In a message dated 00-04-10 08:25:43 EDT, June writes:
<< No, I'm saying NO mob, no matter what their political leanings, have the
right to ram their political ideology down the throats of
others.
And just whom is my 'ilk', Bob? ;-)>>
Unfortunately many "mobs" have rammed their political ideology down our
throats, including the rich, the Brits, the socialists, the facists, nazis,
government, corporations, the list is endless and there seems to be little we
can do about it, even other countries such as Red China can buy our
representatives.
I was wondering just who are people of my "ilk" as well, since you mentioned
that in a reply ô¿~
<<Let's start with the anti-loitering laws in Miami...>>
If you were mayor, I'm certain loitering would not be permitted.
<< I don't know what 'international law' says, nor what international
governing body you are going by.
_I_ go by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the laws of the
individual states of the Union.>>
Since this has been blown up to a case of two sovereign nations arguing about
a child, I would think that some sort of international body (UN?) <cringe>
may be able to solve this problem. I wish our government would play by the
rules and govern by the Constitution, but when someone like Clinton says "The
Constitution is what I say it is" then we have become lawless.
<< > Maybe the fact that
> his Mother died trying to get him out of a Communist country says
something.
It says nothing. If you bend the law when it's someone escaping from a
country you don't like, then how can you uphold the law when
it's someone escaping from a country who's an ally, or perhaps escaping from
your own country.
If the tables were turned, and this kid's mother died as she was trying to
escape the U.S. and enter Cuba, what would your argument
be if relatives in Havana claimed to have a better right to have custody of
the kid than the father back in the U.S.? What if a
mother who brought her child to visit relatives in Iraq suddenly died, and
the Iraqi relatives took custody of the child, and
claimed they had a superior claim to custody? Would you argue as vehemently
for THEIR right to custody over the custody of the
American father back in the States?
And if we decide that Elian Gonzalez is deserving of political asylum, why
then are we turning away thousands of Haitians, many of
whom are also children, who are also seeking political asylum?>>
Very good points. I've never looked at this situation that way, but it does
make sense to me.
<<We have no idea what was in the mother's mind; according to her own
mother, she had a good life in Cuba, and according to her mother
was not unhappy and was not political. Her mother has been quoted as saying
she suspects the new husband was behind the decision to
leave Cuba, and she believes her daughter was pressured into going. Hardly
the description of someone seeking political asylum.>>
I didn't hear this, but I wonder if her Mother was pressured into saying
that. I have no trust of Castro. I still remember the Cuban Missle Crisis
when I was 11 years old and living in Houston, which was a probable target of
those missles.
<<I'm not so sure it's government elites we should be looking for, but other
'elites'....>>
Could you be more specific, speculate a little.
<<A man can be stalked as easily as a woman can be...>>
Anyone who knew me, wouldn't stalk me ... they would know I have a 12 gauge.
I couldn't imagine being stalked by a woman.
<< Sure it's a case of U.S. law. It is applied every day to illegal
immigrants from countries other than Cuba. It is applied to
Haitians and Mexicans.
There is no reason for 'international law' to become involved. It is solely
the province of U.S. immigration law.
And since when did 'international law' take precedence over the Constitution
of the United States, and the laws of the sovereign states of the Union?>>
You have again made a very valid point when you mention the immigration laws.
You are absolutely right about that, and I'm wrong.
Unfortunately many of our freedoms are in jeopardy by treaties with the UN.
Treaties are the only "laws" that can take precedence over the Constitution.
Clinton has been pressing treaties having to do with UN environmental issues.
(Parks and Rivers)
Regards,
Bob Stokes</PRE></HTML>
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid
matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
