April 19 1775 transitioning to April 19 2010

reply to post by Libertygal


LibertyGal, concerning the Daily Paul post: Know that at the DP is where I generally hang out. I've been here more lately because this site has the most up-to-date information concerning the RAP. Anisha has been confused from the get-go about the RAP. (You'd have to read several related posts there at DP to see what I'm talking about). Anyway, she states in her comment that the elders are Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela? What the heck? Everything that I have seen states that the Elders are Tim Turner, Regan Dwayne Reedy, Sam Kennedy (or his real name) and Tom Shaults. I'm not saying that the RAP is legitimate YET or even in the best interests of WE THE PEOPLE, although I have been hoping this is so. Hence why I've done little lately except research this matter! In one post, Anisha was complaining about the RAP--I asked her what was stopping Bob Schulz from delivering the Articles of Freedom as planned, and that as far as I was concerned, the more the merrier. In that post, she was prefacing her points on what the MSM was saying---that the RAP is a violent group---obviously, she had done ZERO research! The PLAN specifically states that the restoration will occur peacefully and with forgiveness!
The more I learn, the more I have to research. I have seen it said that the Articles of Freedom won't work because they are trying to restore within the current system, which cannot be done, it's said. Others say the RAP cannot work. I so wish I knew more about LAW, so that I could figure out which of these two premises is correct.
Like others here, I will continue to monitor and research this plan.
I have yet to see my specific questions answered anywhere. I am calling on those posters here who say they are Jurors to answer these following concerns of mine, if possible:
1. Why is the term "North America" used? This makes me wonder if it's about WORLD GOVERNMENT (NWO) or at least a NAU (North American Union).
2. What about the Sam Kennedy/alias issue?
3. What about the group that backed out? (Mike DiCorsi?)
4. How are the issues, due to using the Circa 1787 Constitution, Article I Section II being addressed? (Are women going to be allowed to vote? There will be no slavery, right? Blacks will be considered whole persons, not 3/5 of a person, right? Will only landed people/men/women be allowed to vote?, etc.)
I am sure I have other questions, these are just the ones I've had from the get-go....

reply to post by Libertygal


Thanks a lot for taking the time to clear that up for me. I did not notice the message at bottom of gotfr.org that gotfr.com was a redirect (or the other way around..), that clears that up, and obviously invalidates my assumption that the .com was a newly created spoof.

Very interesting info you have laid out here, star for your post clearing up my presumptions.

edit:
In the audio linked to us by Toot, and which I embedded in this post here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sam Kennedy DOES make reference to 'several people' behind the scenes, 4 of which include those listed at the bottom of the declaration: James Timothy Turner, Thomas Bradford Schaults, Regan Dwayne Reedy, and Samuel Thomas Kennedy

He then begins to say that there was another that opted out, and that there are a couple more behind the scenes, one of them is the main man, though not in those direct words, then it goes to a commercial break and he does not get to finish his thoughts. Interesting stuff, perhaps he WAS referring to this Clive guy...

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by Habit4ming


Right about the Ron Paul poster, but she does claim to be a part of the cc2009 movement. Without knowing her real identity, one can only guess, and the real names are posted on cc2009 for all to see. You can even search by state there and find your representatives for your state, along with contact information.

I think you are right about her being misinformed, as this is what I found:

www.csmonitor.com...

Guardians of the free Republics looked to Gandhi, King, and Mandela
The Guardians of the free Republic's stated desire was to peacefully and nonviolently 'restore' America to a pre-1933 form of government. But why would 50 governors step down at their request? In the wings, the group insinuated, waited the military.


By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / April 3, 2010

Atlanta
In a recent plea, Sam Kennedy, a "guardian elder" of the Guardians of the free Republics, warned the modern-day "original government" revolutionaries to approach their March 31 "Restore America Plan" with Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi in mind.

"We would simply like to urge patriots everywhere to champion their faith instead of force, and allow The Restore America Plan an uneventful 30 to 60 days for visible implementation which will ultimately end the bogus prosecutions and terrorist activities once and for all," wrote Kennedy recently.

The FBI failed to understand the Guardians' peaceful intentions.

(more at the link)

The point still remains, however, that cc2009 has an almost identical plan, which is not being percieved as threatening. I think the point also remains, as well, that this movement was hijacked.

This in itself does not *invalidate* the movement by gotfr, it just leads to a lot more questions.

As for your questions, I would like to see some of those answers, as well.

reply to post by Libertygal


Hey, Libertygal, if I claim to be the king of england, does it make it so?

I appreciate your information, but to post someones comments on a blog does not make it so.

I am having a helluva time finding squat now that this has gone viral. Now instead of say 100 links, there is now 1000's of opinions and comments all over the web.

Having to dig through those is bad enough. If you could post just the information and the links it would be appreciated.

God Bless and Peace.

reply to post by Ionized


reply to post by Habit4ming


It is my opinion that boondock has misinterpreted why those 'jewish' names were in the document.

They are not being named in the document as supporters in the plan: they have simply been named in the warrant and are being 'ordered' to comply with the warrant, just as the names of the 50 Governors are being ordered.
...........................................................................

That's the way I read it, too, Ionized! But as I stated, I am uninformed when it comes to military matters...

This excerpt was posted over at Daily Paul by Beesting! She wonders if this has anything to do with the RAP (and so do I):
Submitted by beesting on Sat, 04/03/2010 - 12:43.

Could it have anything to do with these articles?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

And this:

market-ticker.org...

Advance Notice of a Meeting
under Expedited Procedures

It is anticipated that a closed meeting of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System at 11:30 a.m. on Monday, April 5, 2010, will be held under expedited procedures, as set forth in section 26lb.7 of the Board's Rules Regarding Public Observation of Meetings, at the Board's offices at 20th Street and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. The following items of official Board business are tentatively scheduled to be considered at that meeting.
Meeting date: April 5, 2010

To Be Discussed: Review and determination by the Board of Governors of the advance and discount rates to be charged by Federal Reserve Banks.

A final announcement of matters considered under expedited procedures will be available in the Board's Freedom of Information and Public Affairs Offices and on the Board's Web site following the closed meeting.

So what's this about? We never got this sort of notice before!

Assuming this isn't some sort of April Fool's joke by Bernanke and pals this is a major sea change.

The obvious question I have is this: Has someone, or a group of someone's on Capitol Hill, made clear to our dear Fed Chairman that he has reached the end of his rope, and that if the BS does not stop his job will?

Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law ©
www4.law.cornell.edu...

GOTFR State coordinators discussing the media campaign in Sam Davis talk shoe call last night:
recordings.talkshoe.com...

p.s. ATS and this thread (1 of 2) receive an honorable mention!

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Ionized]

reply to post by Ionized

From the John F Kennedy

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association

President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961


Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.






[edit on 4/3/2010 by endisnighe]

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

It's amazing the silence of today. I have a feeling that a flase flag may be lurking based on the RAP Presentments.

They may do one any day now but I would see the target days being April 15th, and April 19th.

I know the Feds love to plan things for the 19th just look @ OKC.

Also on a side note: All the militia groups that I have talked with have been on Alert since the Hutaree fiasco in MI. A lot of the old timers are having flash back of the 1990's raids and FBI/ATF set up jobs.

So with that said I fear somthing may happen.

I thought I would throw some info out there why the De jure Grand Jury must work.

We know our Current Government is De Facto but how can a De Jure Grand jury work.

First lets look at the Definition of both words:

de facto
/day fakto/

• adverb in fact, whether by right or not. Often contrasted with DE JURE.

• adjective existing in fact: a de facto one-party system.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘of fact’.


de jure
/day jooray/

• adverb rightfully; by right. Often contrasted with DE FACTO.

• adjective rightful.

— ORIGIN Latin, ‘of law’.



www.askoxford.com...

Now we clearly see that a De Jure Grand Jury is truly the only Constitutional way to go.

We can Call all the Governors on their oaths and the go after the rest after we reclaim our Republics!

In this video clip from a news agency, they had used an audio clip of Sam Kennedy saying 'we are coming for you'...



I'm not sure if that full message has been posted in these threads yet, but here it is from I believe a late January broadcast:

it seams a standard thing to do

set up a similar sight and usurp the movement by making the same comments but before the real group can act so when its reported AGAIN
the sheep wont beleive the movement is real

DIS info trick by a dis info agent

judge nepolitano had we the people org on his show i beleive these may be similar in nature to confuse and when people say reactionary things how does the average person know which group it was

devide and concure using demonization of spoofed group to confuse the situation

reply to post by endisnighe


It doesn't make it not so, either.

It does not make her post any less deniable or verifiable than anything you post, either.

It also does not change nor alter the fact that I have presented evidence that there is also a parallell movement by cc2009 planned for April 19th, which you seem to have conveniently ignored the information about.

I bring up verifiable evidence that makes it appear that one group seems to have hijacked the movement of another group, That is undeniable fact, and wishing it away won't change that.

What I don't understand though? What difference does it make if one of them succeeds in making some changes?

I simply feel it puts the first groups motives in a somewhat questionable light.

Perhaps we can leave that to the readers to discern.

Sorry, but most of you probably don't know what the tea party was really about, it wasn't just about "taxation". REad up on it before making grand comparisons.

I have now sufficiently provided a link, IMO, to Clive Boustred, even though this seems to be upsetting to some people, because it outs Sam Kennedy as having told a direct lie on his radio broadcast.

The truth hurts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unless, of course, you have some reason to believe that the CNN reporter lied.

I thought this was about RAP and cc2009 - isn't the tea party stuff scheduled for the 15th?

Back on topic...

I can see the possibilities here for lots of spoofing disinfo etc. on several sides - endless possibilities because of widespread access. Until and unless something overt occurs, the intentions may become clear - or at least our directed perceptions of those intentions may be revealed.

My point is if there is a disinfo op going on to discredit or entrap then we must be vigilant. As far as one movement hijacking the other, it could be a good thing if there are definite differences in implmentation, choices versus options. There are problems with both movements and their message based on their stated non-violent directives, website commerce issues. Can there be a fine line between the dejure and the defacto, narrowly crossed, can any group manage to tread the law so finely?

gj

reply to post by Libertygal


Libertygal, it is important not to overstress what the facts that you have discovered actually demonstrate. Obviously, Clive has lent a major contribution toward building the website. But is he in charge as you suggest, or did he just build the site for the ones who are in charge?

Furthermore, the very notion that a man's past can never be forgiven is entirely contrary to the ideas which underlie the RAP. A great many people have found themselves both operating as agents within our corporate federal government and complying with the unconstitutional actions that our corporate federal government engages in. This is highly incriminating. The kind of unforgiving attitude that you seem to be adopting would not suffer these government officials to swear a new oath and remain in office. Yet the RAP intends to do just that.

Is it not enough for you that our friend Clive now endorses a return to constitutional government? If the world as a whole is to change, then that change can only ride on the shoulders of individual men and women who have, themselves, changed. Is it possible that Clive is a changed man? At what point will you be willing to cease your fears and support your fellow man -- imperfect though he may be? It is a culture of fear that causes us to shoot our friends because we mistook them for enemies. Are you shooting a friend, Libertygal?

Originally posted by PriamsPride
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Libertygal, it is important not to overstress what the facts that you have discovered actually demonstrate. Obviously, Clive has lent a major contribution toward building the website. But is he in charge as you suggest, or did he just build the site for the ones who are in charge?

I think I posted sufficient proof with the CNN video that you were lied to. Some people will still refuse to admit this. That's ok.

I do not think "he just built a site".

Fine, so lets say he is involved. Why did Sam Kennedy directly lie on the radio broadcast last night, and when asked by the radio host if he knew who Clive Boustred was, from Africa, he replied with, "..nope, name doesn't ring a bell."

I never suggested he is "in charge". It would appear to me Sam Kennedy and or Turner are the ones "taking the lead", so to speak. I did, however, suggest he is the one with the "knowledge", or the "brains" behind it. Kind of two different things there.

It would appear more that they are trying to keep the fact that Clive is involved hidden. This leads one to ask a simple question. Why?

How about using some powers of deduction, instead of questioning me for disclosing the information? MY motives are simple, to find the truth. Theirs? Not so simple.

Furthermore, the very notion that a man's past can never be forgiven is entirely contrary to the ideas which underlie the RAP. A great many people have found themselves both operating as agents within our corporate federal government and complying with the unconstitutional actions that our corporate federal government engages in. This is highly incriminating. The kind of unforgiving attitude that you seem to be adopting would not suffer these government officials to swear a new oath and remain in office. Yet the RAP intends to do just that.

What is there in forgiveness about moving a group of people towards a self professed banking scam, Copper Dollars? That's not past, thats current, up and running, and taking in the new customers "de jour".

My attitude is wary, cautious, and suspicious, not unforgiving. People have a background, and regardless of forgiving them, it sure doesn't mean to blindly forget.

Never once have I suggested people roll over and die, or give up, or anything else. I believe people have the right to stand up. I think they should do so wisely.

I also believe that people have the right to educate themselves, and even if that education is unpleasant and not what they thought it was, then so be it.

Putting our heads in the sand got us where we are today, let's not continue to do that just because someone seems to espouse thoughts and actions we may like to see.

Is it not enough for you that our friend Clive now endorses a return to constitutional government? If the world as a whole is to change, then that change can only ride on the shoulders of individual men and women who have, themselves, changed. Is it possible that Clive is a changed man? At what point will you be willing to cease your fears and support your fellow man -- imperfect though he may be? It is a culture of fear that causes us to shoot our friends because we mistook them for enemies. Are you shooting a friend, Libertygal?

Now? He has been doing the Sovereign Citizen thing a *long* time, and he isn't the only one, perhaps you should Google or Bing or whatever that?

At what point? When I can see that he doesn't stand to make a profit off of Coppercards. Again, this has nothing to do with forgiving anything, wth is there to forgive?

Why is it that every time something that is alleged to be "good for us" gets funnelled into somehow putting money into someone elses pocket?

I would think it is better to shoot first and ask questions later, so if my research is shooting first, then so be it. However, I would not be so inclined to trade my dollars for Copper Cards or any other type of currency. Would you?

If so, send me some dollars and I will send you some uhm, I dunno, Tin Cards. I bet they are worth more than copper too! Wait, maybe not, copper is getting *real* expensive now. Hm. Okay we can do two for one, then.

I am not shooting anyone, I am questioning the motives behind this, and I think that is normal and wise. I think due dilligence in anything is wise, why would I abandon my principals simply because there is a message that I want to hear?

Your politicians lie to you every day. That's a bad thing. Now, these people seem to be lying to you, too. But now, it is ok?

Wow.

edit for typos >.<

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Libertygal]

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Libertygal]