Southern Independent Party

Early roots for the building of an unconstitutional super state and empire began to expose themselves under the military mind of President Andrew Jackson and were later seized upon to the extreme by the tyrant Abraham Lincoln when he became president of the United States. Lincoln did all manner of illegal and unconstitutional things that he wanted to do at the moment to further his greed for power and control of the people in the north as well as the south, including declaring war on the southern states who had seceded from his rule because they believed in the free republic founded by the founding fathers and wanted no part of building an empire.

Then followed the unconstitutional massive bill of attainder called “reconstruction” which allowed the plunder of the southern states after they had quit fighting for freedom. (Lincoln had imported over 100,000 mercenary troops from Germany to aid in the defeat and plunder of the Confederate States of America).

Then even newer symptoms of the problem were exposed by fascist minded lawyers who have infested our congress today by the passage of laws a few decades ago allowing the federal government to charge people with “conspiracy.” This was an enlargement of the idea of an older law of aiding and abetting. In aiding and abetting a person had to be directly involved in the execution of a felony such as an armed driver of a get-away car for a bank robbery, etc.

One could hardly say that such a hypothetical driver was conspiring to rob the bank because a crime had to actually occur for aiding and abetting and such an aiding and abetting driver has to actually be part of the robbery team. That made sense such as being an accessory to the crime.

But, in the newer law of conspiracy, a person only had to have talked about the idea of committing a crime and in some way contributed information or some other material assistance and did not have to be part of the team that actually committed the crime.

Under the new conspiracy laws when the crime later occurred that person who had perhaps talked with the ones who did commit the crime would also be charged with the felony of “Conspiracy”. Many other countries in Europe and even on this continent do not have such laws. Mexico will not extradite a person to the United States who has been charged by the United States with “conspiracy.”

Now federal prosecutors are trying to get congress to pass laws called “thought crimes” and one such law has been passed which is essentially a thought crime. It is called a “hate” crime. This a strong example of the extreme depredation of rights found in an un-free society of a totalitarian government. The pattern of tyranny is shown below:

1. Aiding and abetting or accessory to a crime. That’s okay and a good law.
2. Conspiracy to commit a crime. That is a bad law and suspect for abusive prosecution of people who did not commit the crime.
3. Thought crimes. This is an outrageous idea giving power to government prosecutors to charge whomever they don’t like with a crime. This would be a very bad law.
4. Declare war by Presidential edict and run the government by Executive Order.
5. For political expediency, allow laws to be passed for the Nazi style murder of the unborn.
6. Attack and execute people who resist unconstitutional laws using military force such as the Indian Tribes at Wounded Knee, the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge and the Branch Davidian Church at Waco plus countless other examples of an evil empire out of control even including testing biological and chemical warfare agents on the American public and military.
7. Allow corrupt and immoral policies for the big corporations to destroy the economy of America.
8. Attack nations all over the world who don’t go along with what we want them to do under the guise of war on terrorism. (Not just limited to Moslem nations. Consider Panama and Kosovo).
9. Support other fascist nations in their violations of human rights and international law such as our insane and blind support of Israel in their genocide against the Palestinian people. Years of this wrongful foreign policy bought and paid for by Israel led us up to the 9-11 tragedy.
10. Conspire with other empire minded nations for a world government in the U.N. to better control all of the people and their governments. Say goodby to freedom, individual sovereignty and peace!
11. Deliberately try to start a Holy war against Islam in order to eliminate a religion that the fascist rulers of our government don’t like in the name of war on terrorism. (Of course, win the upcoming election for the group that is in power now).

The sad thing is that so many of the American people go for this. They shout USA! USA! And would like to see the USA control the whole world. It makes them feel powerful and important. They have grown up without a concept of freedom and peace and the idea of minding our own business. The United States is a warring Empire and not a Free and Peaceful nation.

Does any of this involve the Confederate States of America? Does any of this help the people of the South? Will it help the people of the South that 2/3rds of the planned casualties of this new war they are planning will be the sons, brothers and fathers of the people of the South?

Now, more than ever, the South needs to work to restore the Confederacy and our Southern government that must be independent from this evil Empire of the north and its King otherwise called a President. We do not have to be patsy to the war craze regardless of the imagined dangers. What about China? They have the world’s largest army and air force and they have hydrogen bombs and 10,000 mile missiles. What about Russia?

They have a very large army and air force also, and many hundreds of hydrogen bomb, and long range missiles. What about India? They have a very large army, an air force and atomic bombs. What about Pakistan? They have a powerful military and dozens of atomic bombs and delivery capability.

What about Israel? They have all manner of weapons of mass destruction including over a hundred atomic bombs and delivery capability. Any of these governments might (MIGHT?) decide to attack us. Are we supposed to go to war and attack them first??? How does that differ from what Adolf Hitler did?

No, when the Confederacy is again independent we will not be attacking other nations. We will not be getting involved deeply into their international problems with their neighbors or their own people. That is their business. We have our own business to mind and a republic to rebuild and a people to re-educate for freedom, rights and peace and to live and let live.

We will be a strong nation – too strong to be tempting for others to attack and since we will be peace loving and not involved in their affairs, they will have no cause to hate us. Who hates the Australians? They mostly mind their own business.

Now, more than ever, we must turn our Southern minds, funds and efforts towards building our own political associations and electing our own local officials until we regain our entire Confederacy. We, White, Black, Hispanic and Asiatic, who live in the South should see the wisdom and value of having our own country.

Let the United States try to rule the world and send their boys all over to die. We need not do that unless they come here again to try to rule us. But, our population and economics are about equal now rather than being only about 1/5th of the North in 1861. That should guarantee us peace in itself, and fair trade to boot. Actually, separation would be good for the North as well as the South.

In the name of patriotism shall we be willing to fight to defend our families? We should be willing to fight to defend and protect our families in the name of our families but not because of politics or patriotism but because of the right of self defense.

In the name of patriotism shall we be willing to fight to defend our property?

We should be willing to fight to defend our property regardless of politics or patriotism.

In the name of patriotism shall we be willing to fight to defend our neighbors? In the name of our greater families such as our neighbors we should be willing to fight to defend them as well.

In the name of patriotism shall we be willing to fight to defend our waiving fields of grain and purple

mountains from sea to sea?

Well maybe under the idea that this is our common land and our (ourselves and our neighbors) common property, we should be willing to fight to defend our common territory.

In the name of patriotism shall we band together to fight for our common defense?

Yes, if need be for our common defense we should band together to fight and defend each other.

In the name of patriotism shall we band together to attack other countries who might attack us?

Hold on; what is this might attack us idea? Diligence, awareness and preparedness are the appropriate actions if we or our neighbors suspect another country but have not been actively attacked.

In the name of patriotism shall we go hurriedly into war against countries that have not attacked us?

As a peaceful and freedom loving people, how can we even think about attacking another people who have not attacked us? No!

In the name of patriotism shall we send our sons, brothers, fathers and husbands to die in such a war?

How wildly irrational is that idea. Of course we should not consent to sending our men to die in a war in the name of patriotism or any other “ism” such as a so called war against terrorism.

In the name of patriotism shall we allow our President to essentially declare and prosecute war rather

than have Congress Declare war Constitutionally? No! We should demand that our President obey and uphold our Constitution and not continue to tread the trail of tyrants with executive orders.

In the name of patriotism shall we allow ourselves to be defrauded of our Constitutional rights and freedom? How irresponsible are we as a people to allow our Constitutional rights be usurped away from us in the name of patriotism or any other “ism” .

In the final analysis, this exercise above is given to show how our people are being fooled into losing everything including the lives of their men and more of our rights in the name of patriotism for the ultimate political gain of a few power hungry men desiring to solidify a New World Empire.

Certainly this ambitious political goal of the establishment behind both major political parties in the United States is not in the real interests of the American people, North or South. In particular, this Empire goal is far from the State’s Rights staunch stand of our forefathers and it is alien to the ideals of the Confederate States of America and to those who support the restoration of the Confederacy.

It makes no sense what so ever for those of us in the South to jump at the chance to go fight against Iraq, a nation that has never attacked the United States. Furthermore, our enemies in the Al Queda (Quiada) who have attacked the United States have not attacked targets in the South. Of course, we Southerners are not now functioning as a separate nation (the C.S.A.) because we have been wrongfully occupied and reconstructed for a hundred and thirty-five years.

Instead, our young men are drafted or recruited to fight wars for the North (United States) even though such wars are not generally of our making nor our fault. It has been a game of Empire building and meddling in the affairs of other people throughout the world that has cost us so many lives of our Southern men.

The Federation of States is an organization that among other things works to educate Southerners of all races on their rights as envisioned by the founding fathers. We, Confederate Americans, supported the action by the United States against the Taliban Government of Afghanistan and the Al Queda network whose military arm was operating in Afghanistan because of the idea of being willing to fight to help defend our neighbors in the North.

The Canadian Americans were likewise supportive. The United States and its coalition rapidly defeated the Taliban Government of Afghanistan and substantially damaged the operations of the Al Qaeda network. We applaud that action and victory for they dared attack our Northern neighbors in New York and Washington, D.C., although Osama Ben Laden, their leader, had declared war on the United States.

But, we must now take a stand against this current determination by the Bush Administration to go to war against Iraq. The Bush administration warns that Iraq could be close, perhaps less than a year away, from having an atomic bomb. So what?

Many other nations have it including Pakistan who has had nuclear weapons for nearly two decades and long range delivery capability to boot. Just because we don’t like another nation to develop technology that could be dangerous doesn’t give us the Constitutional nor moral right to go to war against them. Russia, France, Germany and China have advised us against going to war against Iraq as has the Arab League who will deny us use of their territory for a United States war against Iraq.

The British are less than enthusiastic about Bush’s war plan also. The Bush administration could very well touch off a world war against Islamic nations all over the world.

Even if Saddam Hussein did obtain a few atomic bombs, his capability of delivering those in an effective war against the United States is next to zero and would, in any event, be of limited use or value in a war. Clearly other nuclear powers like Russia, France, Great Britain, India or China could and likely would obliterate Iraq in one day if Iraq attacked them with nukes.

A nuclear attack against the homeland of the United States would likewise result in the very rapid destruction of Iraq. Thus, the use of such a weapon of mass destruction against the homeland of the United States or the West would be very irrational and is highly unlikely. Rather, Iraq might use such weapons to defend Iraq from ground invasion and possibly against the Jewish nation of Israel.

But, that is a problem for Israel, not the United States nor the Confederacy. We must stop this idea of being the world’s policemen. That idea furthers the idea of a World Empire which is so alien to the American and/or Confederate dream. We want our freedom and independence and wish to allow other people in other nations to live and let live. We want peace with our neighbors, not war.

A three judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in the portion where it states “one nation under God”.

THE U.S. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE states:
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”

But, the “pledge of allegiance” is not found in the Constitution of the united States nor in the Declaration of Independence. This “Unionist Pledge” was first introduced in a children’s book as part of Yankee Reconstruction of the South in 1892. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the “pledge” was first published in the juvenile periodical “The Youth’s Companion” on Sept. 8, 1892, having been authored by Francis Bellamy, an assistant editor in the following form:

               “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one
nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all.”

Clearly, using the term “my Flag” was an attempt to avoid stirring too much protest among the millions of Confederate believing people still alive in the South. At the same time, the phrase “one nation indivisible” was clearly a Unionist (Federalist) politically correct term intended to be force fed mainly to the school children of the South.

Later, the words “my Flag” was changed to “the flag of the United States of America” in 1924 (after the surge of patriotism which resulted from the U. S. World War I victory). The pledge was finally officially recognized by the U.S. government in 1942. In 1954, at Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s urging, the Congress legislated that “under God” be added, making the pledge read:

               “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The Yankee reconstructionist phrase “one nation indivisible”, is repugnant to the intent of our founding fathers and is anti-State’s Rights because the implication of the phrase is to deny the States the right to withdraw from the Union.

Furthermore, our citizenship in the united States originally was obtained by our citizenship in the State in which we resided and not by allegiance to some national flag. As citizens of a member State, we enjoy the status of citizenship of the Nation which is a compact of States and our loyalty should be to the Constitution (Compact or contract between the States) and not to some national flag.

If you see Southerners these days refusing to pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag or sing the Star Spangled Banner, do not make the knee-jerk mistake of considering them disrespectful or unpatriotic. Rather, conbsider that they may be true Confederate Patriots who are no longer confused about the direction of their patriotism by the propaganda taught by the U.S. government in our schools and the media.

The minds of such Confederate Patriots have been freed from the chains of that propaganda and the scales have fallen from their eyes so that they now see the same path that our forefathers saw in 1776 in the need to establish an independent and free government of the States for the sake of liberty and future happiness and prosperity of their posterity.

Knowledgeable Confederates can but laugh at the mess the 9th Circuit has stirred up for the United States in ruling against a portion of this Yankee pledge of allegiance. In fact, the entire U.S. pledge of allegiance should be discontinued in its present form.

A PROPOSED CONFEDERATE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE would state:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and to the Republic through which it stands, our Nation under God, of Sovereign States, with liberty and Justice for all.

Remember, or learn if you didn’t already know, our founding fathers created the Confederacy in 1778 when they created the Articles of Confederation under which they, with General George Washington, fought and won a war against the British Empire. The Constitution of 1789 was but a more complete contract of government between the various State republics which they began to call the States of America or the “united” States of America.

We suggest that true Americans and Confederates who value the work of our founding fathers in the creation of a truly free nation which gained its independence from Great Britain, learn the above proposed pledge of allegiance and begin claiming their heritage of freedom and independence once again.

On October 29, 2002, we presented questions as to why the Moslem world hated the United States so much in an article entitled “Bad Fruit Result of Decades of One Sided U.S. Policy for the Middle East.” We stated that the time has come for us to look hard at the reasons for the vast hatred of the United State by much of the Moslem world and the roots thereof.

We must not forget the Crusades. In Elizabeth Hallam’s Chronicles of the Crusades she states: “The Crusades were the long-term result of the rise of Islam.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfillment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny. It states that in 1095 A.D. Pope Urban II granted absolutions to whomever would reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. This began a two century war of Catholic Crusades against Moslem tyranny including the elimination of political and territorial control by the more radical sects of the Moslem religion. The wars waged by Catholic Spaniards against the Moors constituted a continual crusade from the eleventh to the sixteenth century.

Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 states the Crusade was a military expedition undertaken by Christians for the recovery of the Holy Land, the scene of our Savior’s life and sufferings, from the power of the infidels or Mohammedans. Several (7 to 9) of these expeditions were carried on from Europe, under the banner of the cross, from which the name originated.

The effect of these crusade expeditions was two fold. They tended to unite the Arab peoples who were mostly Moslems against the Europeans and they resulted in the breaking up of some of the power generated by the earlier expansion of the Mohammedan religion and corresponding empires. Clearly, this history and religious warfare did not endear the Moslem world to the Europeans.

The struggle over the Holy Land, however, has roots which go much further back into history than the Crusades, the Catholic Church or even the time of Christ. About 1450 B.C. Joshua began the military conquest of the lands of the Canaanites which Moses had proclaimed to the twelve tribes of Israel as the land of milk and honey that the Lord God had proclaimed for them.

DEUTERONOMY 27:3. And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee. JOSHUA 5:6. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey. JOSHUA 3:10. And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

Many chapters of Joshua involve the conquest by the army of the twelve tribes of Israel of the land upon which they founded the Kingdom of Israel.

JOSHUA 24:13. And I have given you a land for which ye did not labour, and cities which ye built not, and ye dwell in them; of the vineyards and oliveyards which ye planted not do ye eat.

But, Ancient Israel developed for themselves a civil war which greatly weakened them and broke the nation into two countries; the Northern Kingdom of Israel (comprised the Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali and half of the Tribe of Levi and the Southern Kingdom of Judah (comprised mostly the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin and half of the Tribe of Levi). The Northern Kingdom of Israel was over run and conquered by the Assyrians about 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah was conquered by Babylonia about 598 B.C.

While the Tribe of Judah was only one of twelve tribes with ancient Biblical inheritances in the land of Israel, most of the Northern Tribes were carried away into captivity by the Assyrians and most of the Tribe of Judah was taken into Babylonian captivity. Some religious scholars believe that the Jews forfeited their religious claim to land of ancient Israel by falling away and that God therefor allowed their removal from the land.

When the Tribe of Judah was returned to Jerusalem 70 years later the country was called Judea, not the Kingdom of Judah. This area became known as Jerusalem under the Roman Empire. It is loosely called the Holy Land today comprising part of Lebanon, Palestine and Israel and being surrounded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

After the end of World War II certain powerful Jewish banking families, especially the Rothschilds, pushing through the Balfour declaration, moved to create a nation for the Jews in Palestine and re-assert their supposed ancient claims to that land based upon the days of Moses and Joshua in spite of the fact that for around 2500 years various other people, families, tribes and nations retained or bought and owned estates, farms, territory and infrastructure there. Great Britain, in accordance with the Balfour declaration, began transporting displaced Jewish refugees to Palestine.

Palestinian inhabitants living there were wrongfully and illegally displaced by force and terrorism, usually without any compensation. The Jews now claim historical land rights in the area of Ancient Israel based on the Biblical (Torah) accounts and they claim all of the land of Israel as their own, not just 1/12th of it. Europe’s support for this has not endeared the displaced Palestinians to the West.

The powerful banking families pushing this political/religious conquest of Palestine allowed the brutal killing and removal of the families living there and carved out a new modern state they called “Israel”. The predominant political movement behind this was termed Zionism. Much political and economic power was exerted among the Western countries to gain international acceptance of the Zionist idea and recognition of this new state regardless of protests and claims by the displaced Palestinians.

Much trouble has been stirred up over this new state of Israel. The United States and Britain were pressured int becoming major financial benefactors of this new state. In fact, huge sums of money (in the hundreds of billions of dollars) have been granted and spent by the United States (tax payer’’s money) in supporting and maintaining this new state called “Israel”. Many Jews have migrated to Israel from the United States, Europe and Russia to take advantage of this territorial aggression.

Various trouble was further stirred up by the Zionist leaders in Israel to justify Israel in militarily seizing even more territory from the surrounding neighbors and States in order to enlarge the territory of Israel (reminiscent of the Nazi Germany style of justifying their conquest of land in the 1940s for more living room). Surprisingly, the Zionists who were and are today the dominant political force in Israel took measures to exclude groups of Orthodox Jews and other persons of Jewish descent because of their more peaceful political views towards the Palestinians.

Twenty some odd nations (with mostly Moslem populations), namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia all became involved in fighting Zionist Terrorism and aggression being perpetrated by the State of Israel against Palestine. Wars have been fought involving most of these countries against Israel, but with the strong support of and military aid from the United States, Zionist Israel survives as a nation.

Generations of Moslem Arabs have learned to despise the United States for its apparent unfair foreign policy in supporting Israel in spite of her illegal actions against the helpless Palestinian people. Finally, although some Arab nations have come to recognize the right of Israel to exist, they also insist that the Palestinians be allowed to exist as well. Since these Arab nations and the Palestinians are largely Moslem, and since Israel seized the Holy Land including a key Moslem Mosque, it has developed deeply among the Moslems to oppose this Zionism which they identify as Jewish and thus the people, especially those under Israeli occupation tend to hate the Jews and their benefactors.

Several generations of Moslems have been raised under this general hatred of Israel, the Jews and Americans because we have been supporting Israel in such an obviously biased way. And now Israel has militarily invaded Palestine once again and has refused to pull its troops out in spite of a unanimous vote for that pull out by the United Nations and by direct insistence by President Bush for an immediate pull back of the Israeli Army. The Israeli military invasion of Palestine is fanning the flames of the Islamic Jihad against Israel and the West and will result in even more suicide bombings and possible military attacks by Moslem states.

The Zionists are trying to hide behind Bush’s War on Terrorism by claiming that the violent resistance being mounted by the Palestinian people against naked Jewish military aggression is terrorism. But, it is becoming rather brutally clear that Israel is a terrorist State fomenting some of the most severe forms of terrorism in the world today.

Bush repeats Mideast withdrawal demand
President says “I meant what I said” on call for immediate end to Israeli offensive

Even some of the American conservatives (and liberals) who are blinded by the politically correct propaganda to support Israel no matter what are finding it harder and harder to swallow the idea that the Palestinian people (victims) are the terrorists (acting in resistance mostly within their own occupied Palestine) against the Israeli Zionist invaders with their tanks, machine guns, attack helicopters and jet fighters.

The stark similarities of Hitler’s Nazis of World War II and of Sharon’s Zionists of today are sinking in. It isn’t a pleasant realization. And we Americans are getting the blame, shedding blood and having to spend money because of it. In fact, our defense of Zionist Israel is obviously the most immediate reason for 9-11 and the hatred of Islam against us. The Islamic radicals are now waging a Jihad against the United States which could easily fan into a World Religious War with the Moslem world which could be very bloody and bitter.

Clearly, the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with secure borders, having its own tanks and jet fighters with world pressure upon them to cease the suicide attacks against Jewish interests, would provide the area a real chance to establish peace and even commerce. This would be in our national interest because it would take the steam out of the Islamic Jihad against the United States and preserve the West’s access to oil supplies in the Middle East.

The idiotic idea that foreigners who attack our forces and installations overseas are somehow entitled to be protected by the United States Constitution is really a stretch of sanity. Non-citizen aliens who are in the United States on visas are entitled to our Constitutional protections as a comity offered by the Executive Branch (Immigration) to visitors. However, there is no excuse other than liberal appeasement for illegal aliens in our country to be given the same constitutional rights as American citizens or legal aliens.

And certainly, people in other lands are not entitled to anything in our Constitution. They have their own laws and their own constitutions.

The mistaken concept that soldiers of the Taliban Regime are:

Not really soldiers under the Geneva Convention is a strange, but a possible conclusion. That the al Qaida fighters are unlawful combatants is also a strange, but even a more possible conclusion under the Geneva Convention. But the confusion being sown out of ignorance of or out of deliberate interference with our laws that the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Courts somehow have jurisdiction over those Taliban and/or al Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan is ridiculous.

Clearly, United States Courts have no jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories. Afghanistan is not a territory of the United States. Even the leased U.S. Department of Defense Naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba is not a U.S. Territory, but a lease contract allowing the U.S. Navy to use the base for military purposes. This lease for the base does not even rise to the level of an Embassy, which could be considered U.S. Territory.

Jurisdiction at Camp X-ray clearly lies with the Department of Defense because it houses captured enemy combatants for wartime detention. Neither the Department of Justice nor the U.S. Court system has any jurisdiction whatsoever at this military base in Cuba.

Finally, capturing fighters or soldiers in a foreign land and transporting them to the United States does not miraculously give the Department of Justice and the U.S. Courts jurisdiction over them. Jurisdiction remains with the capturing army and the Department of Defense.

If, as in the John Walker case, a captured enemy soldier turns out to be an American citizen, the matter becomes a little more fuzzy. If a U.S. citizen had been captured in civilian cloths in the United States, but was clearly working for the enemy in time of war, he could be classified as a spy and a traitor and would likely be executed.

If a foreigner were captured in civilian cloths in the United States who was proven to be knowingly working for the enemy in time of war the foreigner would be classified as a spy and would likely be executed. If there were those found to be spies operating in the United States during time of war, those would likely be tried by the Department of Justice and perhaps be executed as spies.

But, if there had been enemy soldiers in the uniform of the enemy country that was at war with the United States when they were captured in the United States, they could not be classified as spies, but the American among them would be tried in U. S. Courts for treason.

However, John Walker was an enemy soldier captured in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance who was also fighting the Taliban government. The charge of treason in U.S. Courts fails for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the evidence shows that Walker joined with these unsavory Taliban/al Qaida groups well before 9-11 and evidence is scarce that he had any control over such events that later unfolded including the armed combat against United States forces.

Now, under the articles of war, the United States military has jurisdiction over the territory and population it conquers and controls during war and therefore may try enemy soldiers as well as enemy officials for war crimes in the conquered territory or elsewhere under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.

The Department of Justice may not be able to try John Walker for treason, but the Department of Defense can and should hold a Military Tribunal to establish the facts that Walker joined and fought in the enemy army that was fighting the United States and that he was aware of the September 11 attack that was unleashed upon America.

That is adequate grounds from stripping the U.S. Citizenship away from John Walker. Such a Tribunal could then refer the case to the Department of Immigration who would strip the U.S. citizenship away from John Walker and then permanently deport him to Afghanistan where he might be tried as a member of al Qaida by Afghanistani Courts. That is the legal way of handling the Walker case.

It is a grave error for the Bush administration to allow the Department of Justice to try Walker for his crimes committed in another country. This establishes the precedence that the U. S. Department of Justice and the U. S. Courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Americans in any country in the world.

We ask the United States how they think the U. S. Courts have jurisdiction over an American, John Walker, captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan? There is no argument that the U.S. Military in Afghanistan has jurisdiction over captured enemy troops in Afghanistan as part of the conquering military and thus the U.S. Department of Defense has jurisdiction over Walker, but by what process does this jurisdiction transfer to the Justice Department and/or the U.S. Courts? Do we see evidence of the establishment of the EMPIRE OF THE UNITED STATES over other countries of the world?

In the case of the British citizens who were captured fighting for the Taliban, those should be turned over to the British Military who was an ally of the United States in the Afghanistani war and they also have battlefield jurisdiction as does our military. If the British request detention of those three British citizens in the U.S. Military Detention camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, then that is another matter. They still would be under the Jurisdiction of the British military.

The question of whether the Taliban fighters should be considered soldiers of a nation or simply unlawful combatants is open to interpretation of the Geneva Convention statutes and world pressure. Either way, they are entitled to humane treatment during detention by the United States which they are receiving and which exceeds the requirements of the Geneva Convention.

Legal provisions exist to allow the International Red Cross to investigate the conditions of detention at Camp X-ray and report this to the international community. This is being done at the present. But, these enemy detainees are not entitled to the rights of the U.S. Constitution under any law or convention.

Instead, the captured and detained enemy fighters and officials should be questioned and those where evidence supports charges of war crimes, the United States Department of Defense should try such by the U.S. Military Tribunals and/ or perhaps by a Nuremberg type Tribunal in the Hague. Again, U.S. Courts have no jurisdiction in such foreign cases during wartime.

As for bleeding heart liberals from other countries as well as here in the United States including various Human Rights groups who are raising the issue that we are not treating the captured Taliban/al Qaida fighters as well as they think we should comes very close (in a time of continuing war against terrorism) to their harboring our enemies, and offering them aid and comfort, a Constitutional definition of treason for those within the United States. And as for such foreign liberals who are espousing this filth against us in favor of these captured enemy troops, why should we not investigate them for harboring and comforting our enemies and perhaps take steps to cut off their funds as we do the al Qaida?

 

 Our founding fathers envisioned a government composed of several Colony States wherein each Colony State would mostly govern itself, but where the several Colony States would band together for common defense similar to treaties and alliances between several nations, which is largely what existed under the Articles of Confederation of 1779. Each Colony State had representatives that sat as a body to attempt to gain coordination and cooperation among this Confederation of Colonial States of America.

Realizing several shortcomings in the loose knit association under the Articles of Confederation, these early leaders hammered out a more complete contract of government under the Constitution of 1789 which more firmly established a separate Colony State in Washington, D.C. whose purpose was to effect more coordination among the various independently governed Colony States.

Care was taken, however, to avoid allowing too much power to be centered in Washington at the expense of the freedom and sovereignty of the various States. Each State was allowed to pick two Senators and elect Congressmen in accordance with their enumeration according to census.

These States were therefore Corporate States with the owners being the citizens of such States. A rich man had no more theoretical ownership in the Corporate State than did the poor man. Of course the rich man had more of an opportunity to effect influence upon the officers of the Corporate State than did the poor man. But, then, the rich man had a greater property interest to be concerned about than the poor man, whether gained by inheritance, genius and good management or by hook and crook.

In those days the idea of individuals being granted corporate charters by the Corporate States had not yet developed. Men operated their businesses and estates as sole proprieties, partnerships or trusts. A State chartered corporation is similar to a State granted franchise which are operated and governed independent of the granting State so long as the officers of the corporation abide by State law and regulations within their corporation.

The first corporations appeared in America in the 17th-century, during capitalism’s infancy. At the time, World Power governments (Monarchies) chartered all corporations-that is, it gave them a specific public mission in exchange for the formal right to exist. The Colonies in America were settled by one such corporation, the Massachusetts Bay Company, which King Charles I chartered in 1628 in order to colonize the New World.

In the infancy of the republic, Americans gave little thought to corporations. In 1787, fewer than 40 corporations operated in the United States. These were mostly franchise charters issued to merchants and shippers by the British East India Company. Later some of the Colonies organized non profit corporations for drainage projects, ferries and bridges, etc. for the benefit of the citizenry of their Colony.

In the 18th century, public enlightenment challenged this model of economic organization by putting forward the idea that people need not be subjects in feudal structures but could act as individuals. American revolutionaries, inspired by radical notions of “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” fought for independence not only from the British Crown, but from the corporate bodies it had chartered. The Boston Tea Party, for example, was a protest against the British East India Company’s monopoly of Eastern trade and the King’s right to extract unfair taxation.

Thomas Jefferson saw the danger to our Republic of Republics and stated:

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

But, as these chartered corporations, chartered banks included, grew in size and wealth and in citizenship (stockholders) they became political as well as economic powerhouses. This was to some extent a result of the fact that they employed large groups of workers as well as their economic power. The War of Northern Aggression against the Confederate States of America provided great profits for Northern Corporations. Even Abraham Lincoln (Not exactly a favorite of Confederates) saw the danger and said in 1865:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

But the men running the country’s corporations were not sitting idly by during this time. Contests over charters and the chartering process were not abstractions. They were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. When workers began to organize, industrialists and bankers hired private armies to keep them in line. Undoubtedly, one of the most severe blows to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886.

The Supreme court ruled in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the U.S. Constitution, sheltered by the Bill of Rights and the l4th Amendment. Corporate power, now virtually unchecked, owned resources, production, commerce, trade, prices, jobs, politicians, judges and the law. Over the next half century, as a United States congressional committee concluded in 1941:

“The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power….”

An economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ’30s as “corporatism,” was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.”

“Fascism” is simply a form of Corporate Government mostly controlled by a number of Chartered Corporations, also termed Corporatism and Capitalism. It is therefore a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations at the expense of the liberty, sovereignty and security of the people under it and for the subjection of the workers therein. Capitalism does not equal Free Enterprise. Fascism stifles Free Enterprise and small businesses and the rights and welfare of the people.

A truly Fascist (Corporatist) government greatly resembles a dictatorship or a monarchy (the Crown) being supported by a group of corporate Lords favored by the Crown and a myriad of chartered corporations franchised by the Crown. The Crown, in the case of the USA is a President and the Knights of the Round Table are the National Security Council.

Fascism does not lend itself well to Democracy (Fascistic Democracy), except as a guise with fake elections between controlled political parties. But, Fascism blends well with Socialism (some State ownership of property and/or partnership with businesses), i.e., a Socialistic Democracy(dictatorship) disguised as a Democracy and perhaps called a Republic. Many nations call themselves “Republics” such as the Communist nation called “The People’s Republic of China”. Of course that does not make them actual republics. China is more of a Dictatorial Socialistic Democracy.

A Fascist Government, (Corporate Control of Government and the laws) is a direct enemy of a Democratic Republic (We the People’s Control of Government subject to the Constitution). The United States today is a Fascistic Government of International (Empire) designs.

Many unsavory Fascist Lords are behind the scene pulling strings of power over the government of the United States. Fascist Governors and Representatives are elected due to corporate financing.

The Republican Party under Lincoln was as it is today, largely made up of supporters of Fascism (Controlled Capitalism). Some of the key Democrats also fall into this camp in spite of their party labels. The harder core of these Corporatists fully support the idea of a New World Order.

The Republican conservative hard liners are more behind the Bush Family goals of establishing an International Fascist Empire with the United States at the helm. The more liberal of these Corporatists prefer a New World Order under the United Nations. Either way, we the people have lost our Republic of Democratic Republics.

We the People lost this more substantially by our defeat in the War of Northern (Corporatist) Aggression. We lost more with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the illegal 16th Amendment. The final blow actually came in 1933 with Franklin Roosevelt’s illegal suspension of the U.S. Constitution. (The nearly identical Constitution of the Confederate States of America, however, has never been suspended and will be of full force upon the Restoration of the Confederacy).

The definition of a Democratic Republic is: A political system based on contractual law (Constitution) governed by the people through their democratically elected representatives. Our founding fathers created for us a Republic of Democratic Republics (National Republic made up of State Democratic Republics) which reserved unto the States and the people therein all powers not directly granted to the National Republic.

A Democracy (Mobocracy) is: A political system based upon the whims of the majority of the people irrespective of Constitutional law and governed by their directly elected representatives in a form of mob rule. Minorities (heavily financed by certain tax exempt foundations) are able to gather mobs and march on Washington, often gaining their desires simply due to their showing and irrespective of Constitutional law or the desires of the majority.

In a Democracy, if a mob becomes a majority then the remaining minorities have no real protection of the law. There is little difference between a Pure Democracy and Communism in regards to the actual governing of the people except that communism may encompass complete State ownership of property, production and distribution with individual initiative, free enterprise and private profits being banned.

Communism is simply Democratic Socialism with or without a specifically named Communist Party. While pure and theoretical Communism and Fascism clash, no pure Communism has ever existed on the Earth. Rather there has been the veneer of Communism for the masses to believe while, in fact, a sharp dictatorship actually ran those communist governments.

A Constitutional Republic of Democratic Republics is a legally defined balance between rule by constitutional law and representatives of the people. The balance is precarious and not easily maintained due to the greed of men for power and money. A Republic of Democratic Republics was the intent of our founding fathers for us and this was the intent of the Confederate States of America to restore, both in 1861 and today by those working for the restoration of the Confederacy.

On a National CSA level this type of government gives substantial representation to the various Sovereign States whereas on a Confederate State level, the people rule democratically according to their State Constitutions with little or no interference from the National CSA Government. State’s Rights reigns except in National Defense and multi-State disputes.

One of the main things that has brought the U.S. Republic of Republics down is the onslaught of corporations and their increasing power. Yet, a new Southern Nation can hardly hope to survive economically if it bans corporations. Something must be offered in return for reigning in corporate power in the South.

An idea exists based upon the reality that in the U.S. today there exists not 50 States, but several hundred States considering that large Corporations exert essentially the same if not greater power in Washington than do the States. Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries.

Actually, today our States are more like Corporations partly owned by the Federal Corporation in Washington since they are substantially funded by the Federal Government. Meanwhile, large Chartered Corporations also exist with economic power and political influence exceeding some States. This form of government was not envisioned nor desired by our founding fathers.

Nor shall this be the form of government in a restored Confederacy which will emphasis State’s rights and substantial State sovereignty. More burden of government will be shifted to our cities and counties, and of course, our States and less burden and authority will be given the national CSA government.

A restored Confederate States of America government will have to deal with the problem of corporation and labor control to prevent damage to the then newly restored CSA Republic of Republics and also protect the companies and workers. New ideas designed to help both the corporations of the South and the workers therein must be introduced. Limitations upon the power of both groups also must be established.

A bill that could be passed by the new CSA government could be a Retirement Act requiring companies (employers) to pay into a retirement fund for workers after a probation period of one year. This retirement fund would transfer with the worker from one employer to another and would not be cashable by the worker or his assigns prior to his disability, retirement after 25 years, attainment of the age of 65 or death.

This fund would be on deposit with the Treasury of the Confederate States of America maturing to the benefit of said employee. The retirement fund would become fully funded after 25 years of employment and the fund would be set aside awaiting the worker’s retirement, disability or death. Should the worker continue to work a new retirement fund would begin which would be payable on top of the completed fund set aside allowing for a better retirement for longer working employees.

When transferring to a new employer, the worker would undergo a new probationary period of one year. Retirement payments would be rendered by the Treasury of the Confederate States of America and would be in addition to any social security that the worker might receive. The probation period for changing employers would tend to cause hesitancy on the part of the workers to change companies and develop more loyalty by the worker to his present employer.

Another Confederate bill that would be needed would be a Worker/Employer Responsibility Act. The ideas of this bill would be two fold. First, after a 30 day probationary period with a new company, the new employee would begin to vest longevity with the employer.

Thereafter, for each quarter of a year of employment with the firm, including the probationary period, the employee would build one week of separation pay at full salary or earnings, payable if fired or laid off, but not paid if the employee quits on his own without valid cause such as company harassment, etc.

The employers would be required to set aside this fund for each employee in a trust fund with the interest accruing to the benefit of the company, but beyond the reach of creditors. The various States would be asked to assure that such funds for workers in their states be current and that separation pay be paid promptly by the firms involved.

Should an employee quit or die the separation pay fund for that employee would be released back to the employer. But, employees who are forced to quit by harassment or threats shall be entitled to separation pay at double their highest salary or earnings.

An employer could require an employee to retire after 25 years with the firm without paying the separation pay. If the employee is hired again after his 25th year, he would start as a new employee at a new negotiated salary or earning scale and for purposes of separation pay benefits.

The effect of this bill would be to cause hesitation prior to firing or laying off employees on the part of company management. To fire or lay off an employee with say 18 years of employment with the firm would cost the firm 18 months of full salary or earnings plus benefits. Companies would need to think twice about irresponsible layoffs to achieve profits.

If layoffs were still needed, clearly, it would be better to retrain the employees with the most longevity and experience and would be more economical to lay off a more recently hired workers. Employees would develop more trust in the security of their job the longer they were with a firm, thus assisting in worker loyalty and the retention by the firm of the more experienced workers.

Other ideas would be the responsibility of the government of the Confederate States of America, especially in the curtailment of some of the power and authority of Corporations operating in the South to prevent monopoly and encourage new free enterprise companies.

A bill should be passed making it a felony for any employee of a Corporation or Bank or any other business to donate directly or indirectly any funds of the business to a any political candidate either State or national in the Confederate States of America. Individuals should be allowed to make donations from their own funds of any amount up to limit of $100,000.00 to each political candidate as they may so desire for State or national office in the Confederacy

These measures would be a good beginning in the curtailment of the power of Corporations and other business conglomerates over government in favor of returning power to the people under their Constitution.

 Was not the creation of the United States of America a result of an independence movement against the then world order of the British Empire? Yea verily it was.

Did not the success of George Washington and the valiant few (3-5% of the Colonial population) who stood with him pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the cause of American independence inspire other people to rebel and seek independence from the world’s colonial powers? Yea verily it did.

Did not these our forefathers Declare Independence on July 4, 1776 and then form a Confederacy of Colonies (States) under the Articles of Confederation of 1779 as an interim government? Yea verily they did.

Furthermore, was it not the desire and intent of these brave revolutionary American leaders to establish a more perfect union amongst their several states by preparing and signing a Constitution of 1789 which guaranteed a union of State Republics maintaining State’s rights and local government rather than allowing a new monarchy of a federal union to rule under a provisional king called President? Yea verily history clearly shows that was their intent.

Our founding fathers made provisions for a short term President to be elected by the states and planned for a fractured government to be installed under an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch to safeguard against the usurpation of power under the federal aspects of the union bureaucracy in favor of State’s rights and local control of most of the government. Yea, this they did.

Was this a perfect government and were our founding fathers without error? No, of course not. But, they formed the most magnificent new government against world monarchies that recent history had seen.

Benjamin Franklin reportedly answered when asked what kind of government had they formed as follows: On Sept 18, 1787 in response to a Mrs. Powell’s question. “Well doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?” B. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Did we keep it? No, I am afraid history firmly shows we did not keep it.

Soon, powerful and rich forces began vying for more power and economic control over each other among the former colonies. They began to bend the Constitution and the intent of the founders thereof and in some cases, even justifying violating some parts of that Constitution to further their private aims of wielding unfair economic advantage over others and in seeking more federal power. By the 1830’s the situation had become a serious conflict between various states, not all in the south either.

The final blow was the election of a known unscrupulous immoral man who championed the northern mercantile and industrial powers by desiring to consolidate, even more, federal power over the states and to build an even more powerful federal bureaucracy.

Especially in the southern agricultural states, but even including states in the East and large segments of populations in certain northern states, the election of Abraham Lincoln (a slave owner and believer in Negro inferiority) was seen as a final blow against the Republic referred to by Benjamin Franklin. Welcome to seldom mentioned facts about Abraham Lincoln who was championed as a hero by world communists and the Yankee Republican administration in Washington.

The result was the rapid secession of seven states and the formation of a new and independent nation called the Confederate States of America, carefully designed around the original intent of and the U. S. Constitution of 1789 itself. President Jefferson Davis (who owned no slaves) was elected as President of the CSA and Robert E. Lee (who owned no slaves) was made General of the Northern Virginia Army. The Capital of this new nation copied after that Confederacy founded by our founding fathers was Richmond, Virginia.

The President of the United States was still James Buchanan, pending the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. President Buchanan recognized the right of those seven states to secede and to form their own nation. He ordered the peaceful turn over of the forts, ports and naval yards in the south to troops of the new Confederacy. It appeared to most that the new CSA and the USA would be able to make this adjustment peacefully and continue as friends, neighbors and relatives as well as trading partners.

That all changed immediately upon the inauguration of the new Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who had corresponded with communist Karl Marx who was in exile in London. Lincoln ordered a cessation of the peaceful turnover of forts in the south to the CSA and then ordered a military attack upon the new country in a terrible war of Northern aggression reminiscent of the two British wars against American independence.

The Northern Yankee armies greatly outnumbered the Southern Confederate armies and the CSA did not have the resource reserves that the USA had and thus, by 1865, several of the Confederate armies had collapsed which is when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Northern Virginia Army. Four other Confederate generals continued the war, mainly in Texas, Oklahoma and the Arizona Territory for 18 months longer.

Although, President Jefferson Davis was captured and imprisoned by Lincoln, he refused to surrender the Confederate States of America government. He was later released due to pressure by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, all of the Confederate soldiers just ran out of ammunition and food and simply went home.

The north sent in their armies, under orders from Lincoln, and replaced all of the State governments with governors and legislatures favorable to Washington without the will of the southern people being allowed. This was the beginning of the severe repression of the South called “Reconstruction”, which to some extent is still being practiced today both politically and economically against the South.

Men and women in the South have lately been attempting to educate their people with the idea of the Restoration of the legal government of the Confederate States of America. The main focus of this restoration of the CSA, however, is to accomplish this politically at the State levels and to avoid any type of military or terrorist action. The world has just seen a phenomenal breakup of the U.S.S.R. into independent nations.

The independence from Russia has mostly been accomplished with little or no bloodshed. Scotland has finally been able to re-establish a major degree of independence from Great Britain by electing their own legislature. The timing seems right for southerners interested in their Confederate heritage to begin anew in pushing for the restoration of the independent government of the Confederate States of America.

Yet, since the World Trade Center’s destruction of September 11, 2001, and the resulting war against terrorism, three things have happened. There has been a resurgence of patriotism for the United States after this attack which to some extent drained away some Confederate Patriotism, there has been a strong increase in police activity against possible terrorist groups in the United States and worldwide, and there has been the failure to differentiate between terrorist groups and separatist or independence groups.

President Bush’s Coalition appears to be working towards stopping all independence movements by stamping out such citizen’s movements in favor of maintaining established governments. The Bush Coalition does not seem to differentiate between terrorist groups and legitimate independence or separatist groups.

To be sure, first there were communist led and financed revolutions, which used terrorism and guerrilla military force to gain control of certain countries.

And then, since the apparent collapse of communism, we have seen the rise of Islamic militants and terrorists such as those financed mostly out of Saudi Arabia known as al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan who seem to focus on trying to establish a world-wide Islamic State and spread Islamism amongst the Moslem world.

But, we also see separatist groups who are Islamic in Kashmir and in the Philippine Islands and Indonesia.

Then we see the Middle East mess with Israel fighting against what they call Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinians claiming to be fighting for their independence and statehood.

The Bush administration must define “Terrorist and Terrorism” in order to be able to impartially differentiate between these various groups as to which are Terrorist and which are genuine independence movements.

Are India and Pakistan Terrorist States in their wars and other terrorist activities over Kashmir? The question cannot be answered impartially by Washington until they learn how to differentiate between terrorism and resistance or independence movements.

From a Confederate point of view, then, we would offer the following constructive suggestions:

Terrorism is where any individual, group or nation uses deadly force to attack another individual, group or nation. (State Criminal laws exist in the United States in connection with one individual attacking another with assaultive or deadly force and this is usually not termed a terrorist act, but a criminal act.)

But, where one group attacks another group, such as gang or mob warfare, and uses assaultive or deadly force, the term terrorism seems to apply, even though we may have criminal laws on the books to handle the problem.

Where a group organized in one nation attacks a group within another nation or the other nation itself, that is clearly international terrorism. Where one State attacks another State with assaultive and/or deadly force, this is clear terrorism otherwise called acts of war.

Finally, where a group within an occupied nation attacks the occupying forces within their own occupied territory, this takes on the clear appearance of resistance or an independence movement even if deadly force is used. Such groups should not be labeled “Terrorist” unless they cross into an occupying nation to launch their attack, but then it may have been in response to a new invasion or atrocities committed by the occupying nation that justified such a seemingly terrorist action.

(A hypothetical question to highlight this example would be as follows: Suppose that England had been a physical neighbor with a common land border with the colonies during the English war against the American Independence movement. Would it have been terrorism for General Washington to invade, with deadly force, London in retaliation?)

Another example of a violent war of resistance is the war for Irish Catholic independence being fought by the IRA in Northern Ireland.

However, an example of interest to Confederate Americans is the drive for independence by the people of Quebec which has been peaceful and patient and which appears likely to win their independence during this decade.

The war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan ended officially on December 22, 2001 when the new provisional government of Afghanistan took office. There will be mop up operations hunting down Oaeda and Taliban leaders, but the Bush administration will now seek terrorism in other countries including the United States.

We call for President Bush to better define and differentiate terrorism from resistance or acts of liberation so that the war on terrorism can have more definite limits and true secessionist or freedom movements not be hindered by the United States or its Coalition.