Jesus talked about the practices of Rome indirectly when He said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat." (Matt 23:2-3) Which was to say, some people will try to overrule what even God Himself has said, and will force you into submission (if they can). And Rome even haughtily, audaciously admits this: “[The pope holds] upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (Papal Encyclical, “The Reunion of Christendom," 1885, Pope Leo XIII) It cannot be said that every Catholic believes the pope can dismiss the Constitution, nor even that every pope is of the same authoritarian mindset in every age. But understand that the machine of Rome produces such comments as the following, it trains the minds of its priests who train the minds of the young adherents, and for this reason we must always keep a wary eye on Rome: “There is only reason for this evil [over individual conscience - pm], and that remedy is absolute and blind obedience to a prudent director. Choose one, consult him as often as you desire, but do not leave him for another., Then submit punctiliously to his direction. His conscience must be yours for the time being. And if you should err in following him, God will hold him, and not you responsible.” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 24.) “Once he does so [enters the church - pm], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern at the door.” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 76.) “Obey blindly, that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor ...In a word, keep before your eyes this great rule, that in obeying your confessor you obey God. Force yourself, then, to obey him in spite of all fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey him you are secure.” (Cardinal Liguori, Spouse of Christ, p.161.) PS to Politickler: Criticize the content, not the publisher. Thomas Paine didn't write "Common Sense" via Doubleday, but his words were true and set the world on fire with them.

Reminds me of what Vincent Foster said of WA DC: "I was not meant for ...public life in Washington. Here, ruining people is considered sport." --Vincent Foster Jr., Deputy White House Counsel and friend to Pres. Clinton, shortly before he committed suicide.

With no bleeding heart for Gitmo prisoners but strictly for objectivity, I would point out that most in this discussion seem to be saying the Gitmo prisoners have no rights under our law, ignoring that our law recognizes some rights come from "our Creator," therefore the prisoners need no sanction from our law to enjoy those rights. "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." When such Creator-derived rights are stripped away, then you have made such people less-human-than-you in the legal process sense. Are these prisoners criminals or soldiers? Judge William Young, US District Court, in 2003 told airplane Shoe-Bomber Richard Reid he was no soldier, he was a terrorist and a plain criminal. But Reid (who demanded he WAS a soldier) did no more than what Israelis did to the 1940s British occupation of Palestine, and some of those soldiers? terrorists? later became Israeli prime ministers, recognized and honored by Britain and the US. The Israelis would call such individuals soldiers, and the US and Britain didn't hunt these fellows down for their crimes. They ceased calling them terrorists, later on, as well. It seems we play both sides of any given terrorist situation, calling them criminals when it suits the situation, and calling them "combatants" (yet not "soldiers") when we want to hold them forever. Which is it? You can't refuse a criminal his day in court, period. But we don't want to let them go, with good reason, so we call them something hazy, gray, like 'combatant,' ---yet not 'soldier'-!! I criticize no one, for there is no clear answer. But to be dogmatic that these people have no rights to a trial, counsel, etc, contradicts what we are calling them, that is, "criminals." Criminals get trials, period. "Soldiers" forces the conclusion a govt sent them, something we don't want to acknowledge. So we engage in euphemisms and verbal distortions to get what we need, and I do not overly criticize that act, but it needs to be recognized. This is how I see it, I may be quite mistaken, and I'm open to correction. Let the dogpiling begin!

Waffler says we do not have the right to holler "Fire!" in a theater. This is correct, but misused. I am licensed (movie ticket) to sit and watch a movie, and I agree not to disturb the audience and the theater owner's ability to make money by falsely hollering "Fire!" But in the purely public domain, I should be free to holler anything I want, with the point being the govt is not to make excuses to take this right away. But it will, it always does. It appears far too often the govt is the one hollering "Fire!" --in order to take away rights.

To Ted & Waffler: Is "forcing" children to study the Constitution statism? Not if it is the parent who is the one forcing. I would hope Nofziger also believes in ending public (govt) education, which is one of the engines of despotic govt. Big govt lives on only when it can control the minds of the next generation.

It all comes down to political posturing vs. reality: "On January 12, 1848, a first-term member of the U.S. Congress stood up in the House chamber to challenge the president’s conduct of the war with Mexico. Congressman Abraham Lincoln suggested that President James Polk had not been truthful about the war’s justification; that the United States had not intervened to support the independence of Texas from Mexico, but to take Mexican territory. Yet Lincoln also affirmed the right of Texans to self-determination, saying: 'Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right --a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.'" --Jan 12, 1848 (The War with Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives) (Reprint from The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer 2006, Volume 30:2 (Medford, MA: The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University).

Police get their constitutional law courses completed at the firing range. If you wish to see how completely authorities will dismiss, trash, abandon the Constitutional, State and even local law, consider these clips from Hurricane Katrina, where armed citizens peaceably protecting themselves and their property were violently subdued and disarmed BY THE AUTHORITIES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8 In Milwaukee, WI, the Nazi police chief decided he didn't care what constitutional and state law said on carrying guns, he would draw guns on and subdue anyone doing so. Here's the story of how he did so on a man on his own property, planting a tree with a visible, holstered sidearm: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20081212b.htm . And here is what this top SS-cop in Milwaukee had to say about it: http://www.jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-wi-top-crim.htm . WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE, FOLKS.

You are dead right, Mike of Norwalk. The mythology of an indivisible Union is one created and perpetuated by those who draw power only to DC, who love big govt and big taxes. A two-faced, self-serving Lincoln hypocritically said before the War of Nothern Agression: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right --a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is the right confined to cases which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” --Jan 12, 1848 (The War with Mexico: Speech in the United States House of Representatives)

Like it or not, the Bible defined the ROOT PROBLEM in finding the best system to rule ourselves with: O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps. (Jer 10:23) Use socialism, and the masses greedily vote to themselves what is not theirs, destroying the wealth of the nation. Use capitalism and the powerful do not open their hands and wallets to the poor. Both rich and poor are humans one and all, thus greedy, covetous in nature, and THIS is why nothing we devise will ever work as it should. Do not look for a system to cure the problem, rather look within for the defect, and cure.

Call it what you will, fascism, communism, socialism, Obamunism. In the end, it all comes down to pure democracy (mobocracy) that is the force behind the dictator-du-jour. "We have met the enemy and they is us..."

As a nation, we decry national debt. But when it comes to leaving the public trough, we only want the other guy to stop eating from it. The military is a public works job, with people reenlisting solely because of the economy. Student loans, defense industries (& workers), grant recipients of all sorts, matching fed funds, business loans, home loans, social security, federal medical plans, and the list goes on forever. The cure to the addiction will be VERY painful, should we ever have the intelligence and fortitude to take it. But we won't. Too many piggies at the trough who are "getting theirs" to ever stop it now. Collapse is the only realistic future now. Jefferson said the one thing he regretted not putting in the Constitution was to make it so the govt could not borrow money. Oddly, we have purposely created a state of affairs that resembles this long ago statement: “So low and hopeless are the finances of the United States, that, the year before last Congress was obliged to borrow money even, to pay the interest of the principal which we had borrowed before. This wretched resource of turning interest into principal, is the most humiliating and disgraceful measure that a nation could take, and approximates with rapidity to absolute ruin...” ---Wm Davie, North Carolina delegate to the 1787-88 Constitutional Convention.

Waffler, I "prosper" when I spend my income AND beyond, on credit cards. I suffer when the bill comes due, as it is now. We keep printing fiat money, keep spending more than we have, which brings happy times, but the bill is now in our mailbox. Is this what you call prosperity? I call it suicide.

From Wikipedia: “A fear expressed by a number of opponents was that the proposed law, with its low rates was the camel's nose under the tent that once a tax on incomes was enacted, rates would tend to rise. Sen. William E. Borah of Idaho was outraged by such anxieties, and derided a suggestion that the rate might eventually climb as high as 20 percent. Who, he asked, could impose such socialistic, confiscatory rates? Only Congress. And how could Congress, the Representatives of the American People, be so lacking in fairness, justice and patriotism?” -- Wall Street Journal, October 5, 1973. Page 8 at columns 4-6. ---Wikipedia article on Wm E Borah.