"PeterBP" me.com> wrote

Which is the only body that has the capacity to resolve the problem.

So your goal - to solve the problem - created through greedy business
interests - is to prevent government from compelling those businesses to act
in a socially responsible manner.

Your goal is to continue the starvation as long as possible.

"PeterBP" me.com> wrote

Hunger has been around a lot longer than governments have. My little
ignorant Shit Sack.

"PeterBP" me.com> wrote

No, thank you for once again giving me the opportunity to expose
Libertarians as the Lying Sacks of Shit that they are.

Have a nice day.

CIVIL RIGHTS - A POLITICAL COMMUNIST FRONT

Since the time of the Civil War, statutory civil rights legislation has
been used to centralize power in and to the national government,
usurping the power rightfully belonging to the several States. So far we
can see that the State governments allow such usurping by the national
government and are in conspiricy against the letter and spirit to the
original Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Articles in Amendment are
clear as to the powers belonging to either the States or the State
citizens.

The national government uses statutory civil rights as a vehicle and
excuse to break down the limitation on the national govenment that was
imposed upon them by the original constitution. Every time the national
government empowers itself in a question of civil rights it
correspondingly restricts or deprives the several States of its
sovereignty in the same area by federal preemption. This is not just my
opinion but the very opinion expressed on the floor of Congress in one
way or another when a new civil rights bill was being discussed in 1957,
wherein a civil rights act (H.R. 6127) was debated.

In this debate several representatives pointed out that federal enacted
civil rights, among other things, were supported by a communist movement
to undermine our form of government by undermining through the years the
sovereignty of the several States. This also included undermining of
State citizenship.

I am only going to point out the following excert, one of the most
concise statements made about the use of so called statutory civil
rights usurping our form of government and to control politics to that
end.

"With respect to the contention that communism has been
behind the centralization of power in the United States,
Representative Abernethy, Mississippi, made the most
concise statement outlining the point;

"The civil-rights business is all according to a studied and
well defined plan. It may be news to some of you, but the
course of the advocates of this legislation was carefully
planed and outlined more than 45 years ago. Israel Cohen,
a leading Communist in England, in his "A Racial Program"
for the 20th Century, wrote in 1912 the following:

"We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is
racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the
dark race that for centuries they have been oppressed by the
whites, we can mould them to the program of the Communist
Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory while
inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will
endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their
exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in
prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the
world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro
will be able to intermarry with whites and begin a process which
will deliver America to our cause.

"What truer prophecy could there have been 40 year ago of what
we now see taking place in America, than that made by Isreal
Cohen."

It is now some 87 years since Isreal Cohen made the statement to
indoctrinate America into his communist party and some 37 years sence
Representative Abernethy, Mississippi brought it forth upon the floor of
Congress. Today, Isreal Cohen would be please with Americas progress
towards deliverance to the Communist party.

The Congressional Record - House Debat of a civil rights Act (H.R. 6127)
June 7, 1957, pp. 8554 -8561, will be available to read on ARIZONA
SENTINEL Information Network BBS.

Condensed from

BEHOLD Newsletter
by Randy Geiszler

Message #4793 "LAW"
Date: 09-Oct-94 00:58
From: Matt Giwer
To: All
Subj: To Err is Required

To Err is Required

In our system of government and law we hold to many principles in
its execution. When it comes to criminal matters where there are
penalties involving the loss of liberty if not life itself, we hold one
to be above all else. It is better for the guilty to go free than for
the innocent to be punished wrongfully.

This principle required that if there is to be an error in
judgement that it be in favor of the least harm, that is, innocence.
This is a reasonable principle. If there is a question of guilt or
innocence then innocence is the proper finding.

Similarly we have enumerated rights and as citizens we have charged
our government with protecting those rights. Those rights are as
fundamental as our need to be protected from the power of the state
gaining a conviction of the innocent. Thus it would appear equally
prudent, when there comes a question as to a right or the extent of that
right that there be a similar error in favor of that right.

Thus if there is a question of the right to free speech and the
government's obligation to protect that right then it is clear the
government itself, in light of its obligation to protect that right, is
required to start with the assumption that the question must be decided
in the favor of that right lacking overwhelming government interest an
alternate interpretation.

Is this what we have? No, it is the opposite of what we have. The
Supreme Court has held that if a person does not vigorously speak of a
his rights at all points he has lost them. That is hardly erring on the
side of the government's obligation to protect our specified rights.

In addition the sequence of the infringement of our rights has
followed from a progression of exceedingly legalistic convolutions that
only a lawyer could love. When the enumerated right is freedom from
warrantless searches and seizures the courts have found it a challenge
to refine what that really means. In cars it is down to the degree of
what might be plain view, in or out of a bag, and whether or not that
bag is properly sealed.

Were there error on the side of the protected right then all but
waving the item out the car window would be protected. Such is not the
form of our legal system.

Our legal system is on the side of meticulously defining via court
precedent only the exact limits of our protections. There is no
presumption that the rights exist. The presumption is that they were
defined in the minds of the framers of the Constitution and must be
refined by the courts.

This ignores on significant point. The Framers were of the mind of
those who declared our independence and they held ...

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit
of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

The concept of government is clearly to protect the rights of men.
This brings up a larger issue. That the same government charged with
protecting those rights has assumed an adversarial role in in limiting
those rights by intellectual mayhem. It has declined to fulfill its
defensive roll in the protection of those rights.

I grant executing the law and defending rights at the same time is
a difficult position. That is why the requirement to err on the side of
the right BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH not by the Judicial Branch is
essential. That is no where in evidence.

What we have is a government with the largest and most active
branch that is actively hostile to our rights. The Executive Branch
works to limit those rights contrary to its constituted obligation. I
see no reason to believe this was the government that was conceived and
constituted for this country.

There is no reason to permit it to continue.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33613, 813-969-0362

[note new address and phone]