Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (33388)	7/3/2004 8:35:18 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I don't think freedom is a "way of life," I would call it more a "state of being." I think the term "way of life" refers more to things like, for example, a rural way of life as opposed to an urban way of life. Another example would be a mormon way of life as compared to a secular way of life. Since there are probably hundreds of different ways of life in the United States, the assertion that they hate us for our way of life makes no sense.

To: lorne who wrote (33388)	7/3/2004 10:15:53 PM
From: zonkie	Respond to of 81568

<FREEDOM > _________________ Democrat/Republican Role Reversal Paul Craig Roberts Thursday, July 1, 2004 Since 1932, Democrats have been so confident of the inherent virtue of government that they have been willing to trust any amount of power to it. The liberal agenda boiled down to the growth of government power. Republicans were the naysayers, forever quoting the Founding Fathers' warnings that government power meant liberty's demise. The administration of President George W. Bush has brought a reversal of these positions. Conservative Republicans argue that government can be trusted with any amount of power in the war against terrorism. Habeas corpus, the attorney-client privilege, due process - indeed, the full range of constitutional rights - have been set aside as obstacles to the war on terrorism. Patriotic citizens have nothing to fear, say the conservatives, as the police state methods will only be employed against terrorists. Such assurances have always proven false. We were assured that the war against the Mafia required a new power to freeze a suspect's assets and that the draconian power would only be used against gangsters. The new power quickly spread everywhere, even into divorce cases. We were promised that the asset confiscations employed in the war against drugs would only be used on drug lords. When I last looked, in 2000 there were 140 federal crimes that permitted asset forfeiture, and the practice had spread into state law. Some states permit asset confiscation for every felony on the books. The war on terror has brought an even more rapid growth in arbitrary, unaccountable police power, as every airline passenger knows. Lowly airport security personnel can put citizens who object to an intrusive search or have an "attitude" on no-fly lists. A kid with a toy water pistol in his carry-on bag can be detained. Citizens can be fined if airport security arbitrarily rules that an item in a carry-on bag is "inappropriate." One bride returning from her wedding was fined $150 for having a silver cake server in her bag. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. President Bush's war on terror has resulted in the greatest growth in police state powers since Adolf Hitler subverted German democracy. Republicans cheer this growth as necessary to our safety. It is the Democrats who are having second thoughts. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., the Constitution's greatest - and perhaps only - defender in the U.S. government, early warned that elements in the Bush administration were using deception to manufacture an Iraq crisis. The consequences would be dire, Byrd predicted. The United States would cease to be perceived as peacemaker and be seen as warmonger. To facilitate its conduct of war, Byrd warned that the Bush administration would seek to reduce the powers of Congress and the rights of citizens. In his June 24 speech at Georgetown University Law Center, Vice President Al Gore detailed the extent to which President Bush has unbalanced the balance of powers and destroyed the U.S. Constitution by his claim to executive dictatorship. President Bush, backed by the Department of Justice (sic) has assumed the power to label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," to arrest and imprison the citizen, hold him in secrecy without the right to see a lawyer and without the necessity of charging him with a crime, and to authorize his torture. President Bush has asserted the power to invade any nation on earth subject only to his decision. President Bush has merged his role of president with commander in chief in order to claim that he is above the law. Republicans are pleased with Bush's role as Caesar, arguing that unconstitutional power is necessary to fight the war against terrorism. Conservative media such as Fox News, The National Review, The Weekly Standard and the Wall St Journal editorial page glorify Bush's exercise of illegitimate powers. It is Al Gore, not conservative Republicans, who invokes George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison. It is Al Gore who says, "We cannot depend upon a debased Department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots," who are determined to create a presidency unconstrained by law or the Constitution, the better to impose their political will. Are we witnessing an American version of the Reichstag fire in which dictatorial powers are created and civil rights subverted in the name of crisis? Can the Bush administration be held accountable for unprecedented lies and deceptions? Will the newly asserted powers of the executive survive Bush's administration and permanently unbalance the balance of powers? The stakes for liberty and political accountability have never been higher than they will be in November. COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. newsmax.com