![]() ![]() |
11/21/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
February
27, 2006 Being a neo-con myself, I must admit that you had me persuaded virtually to the end. And, as a result, caused me to change my stance in the war on terror. Although I'm fully covinced that you think it to be true, in the very last sentence (Leave the rest of us alone and the terrorists will leave us alone as well.), you are absolutely wrong! D. D. The real bottom line is that nobody should ever have the power to send other people to fight and die anywhere, for any reason. If you volunteer, you are responsible for knowing what you are getting yourself into and honoring your committment if you are wrong. Conventional wars will not solve the problem of terrorism, any more than it really solved anything else. The only true way to combat terrorism is to mind our own business and treat everyone else fairly while being completely prepared to defend ourselves here at home, as individuals and communities. MamaLiberty Gun
Control Equals Murder I think you are right Mr. Wallace. Gun control does indeed equal to murder. That is what I am writing my essay on in school. You helped me out alot with you page. I just wanted to thank you for doing this page, and you are helping alot of people by doing this. Thanks!:) C. H. The
Coming Housing Crash Greenspan is too political. He did it the same way to make Clinton and Bush get 4 more years. Not to worry, about to become a typical bubble blower to cause ordinary people to be forced to deal with the economy in a las vegas altitude. mark I can't figure out what you mean here, but thanks for writing. MamaLiberty Does the Federal Government have the Constitutional Authority to the Abrogate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Through a Treaty?- By Robert Greenslade I just want to say thank you to everyone who writes for and/or works on this website. I only just came across it today, accidentally no less, but I am impressed with the dedication to freedom that is expressed within its pages. Mis-direction and blatant under-education have always been the doorways for tyrants and power mongers throughout history, so it is refreshing to find someone disputing the lies and half-truths the federal government regularly uses to keep the common American in the dark about the realities and true meanings given us in The Constitution. Most today truly DO believe that the federal government is the embodiment of the States, and not its servant, as our Constitution so clearly states. But most, even those of us aware of our constitutional rights, feel powerless in the face of the federal juggernaut. Thank you for your efforts at educating the common man, and for the part you are playing to keep this nation truly The Land of the Free... Alan-kind comments like this are greatly appreciated by all. Thanks-Bob We
The People OR We The States? This article
contains a lot of hot air. What part of "of the people, by the people,
and for the people" don't you understand? Do you really think there's
some sort of hidden meaning contained in this phrase? Bernard Lloyd Haas Bernard-did you actually read the article? Have you ever read the Constitution? Have you ever read the Articles of Confederation? How about the Federalist Papers? Never heard of them I guess? Here is a simple test for you since you appear to be very condescending. Read the Constitution, excluding the Amendments, and tell me how many times the word "people" appears in the document and how many times the word "State or States," referring to the several States, appears in the Constitution. Hint- people 2 times (once in the preamble and once concerning election of representatives while the word State or States appears over 70 times. Second question. If it is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then why does the last Article state the Constitution is between the States and why does the same article state it required the consent of the States before it went into effect? Third question. If it is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then why did the signers of the Constitution sign the document as representatives of the States as opposed to the people? Fourth question. If it is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then why are all amendments submitted to the States for ratification and why do they require a vote of the States, as opposed to the people, before they become part of the Constitution? Answer to all questions...because the Constitution established a federal government of the States, by the States, and for the States-Bob PS-the words of the people, by the people, and for the people do not appear in the Constitution. The
Case Against Peterson Goes Awry You don't have all the facts. That witness was NOT interviewed by Al Brocchini; she was interview by Detective Holmes. Her complete statement was in a report by Holmes. Did Garegos call Holmes to verify this? No. Simply becuase he didn't want the truth, he wanted to get a guilty man off. Brocchini was correct in removing that information from his final report as he is NOT the detective who took the information. Therefore it was hearsay and not admissable. I suggest you research a little more. Garegos was famous for asking the right questions but of the wrong witnesses. That's how he blinds juries. Thankfully, this jury was not blinded by innuendo and unsubstantiated rumors as spread by Garegos and his team of "leakers to the media" Monica The
Peterson Trial Goes Bonkers Hey Carl, It has been awhile since I read one of your articles. As always I love your writing. Your right about Scott Peterson. I know he did not do it and am hopeful that time will tell. T. G. All comments are sent to Carl and he appreciates hearing from you. He does not generally respond. MamaLiberty
Thanks! MamaLiberty |
Archive for The Mailbag. -- Click onto
The date on The archive
calendar to reach The front page for each day. | ||||||||||||||
|
Submit
Feedback
|
|
||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |