For your info see www.womensgroup.org, a very thoughtful presentation of the reasons most Christian Churches are not informing their flocks about y2k.Shocking!

-- Betty Alice (Barn266@aol.com), June 21, 1999

Answers

URL didn't work

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), June 21, 1999.

Betty Alice,

It would be shocking if it were more than very skewed ravings.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), June 21, 1999.

The groundwork she did for the presentation, is very similar to what is in Yardeni's book. Her conclusions are somewhat different though. However, she could be right about the One World government. I have always felt that this was the ONLY purpose for the UN to be in existence. Although, I'm not sure they are as close as she believes.

DJ

-- DJ (reality@check.com), June 21, 1999.

>>It would be shocking if it were more than very skewed ravings.<<

How kind of you to offer an opinion unadulterated by even the merest shred of evidence or argument. What a masterful technique for discounting Ms. Veon's work! One can only guess at the value of your own "very skewed ravings" since you've chosen not to present them.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 21, 1999.

">>It would be shocking if it were more than very skewed ravings.<<"

Y2K would really scare me if I thought it could actually happen, so it is obviously a hoax!

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), June 21, 1999.

< sigh >

Joan Veon, even though she's introduced as an "investigative reporter" [my emphasis], perpetuates the myth that Executive Orders that were revoked over a quarter-century ago are waiting "to be instituted". She demonstrates her investigative incompetence by attributing these long-ago-revoked EOs to President Clinton even though they were actually issued by President Kennedy (with whom a young Clinton was photographed shaking hands, IIRC -- did Veon get confused as to who was who in that photo?).

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

The Emergency Powers enumerated in the E.O.s of past Presidents are subsumed in subsequent E.O.s by Presidents following. No Executive powers - to seize private property, to relocate citizens, to conscript labor, etc., etc., etc. - have been relinquished. To suggest otherwise is sloppy "de-bunking" at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst.

Read up on Clinton's "cyberterrorism" E.O.s. A fine-tuned, interagency Emergency Government has been created to coordinate and implement these Executive Orders.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), June 21, 1999.

Dano,

Please explain why people who can't get some pretty elementary legal facts straight should have their opinions about legal documents considered worthy of attention.

>The Emergency Powers enumerated in the E.O.s of past Presidents are subsumed in subsequent E.O.s by Presidents following.

So why didn't Veon cite the EOs that are in effect instead of the obsolete ones? Did she (or any of the others who keep copying these errors from each other without bothering to do basic fact-checking) intend to educate, or to obfuscate?

>No Executive powers - to seize private property, to relocate citizens, to conscript labor, etc., etc., etc. - have been relinquished.

... and to warn people about this by sloppily referring to quarter-century-out-of-date orders instead of the up-to-date ones is ... a good idea? Not.

>To suggest otherwise is sloppy "de-bunking" at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst.

Are Veon and others deliberately being sloppy in order to damage the credibility of those who are concerned about presidential emergency powers?

>Read up on Clinton's "cyberterrorism" E.O.s. A fine-tuned, interagency Emergency Government has been created to coordinate and implement these Executive Orders.

Excuuuuuse me. Are you implying that _I_ don't know about emergency presidential powers?

I wrote to my Congressman in 1973 to ask that the legislation granting broad emergency powers to the President be repealed, Dano.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.

A very clean and clear education on executive orders and PDD's can be found in books written by Law Professor James L. Hirsen.

"Government by Decree; From President to Dictator"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563841665/qid=930076930/sr=1- 3/002-0588351-5256863

reader comment: A Succinct and Timely Study of Presidential Power- Grabbing About 30 years ago, during the Viet Nam era, there used to be talk of "The Imperial Presidency," referring to the unconstitutional arrogation by the Johnson Presidency in the Viet Nam conflict of war powers belonging to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. As Professor James L. Hirsen shows in this little gem of a political study, the problem of Executive encroachment on the Constitutional powers of other branches of the Federal Government has only got worse since then, principally through the device of the so-called "executive order." There is no mention of "executive orders" as such in the Constitution, and originally their use was confined to internal "house-keeping" functions within the Executive Branch itself. As Professor Hirsen shows, however, these "executive orders" (and now PDD's-for "Presidential Decision Directives") have in the last 60 years so greatly expanded their scope that they are, as this book's title warns, nothing other than decrees or ukases. "Government by Decree" in particular documents that executive order use has notably expanded under the Clinton Administration. A book for everyone concerned about our system of government.

AND

"The Coming Collision; Global Law Vs US Liberties"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1563841630/qid=930076930/sr=1- 2/002-0588351-5256863

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), June 22, 1999.