I would ask that all present read this earth-shattering document. The results of which have kept the world's population, if only in part, free. As it happens these were all men, if it were to happen today the list of contributors would most likely include many woman. We cannot, and should not polarize our patriotic forces on this circumstance. The men and woman who fought our war of independence were unique in their time and in all history. Never before or since has an ideology so transformed a continent and ultimately the world. As always I will turn over this thread to those more eloquent and educated. Thank you. And to all true Americans, I love you.

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The Signers of the Declaration and the new States they represented

Connecticut -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott

Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean

Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton

Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Hancock Samual Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry

New Hampshire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Matthew Thornton

New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark

New York -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris

North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn

Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross

Rhode Island -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Hopkins William Ellery

South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton

Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton

End __________________________________________________ "The seeds of freedom have now been planted." MidwestMike_

-- I pledge allegance........ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999

Answers

The Propaganda System Noam Chomsky Lies of Our Times, May 1992

Letter from Lexington April 6, 1992

Dear LOOT,

Media critique has generally focused on how the news and opinion sections ensure right thinking. Book reviews are another intriguing element of the system of doctrinal control. In particular, the New York Times Book Review serves as a guide to readers and librarians with limited resources. The editors must not only select the right books, but also reviewers who adhere to the norms of political correctness. What follows are some illustrations, drawn from successive weeks.

In the study of any system, it is often useful to look at something radically different, to highlight crucial features. Let's begin, then, by looking at a society that is close to the opposite pole from ours: Brezhnev's USSR.

Consider policy formation. In Brezhnev's USSR, economic policy was determined in secret, by centralized power; popular involvement was nil, except marginally, through the Communist Party. Political policy was in the same hands. The political system was meaningless, with virtually no flow from bottom to top.

Consider next the information system, inevitably constrained by the distribution of economic-political power. In Brezhnev's USSR there was a spectrum, bounded by disagreements within centralized power. True, the media were never obedient enough for the commissars. Thus they were bitterly condemned for undermining public morale during the war in Afghanistan, playing into the hands of the imperial aggressors and their local agents from whom the USSR was courageously defending the people of Afghanistan (see E.S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, 226f.). For the totalitarian mind, no degree of servility is ever enough.

There were dissidents and alternative media: underground samizdat and foreign radio. According to a 1979 US government-funded study, 77% of blue-collar workers and 96% of the middle elite listened to foreign broadcasts, while the alternative press reached 45% of high-level professionals, 41% of political leaders, 27% of managers, and 14% of blue-collar workers. The study also found most people satisfied with living conditions, favoring state-provided medical care, and largely supportive of state control of heavy industry; emigration was more for personal than political reasons (James Miller and Peter Donhowe, Washington Post Weekly, Feb. 17, 1986, p. 16).

Dissidents were bitterly condemned as "anti-Soviet" and "supporters of capitalist imperialism," as demonstrated by the fact that they condemned the evils of the Soviet system instead of marching in parades denouncing the crimes of official enemies. They were also punished, not in the style of US dependencies such as El Salvador, but harshly enough.

The concept "anti-Soviet" is particularly striking. We find similar concepts in Nazi Germany, Brazil under the generals, and totalitarian cultures generally. In a relatively free society, the concept would simply evoke ridicule. Imagine, say, that Italian critics of state power were condemned for "anti-Italianism." Such concepts as "anti- Soviet" are the very hallmark of a totalitarian culture; only the most dedicated and humorless commissar could use such terms.

Well-behaved party hacks were guilty of no such crimes as anti- Sovietism. Their task was to applaud the state and its leaders; or even better, criticize them for deviating from their grand principles, thus instilling the propaganda line by presupposition rather than assertion, always the most effective technique. The commissar might say that leaders erred in their defense of Afghanistan against "the assault from the inside, which was manipulated" by Pakistan and the CIA. They should have understood that "it was an Afghan war, and if we converted it into a white man's war, we would lose." Similarly, a Nazi ideologue might have conceded that the "encounter" between Germans and Slavs on the Eastern front was "less than inspiring," though for balance, we must recall that it was "a total war between rival nations for control of a territory both groups were willing to die for"; and for the Slavs "the terms of the conflict" were "less mortal" than for the Germans needing Lebensraum, "staking not only their fortunes but also their very lives on the hope of building new lives in untried country." The Slavs, after all, could trudge off to Siberia. I return to the source of the quotes directly.

With these observations as background, let us turn to our own free society.

Begin again with policy formation. Economic policy is determined in secret; in law and in principle, popular involvement is nil. The Fortune 500 are more diverse than the Politburo, and market mechanisms provide far more diversity than in a command economy. But a corporation, factory, or business is the economic equivalent of fascism: decisions and control are strictly top-down. People are not compelled to purchase the products or rent themselves to survive, but those are the sole choices.

The political system is closely linked to economic power, both through personnel and broader constraints on policy. Efforts of the public to enter the political arena must be barred: liberal elites see such efforts as a dangerous "crisis of democracy," and they are intolerable to statist reactionaries ("conservatives"). The political system has virtually no flow from bottom to top, apart from the local level; the general public appears to regard it as largely meaningless.

The media present a spectrum of opinion, largely reflecting tactical divisions within the state-corporate nexus. True, they are never obedient enough for the commissars. The media were bitterly condemned for undermining public morale during the war in Vietnam, playing into the hands of the imperial aggressors and their local agents from whom the US was courageously defending the people of Vietnam; a Freedom House study provides a dramatic example (see Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, chapter 5, 5.2, and appendix 3). For the totalitarian mind, again, no degree of servility is enough.

There are dissidents and other information sources. Foreign radio broadcasts reach virtually no one, but alternative media exist, though without a tiny fraction of the outreach of samizdat. Dissidents are bitterly condemned as "anti-American" and "supporters of Communism" as demonstrated by the fact that they condemn the evils of the American system instead of marching in parades denouncing the crimes of official enemies. But they are not severely punished, at least if they are privileged and of the right color. Again, the concept "anti-American" is particularly striking, the very hallmark of a totalitarian mentality.

Let us now turn to the Times Book Review, keeping to the reviews, not the books.

The March 15 issue carries Morton Kondracke's review of Paul Hollander's Anti-Americanism; the author and reviewer are loyal apologists for atrocities by the US government and its clients. Kondracke applauds this worthy exposure of the crime of anti- Americanism, though he feels Hollander may go too far in citing benefits for the handicapped as an illustration of the leftist deviation of Congress.

"Anti-Americanism" (equivalently "the left," or "Marxists") is defined by the author as "a generally critical disposition toward existing social arrangements," the "cultural belief" that "this is a severely flawed and possibly doomed society, though still a menace to its citizens and humanity." Kondracke agrees that "the left gets more respect and attention in the news media than its ideas merit," and is "strongly influential" in colleges and the church. But all is not lost: "there is not a single Marxist or `anti-American' major daily newspaper (or even major newspaper columnist) in the country" and the dangerous "mainline churches" are losing membership. Fortunately, those with "a generally critical disposition toward existing social arrangements" are almost entirely barred, though we must keep up our guard in case the heresy finds a tiny outlet.

Kondracke is particularly outraged that even though "the Communist alternative has collapsed," the anti-Americans (by implication, pro- Communists) maintain their "permanently adversarial culture" and continue to "hate their nation." They "have not recanted," even though they have been proven "disastrously wrong" in their wild claims that the Sandinistas and other evil-doers "represented a bright future for mankind" -- or, to replace raving by reality, that the Sandinistas might have offered hope for Nicaraguans. The criminals in this case include the World Bank, Central American Jesuits, the leading figure of Central American democracy, Jose Figueres, a great enthusiast for US corporations and the CIA, indeed, a rather broad range. But that just shows how awesome the anti- American conspiracy is.

Kondracke does not remind us how the anti-Americans were refuted, though his record suggests that he would agree with Time magazine's admiring review of the technique that brought about the latest of the "happy series of democratic surprises" as "democracy burst forth" in Nicaragua in February 1990: to "wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves," with a cost to us that is "minimal," leaving the victim "with wrecked bridges, sabotaged power stations, and ruined farms," and thus providing the U.S. candidate with "a winning issue": ending the "impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua." Kondracke's enthusiasm for terrorist violence and illegal economic warfare was no less, and his love of "democracy" is of the same order.

The anti-Americans, Kondracke explains, are driven only by "the pleasure of struggle against the world in which they live." But, he concludes triumphantly, "for all their raving against America, few America-haters ever leave." Love it or leave it, but don't dare to say that its magnificence is flawed. Totalitarian cultures do not often reach such heights.

In the next week's issue (March 22), Caleb Carr reviews a book on the 1862 Sioux Uprising in Minnesota. After the obligatory frothing at the mouth about the evils of PC, Carr explains that the "Minnesota encounter" was "a total war between rival nations for control of a territory both groups were willing to die for." For one nation, "settlement was generally their last hope"; they were "staking not only their fortunes but also their very lives on the hope of building new lives in untried country." For the natives, at least at first, "the terms of the conflict" were "less mortal"; they could, after all, trudge off further West. Carr describes the "encounter" as "less than inspiring," and praises the author for recognizing that both nations were guilty of crimes. Those of the Sioux are outlined in gory detail ("atrocious behavior," "sadism and blood lust," "a particular penchant for torturing infants and children," etc.); the rhetoric differs for the settlers seeking Lebensraum (broken treaties, hanging of 38 Sioux, expulsion even of some who were not "guilty" of resistance, etc.) But the difference is only fair, given the asymmetry of need in the "encounter."

The following week, we are treated to a review by Arthur Schlesinger (AS) of John Newman's JFK and Vietnam, a review by the leading Kennedy hagiographer of a book of Kennedy hagiography. Both author and reviewer, of course, affect a critical stance, stressing that the hero may have erred by concealing his noble commitment to "limited war" (wholesale international terrorism), rather than full-scale aggression -- as distinct from the lower-level aggression that JFK launched in 1961-2, another of those unspeakable truths.

AS is full of praise for this "solid contribution," with its "meticulous and exhaustive examination of documents," etc.; an astonishing judgment that merits separate discussion. Newman's thesis that JFK intended to withdraw from Vietnam even without victory is "essentially right" AS believes. He adds that he, AS, had made the same point 30 years ago in his A Thousand Days, where he gave JFK's view that "it was a Vietnamese war, and if we converted it into a white man's war, we would lose."

AS does not remind us that LBJ commonly made similar remarks after picking up the mantle: we do not want "our American boys to do the fighting for Asian boys," he proclaimed during the 1964 election campaign. True, this is not quite the same as the JFK-AS version: for LBJ, it was a point of principle, while for JFK-AS, it was sheer expedience, a question of how to win. But that aside, by AS's reasoning, LBJ must have been deeply committed to withdrawal rather than escalation. AS also does not remind us that in his huge history of Camelot, published in 1965 before the war had lost its popularity among elites, there is not a single phrase suggesting that JFK intended to withdraw, which leaves only three possibilities: (1) the historian was keeping it secret; (2) this close JFK confidant didn't know; (3) it wasn't true.

Author and reviewer blame the evil military for thwarting JFK's secret designs. Both cite what AS calls "a hysterical 1962 memorandum" in which the Joint Chiefs predict "that `the fall of South Vietnam to Communist control would mean the eventual Communist domination of all the Southeast Asian mainland' and that most of Asia would capitulate to what the military still stubbornly called the `Sino-Soviet Bloc'." "Such hyperbole," AS explains, "confirmed Kennedy's low opinion of the military."

Turning to A Thousand Days, we discover that it was JFK's State Department that babbled on about the "Sino-Soviet Bloc." The "hyperbole" about South Vietnam is, furthermore, standard fare in internal documents back to the 1940's, based on fear of the potential appeal of Communist success. AS also spares us JFK's thoughts on this matter. In 1956, Senator JFK described Vietnam as "the cornerstone of the Free world in Southeast Asia, the keystone to the arch, the finger in the dike." Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, and India "are among those whose security would be threatened if the red tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam... Moreover, the independence of Free Vietnam is crucial to the free world in fields other than the military. Her economy is essential to the economy of all of Southeast Asia; and her political liberty is an inspiration to those seek to obtain or maintain their liberty in all parts of Asia -- and indeed the world. The fundamental tenets of this nation's foreign policy, in short, depend in considerable measure upon a strong and free Vietnamese nation" -- that is, the murderous Diem dictatorship, a terror state with minimal domestic support, as generally conceded.

Perhaps JFK changed his tune later. No chance. Until the end he held that "for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there" (May 1963). Withdrawal "only makes it easy for the Communists," who would sweep over Southeast Asia; we must therefore "win the war" (Sept. 1963). Even reduction of aid to the Far East would hand Southeast Asia to the Communists and have "the inevitable effect" of threatening India and perhaps even the Middle East (March 1963). By comparison, the Chiefs sound pretty mild.

To the end, JFK's public position was that our "objective" is to ensure that "the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the North, is ended" (Nov. 12, 1963). The internal record hardly differs. Like Newman, AS cites Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman as insiders on withdrawal, failing to add that Forrestal explicitly conditioned withdrawal on victory and condemned even pursuit of a "negotiated settlement...between North and South Vietnam" as "folly" (Nov. 13, 1963); while Hilsman, who outlined the October 1963 Taylor-McNamara withdrawal proposal (NSAM 263) in his 1964 book To Move a Nation, gave his judgment that without victory, JFK "might well have introduced United States ground forces into South Vietnam -- although I believe he would not have ordered them to take over the war effort."

To guard doctrinal purity, it is not essential to demonstrate that JFK intended to withdraw from Vietnam. Rather, it is important to ensure that debate over the US war be constrained within the dove- hawk spectrum: the permissible choices lie between international terrorism (allegedly JFK) and full-scale aggression (LBJ, the Kennedy advisers who stayed on). And all choices must be sanitized: they are defense against "the assault from the inside" in JFK's words -- in fact, as he knew, the "assault" by indigenous guerrillas against a terrorist client regime that could not survive political competition.

If these goals are achieved, the propaganda system will have done its duty.

Sincerely,

Noam Chomsky

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 04, 1999.

"The seeds of freedom have now been planted." MidwestMike

And to the signers: Debt, desolation, death was the end result.

This appeared in our local paper:

Declaration Brought Misery to Some of its Signers by Mike Jones, American Press

The United States won its independence from Great Britain with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which ended the war and formally recognized each of the 13 independent American states.

But that doesn't mean the men who adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, seven years previously, all survived the war unscathed and lived happily ever after. The signing of the Declaration didn't take place that day. The document, after being engrossed on parchment July 19, was presented to Congress and signed Aug. 2, 1776 by those present. Those absent signed later.

It was seven long arduous years before independence became a reality. What happened to the 56 signers of the Declaration?

A few, such as Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock and John Adams, have been heralded and feted every Independence Day since. But many are forgotten by most Americans, and their sacrifices largely unrecognized.

Some literally gave their lives and their fortunes for signing that document that led to a new republican form of government.

Among those who signed were lawyers and jurists, merchants, farmers and plantation owners.

All of them knew they were risking all by signing the Declaration. They were reviled as rebels and traitors by the British and Americans loyal to King George.

Here is what happened to some of the lesser known signers:

Carter Braxton was a wealthy planter and trader from Virginia. During the war his merchant ships were sunk by the British Navy and he was left penniless by the war. He had to sell off his property to pay his debts and eventually died in poverty.

Thomas McKean of Delaware was hounded by the British throughout the war. His family had to go into hiding and his possessions were confiscated. Yet he faithfully served in Congress without pay, even though poverty was his reward.

The properties of William Ellery of Rhode Island, Lyman Hall of Georgia and George Clymer of Pennsylvania were all looted during the war.

During the Battle of Yorktown, Virginia, the home of signer Thomas Nelson Jr. was taken by British Gen. Lord Cornwallis for his headquarters. Disregarding his own intersts Nelson urged Gen. George Washington to open fire on his own home. The house was destroyed and Nelson eventually died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis of New York also lost his home and properties. But more tragically, his wife was jailed by the enemy and died within a few months.

John Hart of New Jersey was at his dying wife's bedside when he was driven away by the enemy. His 13 children also had to flee for their lives, his fields and gristmill were destroyed and for more than a year he had to live in the forests and caves. Never reunited with his children, he died within a few weeks of returning from hiding, exhausted and broken hearted.

Lewis Morris and Phillip Livingston, both of New York, suffered similar fates.

Signing the Declaration of Independence did not mean fame and fortune for many of them. It meant sacrificing everything. But they did live up to that sacred pledge: "And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

These were true Americans!

-- Carol Dufrene (jdufrene@laci.net), July 04, 1999.

Thank you Carol, they were indeed.

OT: Carol, where do you hail from?

-- mybuttonsaysiransucks1980 (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

Mike

Born and raised in a small coal mining town near Johnstown, PA (home of the Johnstown Flood)

Educated in Lancaster, PA (home to the Amish)

Drug kicking and screaming to Southwest Louisiana (cajunland for 27 years)

Enjoyed your thread!

-- Carol (jdufrene@laci.net), July 04, 1999.

Thank you Mike. I've done my best to help my children to understand that these are not just 'words'. Carol, you have reminded us that freedom is never to be taken for granted. It requires constant vigilance. We must never forget those who sacrificed and fought courageously for our ability to have it and provide it for our children and theirs. We have been lax in our duties. We have become weak and apathetic. Dead and hollow spirits, proceeding aimlessly through our day by day existence. We have allowed our freedom to be abused, manipulated, and distorted over time. The time has come to take a stand and be heard. We must claim our right to freedom once again. What began with a few, became a country. I want my country back.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

will,

you sir, are a patriot. i have been talking off line with some fellow patriots. we have plans for your talents. we will be in touch when the time is right.

.

-- corrine (corrine@iwannet.net), July 05, 1999.

(am i the only person who occasionally thinks of 'milne' when reading some of corrine's posts? heeeheeeehahahoooo)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Will, my breadbasket beauty, I don't see it. Not at all.

-- justapeckonthecheek (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.