Paul- In an earlier thread you wrote:

"May we find as many more in the next year as we may very well have our next best opportunity to shed the Federals one more time".

There is now a thread on csy2k which quotes your statement, and in effect challenges your motives. The implication is that your stance on Y2k is rooted in your desire to "see the system torn down". One person made reference to *your* opinion that Y2k is a good thing that will cleanse us from federalism. Paul, I have not personally read a statement of yours in which you had actually voiced that opinion. Being that your motives have been called into question, and in light of what you wrote on this forum yesterday, can you please clarify.

Happy 4th of July everyone!

-- CD (not@here.com), July 04, 1999

Answers

CD, it seems that TB2K traffic is a bit light due to the holiday.

If your information is correct, and I don't know either way, Pauls not gonna be too popular with Alexander Hamilton, is he? (LOL!). I, to, would like a short summation from Paul describing his position (for lack of a better term, "desired outcome" maybe?).

The "Federalism" we live under to today is closer to fascism than anything else. It sucks. Personally I don't want to see the fall of our government, the end result would be a disaster for the entire human race. Do you disagree? Without the United States of America civilization would be in one of two states, universal totalitarianism, or complete anarchy. Either way, global desolation would be the end result. The instruments of global checks and balances are being removed one by one by technology. We, as rulers of our planet have reached a point at which one "man" in the in possession of the right resources might bring about virtual annihilation of the human race. Chemical, Biological, Germ and Nuclear weapons capabilities have reduced the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the relevance of a schoolyard tussle.

There is, however, no turning back. We can only hope to use that same technology to ensure our continued survival.

I didnt intend this post to become so depressing. I wish you and yours a happy holiday.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

Some interesting thoughts there Mike. Well put.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 04, 1999.

The short answer is that ignorami, lacking anything at all, pretend that, knowing the motives of another, they can discredit him.

Let me say this. I absolutely despise what America has become. It is a mere vestige of what the founders had penned in the Constitution. In fact, it is the EXACT opposite.

I went to the fireworks tonite at Patrick Henry's home, in Brookneal Virginia. That is where I live, Patrick Henry country. Most people do not know that Patrick Henry was violently opposed to the Constitution. He feared that it was grievously flawed allowing to much power to a central government and that it was INEVITABLE that it would be turned upon its head because it provided far to few safeguards. I concur whole heartedly. If you would condescend to read the anti-federalist papers, especially the first ten, you would see that EVERYTHING that they feared has come to pass, in spades.

On the whole, the constitution is sound. Not in regards to its allowing the institution of slavery etc. It is manifestly flawed. It allowed for later generations of liberals to dismantle it piece by piece through BOGUS interpretation instead of making it clear that it meant what it meant quite literally.

The commerce clause and general welfare clauses are the perfect examples.

As far as y2k is concerned, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my political agenda. Do I wish to see the present Federal governmnet completely disemboweled? Yes, absolutely, so that we may go back, start again on the basis of our present constitution but with the appropriate safeguards to our liberty.

Now , becuase I want to see our present government gutted, this does not mean that Y2K will NECESSARILY do that. Those pretending to know the motives of others say that because Paul 'wants' to see it gutted, he beleives that it WILL be gutted. This is childish nonsense.

Th evidence for a catastrophic result from Y2K stands independent from my desires. I have enough intellectual integrity to be able to segregate my wishes from what I believe will happen based upon the evidence.

For anyone to say otherwise is disingenuous at best, lying at worst.

It is all well and good for these ignorami to claim that this is treasonous. It was alright for the founders to act this way against King George III, but, oh no, it is not alright now.

If it be treason, then I say make the best of it.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 05, 1999.

Paul. the federal government has no power that stems from the reference to "general welfare."

http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/natpub.html http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/natwelf.html http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/fedlmdt.html#lp1

(Humor me. It is still the 4th of July here.)

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), July 05, 1999.

I'm sure that every political philosopher would add or subtract a phrase or two from the Constitution. I don't think it would matter at all.

The problem is that for decades this country has been run by intellectually dishonest people who have declared the law to be anything they say it is. If I'm right, no perfected clause in the Constitution would have stopped them. They would have ignored it just like they ignore all the ones they don't like that are in there now.

Someone mentioned to me the other day that the Dems and Repubs are "Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B". I don't see why that matters. For at least my lifetime, the government has been run by people who took money from foreigners - from Israel, then Japan, now China. If someone is going to sell out his country, what difference does it make what political philosophy his party espouses?

-- GA Russell (ga.russell@usa.net), July 05, 1999.

Thanks Paul. You've done a fine job of describing my personal feelings on this matter as well. I've really nothing more to add other than Americans need to take responsibility for the outcome of what will undoubtedly occur as the result of Y2K and their government. The history books and our grandchildren will either hold us accountable or admire our courage. No matter what the outcome, William Jefferson Clinton will be remembered as the most corrupt and dishonest President in our history. His cigar feddish will pale miserably in comparison.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Paul, you and Dennis are outa here for me. Damn! Didn't till now realize that CEEPER, Paulie and Stevie were right about you. You WANT bad news! You WANT chaos. Jesus man. Your hope for destruction is your own. Not mine! Damn. It's still, barely, July 4th out here. I was there in '69. Where was your sorry ass?

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

The Federal government most assuredly DOES usurp power in the name of 'general welfare'.

Take for example 'welfare'. It takes money out of the pocket of one man and gives it to another man becuase it thinks that that man should have it, for whatever reason. It gives this man the money becuase it thinks that this is best for the country as a whole or its 'general' welfare. This is a patent misunderstanding of the constitutional authority of congress.

Welfare money is paid out for the SPECIFIC welfare of an individual. When you can redefine ANYTHING at all to be 'general' when it actually IS specific, then ANYHTING at all can become for the 'general welfare. this 'general' welfare then becoames ANYTHING AT ALL that congress wishes to do. This is absurd.

For the N-th time I re-post a little story about Davy Crockett when he was in congress...

=========================

"SOCKDOLAGER" A Tale of Davy Crockett

A "sockdolager" is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter's captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old "Bear Hunter" from Tennessee. From The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support -- rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

"Mr. Speaker -- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

"You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

"Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --"

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied:

"Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"

"Yes."

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him -- no, that is not the word -- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted -- at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow Citizens -- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow Citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error."

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

He came upon the stand and said:

"Fellow Citizens -- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

"NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men -- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased - - a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Congress only possess DELEGATED authority. That delegation comes from the PEOPLE. We can ONLY delegate that authority which we possess as individuals. In otherwords, I do not possess the power to fly by flapping my arms, therefore I CAN NOT delegate that authority becuase I do not possess it. I do not possess the authority, as an individual to kill anyone I want on siight, therefore I c\CAN NOT delegate that authority to congress. I do not have the authority to go up to a man and take from him ten percent of what i find in his wallet to feed other individuals that **I** think ought to be fed, because I DO NOT possess that authority as an individual.

Congress now thinks that WHATEVER it ses fit to do by a vote of the many IS OK. This is patently against everything the constitution stands for.

Before they pass upon any legislation at all, it should first be determined if THAT is any business of theirs as a delegated powere IN THE FIRST PLACE. But, they have no clue at all.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to;

Operate on behalf of the several States in dealing with foreign relations and matters of treaties, trade agreements, etc., under the purview of International Law.

Exercise limited constitutional jurisdiction to interact with the several States in regulating trade, commerce, etc., between the States to insure equitable continuance of the compact.

Exercise exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the Territories, and enclaves, in the same manner that a state exercises jurisdiction within its boundaries.

It DOES NOT allow for the government to take money from one man to give it to another for the SPECIFIC welfare of that other man.

Building a bridge is for the GENERAL welfare of all citizens. Building a water works is for the GENERAL welfare of all citizens. Taking money from one man to give to another is NOT for the GENERAL welfare of all citizens. Only when you make this specific welfare to be GENERAL welfare you pervert the distinction between Gemeral and specific welfare such that anything at all becomes general welfare completely confounding the PLAIN INTENT of the founders, weighing Socialism upon us and allowing congress to excercise something OTHER than delegated autghority.

Want more?

Ask.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 05, 1999.

Carlos,

You are an ass with a marked inability to read and comprehend.

You of of the disgusting ilk who believes that it is best to maintain a perversion. I am well aware that the destruction of the Federal government by Y2K will cause much pain. I am willing to work through that. You are not.

I know that cutting out a cancer is painful, but it must be done or the cancer kills you. You can not see past the end of your nose and only hope to maintain th staus quo as long as it serves you.

Further, even though I THOROUGHLY debunked the notion that I believe that Y2K will cause the downfall of The Feds merely because I WISH it,I said most clearly that my political agenda has NOTHING whatsoever to do with it. Only morons like you do not comprehend, or rather REFUSE to comprehend even when it is spelled out for you.

Carlos, you indeed are like your namesake, 'the jackal'.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 05, 1999.

No Marsh, your post is stated on the 5th of July. Back to our unconstitutional rights. Two please.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), July 05, 1999.

If a tornado wiped your town off the face of the earth, some would wish it to be *restored* exactly as it had been. Some would take on the task of *rebuilding* it with any needed improvements created.

For anyone to suggest that *any* of the townspeople had wished and hoped for the level of destruction caused by the tornado....would be beyond insane.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Hey, my response to Milne aint here. Help, GIT, BD, Mike, Mike, Diane and other freinds. I used the F word. Prevail for me, delete the offense and allow my post. OK?

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

That I would be as Carlos "The Jackel" is something even my many antagonists at DeBunky never used. Maybe it's late. Maybe you're tired. But then maybe too I've unraveled you. If you look foreward to the destruction of OUR government then I will work to your destrucion. Who do we get in your dreams? President Paul?

BIG, BIG transform for me here. Still think y2k a 5-7 and very bad news but think also Milne an extremist to the point of being unhelpfull.

Still want to know what happened to my previous post.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

Paul, Your well rehearsed disclaimers aside your hopes are now clear. Bummer for me. Thought something other than nilist crap from you. Reinstitute the 1700s constitution? Get a grip.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

Calm down Carlos you're losing it - nobody deleted the f-word, I think Paul has more than explained himself - y2k is like an ocean tanker coming into dock, we're putting the brakes on, reverse thrust, 2 miles out (humour me), however we should have done it 5 miles out - so paul is saying it's a done deal, inevitable at this stage, the only question is what will be the damage, the consequences...

His politics are immaterial, he is a fart in a hurricane as far as causing the gubbmints downfall, as incidentally is Gazza North, HIS politics too are not relevant, just study the facts, nothing but the facts, FACTS...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), July 05, 1999.

The Government is flawed when the richest one per cent of the population own one half of the wealth, when the Courts rule that the Constition prohibits Federal aid to religious schools when it clearly states that the Government shall not "establish" a religion, when lies are condoned as a matter of policy, when there is no honor any more, when the press is no longer independent, and when freedom is no longer the current condition. Davy Crockett was right. What right does Congress have to take our wealth and give it to someone else. What is the reason that corporate taxes have been reduced to practically nothing while the poor working person in effect pays a higher tax rate than the rich since all of his income is subject to Social Security taxes while the rich person only pays Social Security taxes on a portion of his income. What sense does it make to pay higher taxes on wages than on investments? (Interest on Municipal bonds is not taxable for example.) Why do married people pay at a higher rate than single people with the same income? Politicians have been promising to fix this for the past 40 years. Anyone that promises higher benefits and lower taxes is mathmatically impaired and any voter who believes these promises is too stupid to know better. The rich get richer and the dumb get dumber.

-- Curly (Curly@notstupid.gom), July 05, 1999.

Paul Milne, thank you for posting that very edifying story about Davy Crockett. What an astounding difference between him + the men of his time, and the "leaders" today! Very educational. This Forum has been a brain and principle feed far deeper, richer and truer than the public school/college gerber slopped around.

Some aspects I'd have to really think through -- I've been under the impression that welfare was for the purpose of calming the needful masses so they wouldn't revolt and cause disruption to the general populace slaving away to produce tax $$ -- but it certainly does promote interest in studying the Constitution.

We will be one of many households procuring a copy of the (laminated!) Constitution and Declaration of Independence to keep on our person during Rollover and into 2000.

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), July 05, 1999.

Oh, come on Milne....you're on a roll, don't stop now! Let's just open up that can a whoopass shall we? I'm still wearing my American flag vest and feelin' kinda pumped up. By all means......proceed. My printer's just been a smOkinnnn all weekend, baby! I need more firepower for all those barn meetings I'm about to begin organizing!!! The bread-basket of America is about to do some serious soul searching.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Andy,

Must have a rare disagreement with you. Paul's politics do count. Risk perception rules all in any y2k discussion. The same holds true for politicians and bureaucrats. Might we have gotten better govt/industry info about readiness w/o their (albeit unfounded) fear of the Milnes?

Don't know. Inertia vs brave new what? Either way, overthrow of our government outside of the ballot box just ain't on my list.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

Actually carlos, I fully understand your concerns. What makes you think our government will need any help imploding? They've ignored and poo-pooed this crisis for how many years now? They have also just recently taken a stand against burning the flag? Too little, too late. Afraid of the 'Milnes'? They were afraid of Christain children at Waco too! The only thing they're actually afraid of, is loosing their grip on the sheeple my friend. They're afraid of the consequences of Y2K. People like you and me didn't create it, but our government has ignored it AND the Americans who put them where they are. Their behavior is inexcusable and their patriotism is questionable.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Will continue,

Agree with all, but, Milne, hoping for a meltdown, is still an ass. My country's flag can stand being burned once in awhile and still be there standing and waving proudly atop the Bill of Rights. Good enough for me.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 05, 1999.

I must say, Paul has made many compelling arguments and I respect his opinion. But does anyone recall (yes, I know you werent there) the peril our fledgling nation faced in 1783? Thier were many who proposed giving the title of King to Washington. The world should be grateful that he would not take the scepter, and sit on the throne offered him. He was truly a man of integrity. The world is, as some say, smaller than it once was. A nation without a government is bound to be governed by another if a replacement is not installed in short order. If our government were to fall, what form of rule do you suppose would replace it? Im convinced that whatever it turned out to be, those leaders (or leader) would have us using the Constitution as bandages and toilet paper. The bottom line is this. We cannot allow our federal government to fall, nor can we allow the individual states to surrender their constitutional rights. Change is needed indeed, but it must be change from within.

-- American (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.

Looks to me like the Constitution is not the infallible platform many seem to consider it. The Constitution has allowed, or (same thing) has failed to prevent, the current situation. It provides for the presidential appointment of justices to the Supreme Court, and for their confirmation by the United States Senate. ALL the interpretations you question have been made by that same Court, by men (and now women) appointed by one President or another, and confirmed in each instance by sufficient members of the Senate.

We all know how Presidents, Senators and Representatives are elected. That process too is prescribed by the Constitution -- and inevitably by later interpretations of it by the Court.

Money has (almost?) always been the deciding factor in national elections, as so much money depends on the policies pursued by those elected. It's very unlikely that the founding fathers, even in their wildest dreams of the future, could have conceived what has developed from their efforts.

No single person or political party is responsible for the present situation. All have contributed to it. It has developed over many years -- growing like kudzu in summer.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 06, 1999.