May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins

On May 1st 2006 The "Great American Boycott" also known as the "Day without
immigrants" is scheduled to occur. Participant's stated goals are a general
strike, No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying. These people want to
shut down individual cities, all across the nation, thereby impacting the
country as a whole.
Make no mistake about it, this is not just simple protesting, protesting
with the goal of causing financial harm is Economic Terrorism plain and
simple - and those people who participate are economic terrorists.
By shutting down certain cities, or even portions of cities, these
protestors will be :
Keeping children out of school,
Hampering the abilities of local law enforcement to enforce the law,
Hampering the abilities of first responders to respond to car accidents,
fires, people having heart attacks, and hampering their ability to
transport them to the hospital.
Hampering the abilities of local mass transit systems to operate properly.
Causing financial harm to local businesses iregardless of whether or not
those businesses have harmed them, resulting in a nationwide economic
impact.
Advocating the breaking of our laws by demanding, yes demanding, that
illegal immigrants be given amnesty.


ter·ror·ism -"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons." - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition
How can you fight back?
Ensure that your children go to school, and stay there on this day.
Purposely go and buy products and services in those cities affected by the
protestors - gas up your car, go see a movie, go grocery shopping, buy a
little more than you would have any other day. Counter their 'protest' with
a positive economic impact in those areas affected.
Perhaps you might also consider making a donation to those organizations
seeking to secure our borders on this day as well. Show these terrorists
that you can and will fight back!
While the current situation is one of mass irresponsible action, causing
financial harm across the nation, it will inevitably escalate into violence
and deaths if these sorts of activities continue.
Does this constitute a civil war? Perhaps not yet, but its clearly heading
in that direction, this may just be the first battle.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:49:18 -1000, stananger
stananger@********.*** wrote:

May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins

On May 1st 2006 The "Great American Boycott" also known as the "Day without
immigrants" is scheduled to occur. Participant's stated goals are a general
strike, No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying. These people want to
shut down individual cities, all across the nation, thereby impacting the
country as a whole.
Make no mistake about it, this is not just simple protesting, protesting
with the goal of causing financial harm is Economic Terrorism plain and
simple - and those people who participate are economic terrorists.
By shutting down certain cities, or even portions of cities, these
protestors will be :
Keeping children out of school,
Hampering the abilities of local law enforcement to enforce the law,
Hampering the abilities of first responders to respond to car accidents,
fires, people having heart attacks, and hampering their ability to
transport them to the hospital.
Hampering the abilities of local mass transit systems to operate properly.
Causing financial harm to local businesses iregardless of whether or not
those businesses have harmed them, resulting in a nationwide economic
impact.
Advocating the breaking of our laws by demanding, yes demanding, that
illegal immigrants be given amnesty.


ter·ror·ism -"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons." - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition
How can you fight back?
Ensure that your children go to school, and stay there on this day.
Purposely go and buy products and services in those cities affected by the
protestors - gas up your car, go see a movie, go grocery shopping, buy a
little more than you would have any other day. Counter their 'protest' with
a positive economic impact in those areas affected.
Perhaps you might also consider making a donation to those organizations
seeking to secure our borders on this day as well. Show these terrorists
that you can and will fight back!
While the current situation is one of mass irresponsible action, causing
financial harm across the nation, it will inevitably escalate into violence
and deaths if these sorts of activities continue.
Does this constitute a civil war? Perhaps not yet, but its clearly heading
in that direction, this may just be the first battle.

and what band and mode will this protest take place?

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

stananger wrote:

May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins

On May 1st 2006 The "Great American Boycott" also known as the "Day without
immigrants" is scheduled to occur. Participant's stated goals are a general
strike, No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying. These people want to
shut down individual cities, all across the nation, thereby impacting the
country as a whole.

SNIPPED

ter·ror·ism -"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons." - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition

SNIPPED

It is not terrorism per your quoted definition: "ter·ror·ism -"The
UNLAWFUL [emphasis added] use or threatened use of force or violence ... "

I don't see any UNLAWFUL activity here. If you want a day off you take a
day off. If ten people want a day off, they take a day off. If 100
people want a day off, they take a day off. ...

The opening words of the USA Constitution are extremely important. "We
the PEOPLE ..." Note: it does not say Citizens.

The First Amendment to the USA Constitution states:
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The protest is fully compliant with " freedom of speech", "peaceably to
assemble' and to "redress of grievances"

The Constitutional Rights you demand for yourself MUST be Rights for
those with whom you disagree.

This has nothing to do with AMATEUR. ANTENNA.....
TAKE THIS JUNK SOME PLACE ELSE AND
GO SCREW A HOT TOWER



"stananger" stananger@********.*** wrote in message
...
May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins

On May 1st 2006 The "Great American Boycott" also known as the "Day
without
immigrants" is scheduled to occur. Participant's stated goals are a
general
strike, No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying. These people want to
shut down individual cities, all across the nation, thereby impacting the
country as a whole.
Make no mistake about it, this is not just simple protesting, protesting
with the goal of causing financial harm is Economic Terrorism plain and
simple - and those people who participate are economic terrorists.
By shutting down certain cities, or even portions of cities, these
protestors will be :
Keeping children out of school,
Hampering the abilities of local law enforcement to enforce the law,
Hampering the abilities of first responders to respond to car accidents,
fires, people having heart attacks, and hampering their ability to
transport them to the hospital.
Hampering the abilities of local mass transit systems to operate properly.
Causing financial harm to local businesses iregardless of whether or not
those businesses have harmed them, resulting in a nationwide economic
impact.
Advocating the breaking of our laws by demanding, yes demanding, that
illegal immigrants be given amnesty.


ter·ror·ism -"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by
a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for
ideological
or political reasons." - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition
How can you fight back?
Ensure that your children go to school, and stay there on this day.
Purposely go and buy products and services in those cities affected by the
protestors - gas up your car, go see a movie, go grocery shopping, buy a
little more than you would have any other day. Counter their 'protest'
with
a positive economic impact in those areas affected.
Perhaps you might also consider making a donation to those organizations
seeking to secure our borders on this day as well. Show these terrorists
that you can and will fight back!
While the current situation is one of mass irresponsible action, causing
financial harm across the nation, it will inevitably escalate into
violence
and deaths if these sorts of activities continue.
Does this constitute a civil war? Perhaps not yet, but its clearly heading
in that direction, this may just be the first battle.

--
SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

This is YOUR futu
http://halturnershow.com/aztlan_caps.wmv
http://media.putfile.com/La-Gran-Marcha
The Mexican Solution:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...s&code=06-D_18

-
"Dave" wrote in message news
stananger wrote:

May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins

On May 1st 2006 The "Great American Boycott" also known as the "Day without
immigrants" is scheduled to occur. Participant's stated goals are a general
strike, No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying. These people want to
shut down individual cities, all across the nation, thereby impacting the
country as a whole.

SNIPPED

ter·ror·ism -"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons." - American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition

SNIPPED

It is not terrorism per your quoted definition: "ter·ror·ism -"The UNLAWFUL [emphasis added] use or threatened use of force or
violence ... "

I don't see any UNLAWFUL activity here. If you want a day off you take a day off. If ten people want a day off, they take a day
off. If 100 people want a day off, they take a day off. ...

Is it unlawful for citizens from another country to protest in our streets, and attempt
to manipulate our economy? I don't know, but it should be.


The opening words of the USA Constitution are extremely important. "We the PEOPLE ..." Note: it does not say Citizens.

I do think it implies citizenship.


The First Amendment to the USA Constitution states:
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances."

The peoples government, implies citizenship.


The protest is fully compliant with " freedom of speech", "peaceably to assemble' and to "redress of grievances"

The Constitutional Rights you demand for yourself MUST be Rights for those with whom you disagree.


Does this apply to laws we demand for ourselves?

--
SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

This is YOUR futu
http://halturnershow.com/aztlan_caps.wmv
http://media.putfile.com/La-Gran-Marcha
The Mexican Solution:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.o...s&code=06-D_18

-

Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."

Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people. If you studied philosophy, you
would conclude that rights are rooted in the dignity of the person, not
derived from government. Government responsibilities and authority are
delegated from the people to the government for the maximum common good
for the maximum number of people.

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:23:25 -0400, Dave wrote:

Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.

Hi Dave,

You are quite wrong. Previous to the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, we lived under the Articles of Confederation which was a
Republican form of government complete with assembly and President.

The Constitutional Congress was formed to look at the Articles, not
create a new government.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."

The Constitution speaks of citizens of states, but it nowhere provides
for the qualifications of becoming a citizen. However, there is the
3/5ths rule and the untaxed Indians who are implicitly not citizens
(saying nothing of women).

Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people.

There are many in the current administration that would dispute this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

The Articles of Confederation were a failure! No centralized government.
The USA government, as we basically have it today did not exist during
and after the Revolutionary War. The Constitution did not become the Law
of the USA until 4 March 1789.

The Amendments are written as follows:

Prior to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 1 through 10 use
the language of 'PEOPLE' [not citizen]. [Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and
10] [Prior to 4 March 1789]

Subsequent to ratification of the Constitution, Amendments 11 through
26, that deal with human, not political or liquor issues, use the
language of 'CITIZENS'. [Amendments 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 24, and 26]

The 14th amendment, following the US Civil War [9 July 1868],
establishes citizenship definitions as follows:

"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside." This was originally worded to assure
citizenship to the emancipated slaves. It has since been judicially
interpreted in a broader sense.

In the current passionate discussion of immigration rights we categorize
and pre-judge, by our use of language, a group of people. Are they
'Illegal Immigrants', or, 'Undocumented Workers'? Regarding the law
governing immigration, is it founded on 'per ipse 'wrong or is it
founded on 'Good Order for the maximum common good'. I suspect the
number of immigrants from any nation who may legally immigrate to the
USA is arbitrarily chosen in the US House of Representatives. The quotas
can be easily changed by act of Congress. A case can be made that QUOTA
systems are basically discriminatory.

Regarding the 'oppressive' states, and there are many, the politics of
'Power' and 'Might makes Right' does not ratify the yearning of people
to be FREE. Governments may and do usurp human rights, but that does
make it right! The UN has an Office of Human Rights. The Pope has an
Office of Human Rights. Many governments of Europe have political
entities devoted to Human Rights. There are many NGOs devoted to human
rights. These rights include fundamental human rights, political rights
and social rights.

IMO, secure borders, in a post 9-11 USA environment, cannot be morally
justified based on QUOTAS. And we have quotas for the Mexican
immigrants. How are these quotas justified? [Does the USA authorize
100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 immigrants a year? Why is there any
particular number?]

I'm pontificating, I know it! But, I see injustice in any QUOTA system.

/S/ DD, W1MCE

Richard Clark wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2006 06:23:25 -0400, Dave wrote:


Harbin,

When the USA Constitution was written there was NO government! There was
a group of independent states. No government higher than state
government in existence. All state governments were equal.


Hi Dave,

You are quite wrong. Previous to the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, we lived under the Articles of Confederation which was a
Republican form of government complete with assembly and President.

The Constitutional Congress was formed to look at the Articles, not
create a new government.

The USA Constitution begins: "We the People..." not "We the citizens..."


The Constitution speaks of citizens of states, but it nowhere provides
for the qualifications of becoming a citizen. However, there is the
3/5ths rule and the untaxed Indians who are implicitly not citizens
(saying nothing of women).


Rights, ALL RIGHTS belong to the people.


There are many in the current administration that would dispute this.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Dave,

On Tue, 02 May 2006 13:25:11 -0400, Dave wrote:

The Articles of Confederation were a failure!
does not lead to the conclusion of
No centralized government.
as in fact there was a central government by its very creation. Hence
there were citizens, but they were not of the United States until
ratification of the Constitution.

In the current passionate discussion of immigration rights we categorize
and pre-judge, by our use of language, a group of people.

Language is a necessary part of communication - nothing is context
free.

Are they 'Illegal Immigrants', or, 'Undocumented Workers'?

As to language, it matters little except to excite groups. As to
legalities, those definitions satisfy themselves and still manage to
excite groups.

Regarding the law
governing immigration, is it founded on 'per ipse 'wrong or is it
founded on 'Good Order for the maximum common good'. I suspect the
number of immigrants from any nation who may legally immigrate to the
USA is arbitrarily chosen in the US House of Representatives. The quotas
can be easily changed by act of Congress. A case can be made that QUOTA
systems are basically discriminatory.

This is redundant. A quota must be discriminatory. No case is made
where it is obviously offered freely.

Regarding the 'oppressive' states, and there are many, the politics of
'Power' and 'Might makes Right' does not ratify the yearning of people
to be FREE.

Your passion seems to be getting ahead of your logic.

Governments may and do usurp human rights, but that does
make it right!

Passion is getting brighter, but the logic is failing.

The UN has an Office of Human Rights. The Pope has an
Office of Human Rights. Many governments of Europe have political
entities devoted to Human Rights. There are many NGOs devoted to human
rights. These rights include fundamental human rights, political rights
and social rights.

Yes, and I work with one, and support many. However, few of these
agencies that you offer have the power to open borders.

IMO, secure borders, in a post 9-11 USA environment, cannot be morally
justified based on QUOTAS.

We have always had quotas with and without the 9-11 context. It seems
odd to separate them from the morality equation.

And we have quotas for the Mexican
immigrants. How are these quotas justified? [Does the USA authorize
100,000, 500,000 or 1,000,000 immigrants a year? Why is there any
particular number?]

Justified? The courts answer to that as it is their business. OK, I
can tell what you mean by "justified" but you are freely mixing
morality, laws, government, and history and the meaning of "justified"
goes through a great amount of flexibility to support any one
argument.

I'm pontificating, I know it! But, I see injustice in any QUOTA system.

Any quota system? The apportionment of members of congress by
population is just one system.

There's an obvious quota in the ability of border guards to simply
look at every visitor coming across the border. A line waiting to be
seen is its own quota. If you did less than simply look, then yes, we
would be quota free. Would it be unreasonable to have a guest book at
the border for everyone to sign, or would this be a quota too?

No, pontificating is not a solution and seeing injustice is not really
being a witness.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

May 1st 2006, Civil War Begins ..

LOL, that'll be the day... is this related to "missing degrees" ?
I guess we missed the civil war down here in Texas. May 1
came and went, and I didn't notice anything irregular at all.
Nothing was hampered, and it is still quite warm here too..
MK