers past and future protecting my liberty, I most vociferously disagree with you. There has not been a war fought since the First American Revolution that was necessary for liberty; and that war was only fought to preserve liberties that already existed. Have you read Trial by Jury yet? At least do an Internet search on the trials of William Penn and Peter Zenger. All the wars since then the First American Revolution have only served to lay down another layer of guilt for future generations in an effort to persuade them to march into their graves, thus laying another layer of guilt for the next generation. “If you love our freedoms – thank a juror.” That is where our freedoms come from; and that is how they are preserved.

  Yes, I will say it is “Monsoor’s fault that our government is allowing our leaders to run amuck breaking and changing the Law as they see fit.” If Michael chose not to enlist, along with more than a million others, the powers that be would not be able to use the United States Armed Forces as a decoy to deprive us of our liberty.

  I will not blame myself for the current mess we are in. I have always voted against perpetuating it. In my humble opinion, those who vote for the winner of any election have less of a right to complain than those who did not vote at all. Yes I do pay taxes. There are anti-war leftists who call themselves War Tax Resisters, and refuse to pay their income tax, I applaud them—but with only one hand. These are people who hate our Constitution as much as Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton do. I wish I had the guts to refuse to pay my income tax on constitutional grounds, but I believe my current strategy will have a long-term payoff beyond the damage my income taxes are doing. I will not blame myself for “driving” (i.e. operating) a car either: We import far more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from the Persian Gulf.

  Another point I disagree with you with is that “we can blame half of America for revoting the president back into office.” Rather “I blame 99% of America for revoting Bush’s policies back into office.” Kerry had essentially the same strategy for Iraq as Bush did. Obama is pledging to keep the troops in Iraq just as McCain is. What is the difference? A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. In order to change things people are going to have to start looking outside the current two-party duopoly. The good news is alternative parties do not have to come close to winning any elections in order to change things.

  I agree that “Monsoor can’t pick who’s appointed over him or which orders to follow”; and I agree “that Monsoor swore to obey … orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him.” You did very well almost quoting exactly, word for word the Oath of Enlistment for the United States Armed Forces. But you left out three important words: “according to regulations.” This implies that those who take the Oath are duty bound to refuse orders that violate those regulations, of which the Constitution is the highest regulation. Now as I have taken back my accusing Michael of “treason,” and lessened that accusation to merely being “treasonable,” I will speculate that Michael was not aware of what I have just written to you. I will also speculate that he would not have cared either. Had he considered it, he might still be alive today, enriching everyone’s lives by scoring touchdowns, finding a cure for cancer, inventing new technologies, or whatever he may have been best at. Instead he is rotting in the ground over a lie. And I am not talking about Bush’s lies concerning WMD. The lies I speak of are far worse, and they stretch from the Rio Grande to the Persian Gulf, and from Hawaii to the North Atlantic. I regret to inform you that Oaths were violated long before 9-1-1. Julian, I too was once a member of the United States Armed Forces. Once I realized the truth, I refused to be apart of a lie. I claimed status not as a Conscientious Objector (Pacifism is a philosophy that I find morally repugnant), but as a “Constitutional Defender.” I claimed that the President had committed treason for involving my generation in its foreign war. My consequences were an Honorable Discharge; I believe they were afraid to prosecute me.

  Members of the United States Armed Forces are not duty bound to obey unlawful orders. Any military officer will affirm that. But the debate is over what is the difference between a lawful and an unlawful order. Please allow me to leave you with some words from the Supreme Court about unconstitutional statutes:

  “An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, [sic] and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. … No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” —— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, Cf. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

  [Reply]

  -August 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  Dear Julian (part one),

  I accept your apology with no more glee or gloating than I felt insulted by what you said. You are truly a man for having done so. I do not wish to make an enemy of you; I wish to establish a dialogue with ANYONE, in an attempt to restore the Republic. After careful reflection, I will apologize to the memory of Michael Monsoor for calling him a “traitor;” his actions (in violation of his Oath) did not fit the legal definition of “treason.” However, I will still say that his actions were “treasonable.” I am going to say some very harsh things. But these are not intended to anger you; I am only trying to get you to think.

  Have you looked at the materials that I have suggested? I did read the Wikipedia article about Michael: I read that he over came “asthma as a child”; he “attended Garden Grove High School … played tight-end … and graduated in 1999.” I wish the story would have diverged there; I wish that he would have accepted a football scholarship, and gone to make a lot of money—keep it all for himself—marry a beautiful wife, raise a wonderful family, and die an old man in his bed.

  But that is not what he chose for himself. I read that he was awarded the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. This, along with everything else I have read about Michael, does not change my opinion of him. Nor was it different from what I expected to find. If he chose to go to Iraq on his own dime, I would have had the same amount of respect for him as I would for a “meth head” that chooses to throw away God’s most precious gift.” I respect everyone’s Freedom of Choice to live their lives as they see fit. All I ask is that you show me the same respect: “Keep your choices off my body,” and out of my wallet. Michael did not have that respect for me. He chose to go to Iraq on my dime. At least I can tell the “meth head,” “No! I have no change.”

  I am just as angry as you are about the betrayals of the Constitution by “our current leaders.” The problem is it goes way, way back beyond the Iraqi-American War. What upsets me most of all is people are not focusing on the real issues. There is too much going on in broad daylight that people are not paying attention to; we do not need to alert them to conspiracies; we need to alert thing to what they are seeing out in the open everyday.

  As far as the blood of soldiers past and future protecting my liberty, I most vociferously disagree with you. There has not been a war fought since the First American Revolution that was necessary for liberty; and that war was only fought to preserve liberties that already existed. Have you read Trial by Jury yet? At least do an Internet search on the trials of William Penn and Peter Zenger. All the wars since then the First American Revolution have only served to lay down another layer of guilt for future generations in an effort to persuade them to march into their graves, thus laying another layer of guilt for the next generation. “If you love our freedoms – thank a juror.” That is where our freedoms come from; and that is how they are preserved.

  Yes, I will say it is “Monsoor’s fault that our government is allowing our leaders to run amuck breaking and changing the Law as they see fit.” If Michael chose not to enlist, along with more than a million others, the powers that be would not be able to use the United States Armed Forces as a decoy to deprive us of our liberty.

  [Reply]

  -August 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
• T. Allen Caldwell said:
  

  Dear Julian (part 2),

  I will not blame myself for the current mess we are in. I have always voted against perpetuating it. In my humble opinion, those who vote for the winner of any election have less of a right to complain than those who did not vote at all. Yes I do pay taxes. There are anti-war leftists who call themselves War Tax Resisters, and refuse to pay their income tax, I applaud them—but with only one hand. These are people who hate our Constitution as much as Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton do. I wish I had the guts to refuse to pay my income tax on constitutional grounds, but I believe my current strategy will have a long-term payoff beyond the damage my income taxes are doing. I will not blame myself for “driving” (i.e. operating) a car either: We import far more oil from Canada and Mexico than we do from the Persian Gulf.

  Another point I disagree with you with is that “we can blame half of America for revoting the president back into office.” Rather “I blame 99% of America for revoting Bush’s policies back into office.” Kerry had essentially the same strategy for Iraq as Bush did. Obama is pledging to keep the troops in Iraq just as McCain is. What is the difference? A vote for McCain is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. In order to change things people are going to have to start looking outside the current two-party duopoly. The good news is alternative parties do not have to come close to winning any elections in order to change things.

  I agree that “Monsoor can’t pick who’s appointed over him or which orders to follow”; and I agree “that Monsoor swore to obey … orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over him.” You did very well almost quoting exactly, word for word the Oath of Enlistment for the United States Armed Forces. But you left out three important words: “according to regulations.” This implies that those who take the Oath are duty bound to refuse orders that violate those regulations, of which the Constitution is the highest regulation. Now as I have taken back my accusing Michael of “treason,” and lessened that accusation to merely being “treasonable,” I will speculate that Michael was not aware of what I have just written to you. I will also speculate that he would not have cared either. Had he considered it, he might still be alive today, enriching everyone’s lives by scoring touchdowns, finding a cure for cancer, inventing new technologies, or whatever he may have been best at. Instead he is rotting in the ground over a lie. And I am not talking about Bush’s lies concerning WMD. The lies I speak of are far worse, and they stretch from the Rio Grande to the Persian Gulf, and from Hawaii to the North Atlantic. I regret to inform you that Oaths were violated long before 9-1-1. Julian, I too was once a member of the United States Armed Forces. Once I realized the truth, I refused to be apart of a lie. I claimed status not as a Conscientious Objector (Pacifism is a philosophy that I find morally repugnant), but as a “Constitutional Defender.” I claimed that the President had committed treason for involving my generation in its foreign war. My consequences were an Honorable Discharge; I believe they were afraid to prosecute me.

  Members of the United States Armed Forces are not duty bound to obey unlawful orders. Any military officer will affirm that. But the debate is over what is the difference between a lawful and an unlawful order. Please allow me to leave you with some words from the Supreme Court about unconstitutional statutes:

  An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, [sic] and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. … No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

  —— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, Cf. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 442 (1886).

  [Reply]

  -August 11th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
• Jim Lorenz said:
  

  “Orders are orders,” and must be obeyed if only because they are first of all, orders, did not fly at the Nazi War Criminal trials shortly after WWII. The Nuremberg Tribunal found that even Nazi soldiers who had taken a blood oath to obey Hitler had a higher duty to obey the laws of humanity. That would rule out genocide on one’s own people and aggressive war on others, which may include genocide, as we see.

  Since my enlisted time in the U.S. Navy, 1952-56, honorably discharged 1960, I have come to expect the brass to find the lowest possible rank to be held accountable, and this appears to be the case here. Trooper Monsoor took the dollar off of the ‘King’s’ drum and became one of the many ‘King’s’ men; But the real evil lies in the conduct of this trooper’s officers, up to and including the putatutive commander-in-chief.

  Perhaps the late Mr Monsoor’s friends and parents will want to read Vincent Bugliosi’s new book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder”, Vanguard Press (2008), and then be willing to file a complaint with their County and State’s Grand Juries/State’s Attornies and publish to the media, especially the internet? http://www.proseccutionofbush.com

  If GWB is guilty of murder by direction, under color-of-law, then isn’t every sworn officer from the joint chiefs on down to trooper Monsoor’s immediate senior officer equally guilty? Please see:
  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

  There will be plenty of pain to go around at the empire’s collapse, as we saw the ‘good’ non-nazi Germans get bombed, shot, burned, starved, raped &etc., during the war, because they didn’t speak up before 1932. Many of ‘us’ thought that ‘they’ had it coming.

  Now the shoe is on the other foot. We let ‘our’ government get out of control; now it invites blowback on a massive scale. If we don’t get our own house in order PDQ, there won’t be anybody crying for ‘us’.

  Isn’t it time to restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law?
  Federal Reserve est delenda

  [Reply]

  -September 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Trackbacks

There are no trackbacks