[Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

Sun Jul 22 11:44:13 PDT 2007

Arnold -

Although not an "officially declared" war, Bush "declared" war on terror as
a knee-jerk response to 9/11.  Exploiting the American people's patriotism
following that attack, President Bush signed into effect the Patriot Act
(H.R. 3162 dated October 21, 2001) which expanded President Bush's executive
powers virtually limitlessly.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

In effect we are at war against terror.  Hey, I didn't vote for him.

Congress and the American people have been fighting the Patriot Act ever
since.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 

  _____  

From: Donovan Arnold [mailto:donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:21 AM
To: Tom Hansen; 'Andreas Schou'
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

The US Constitution gives the House control over the budget and ability to
control war. The President cannot legally have troops overseas for more than
90 days without  declaration of war or approval of Congress. 

Congress doesn't need an appropriations bill passed to change that. It can
simply vote with a simple majority vote to either cut funding to the
military or order the troops back. The Democratic controlled Congress has
not done that. 

75% of the population wants to end the war, NOW. Yet Congress is not acting
on that public demand. There must be a reason why.

US troops will still be in Iraq in 2008 and 2009. They are simple giving you
lip service and stalling. Our troop numbers might be reduced in the near
future, but we are staying in Iraq, our national security depends on it. 

Best,

Donovan

Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

Arnold, Arnold, Arnold -

If you have been following the news this past month or so, you would have
realized (like all of the rest of us have) that Congress IS refusing to
finance the war any further than September (or is it November?).

Congress' refusal to further finance Bush's war is what gave birth to Bush's
claim that Congress refuses to provide a sizeable pay hike for the military,
which is tied into the budget for Bush's war.  It is all tied into the
budget for fiscal year '08.  If Congress refuses to pass the FY08 budget, as
written, (which, for all intents and purposes, it intends to do), finances
for Bush's war run extremely shallow and the military does not get its much
needed pay raise.

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:14 AM
To: Andreas Schou
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Essay on Globalism by Ron Paul

Andreas,

If Congress really wanted to end the war all they have to do is not fund it.
It requires 60% in the Senate and majority vote in the House to continue to
fund the operations. US House, which controls the purse strings, could end
the war tomorrow by voting to cut it off. 

They instead are trying to shift the ending of the war to the Senate
intentionally in a way that does not impact funding, which is harder to do
politically, they know that.  

One or two senators could potentially block a bill in the Senate or at least
slow it way down. It is difficult to pass legislation. 

When I was in the ASUI Senate, I use to slow down appointments to paid
positions that were made to buddies of other elected officials. I wanted
people that were best for the job, not someone getting a check because they
helped their frat buddy with campaigning. Today, appointments now have to go
through a process that screens out individuals not qualified, but it was not
that way when I was in, the victor went the spoils and ASUI paychecks.

There is a whole host of motions and parliamentary procedures,
filibustering, and other tactics a senator can use to slow down or disrupt
legislation. Two senators can place huge road blocks in the way of
legislation they really disagree with.  If a committee chair can also wage
more havoc as well. 

Best,

Donovan

Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/07, Donovan Arnold wrote:
> The reason the US Senate is stalling on the withdraw of troops from Iraq
is
> because it knows two things;
>
> 1) That the people that voted for them what an end to the war now and what
> the troops back home.
>
> and
>
> 2) That if the US withdraws troops from Iraq it would have negative
> repercussions and that it vital to US interests to keep troops there.

Donovan --

The US Senate is failing to end the war because a withdrawal requires
a 60-vote majority to break a Republican filibuster (which they have
done every time it has come to a vote) and a 66-vote majority to break
a Bush veto threat. In the House of Representatives, where party unity
and the number of defectors needed is higher, breaking a Bush veto is
almost impossible, given the tiny Democratic majority.

Thus the Republicans hold us in an unwinnable morass for yet another year.

-- ACS

  _____  

Building a website is a piece of cake. 
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48251/*http:/smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting/
?p=PASSPORTPLUS>  the tools to get online.

  _____  

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48220/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/>  tonight's top picks
on Yahoo! TV. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070722/784e2bb8/attachment-0001.html 