posted on June 8, 2002 01:26:58 PM new
Helen - How can you call someone's comments anti-american simply because they object to the current policies of the unelected Bush regime?
Because I can. Because that's the way I see them. Like overthrowing the government....etc. And it's not just the current administrations policies that he complains about....it appears to me to be anyone one in government. He's entitled to his opinion...and I'm entitled to say how they come across to me.
And unelected Helen??? Still beating that dead horse? Like it or not, he's the President of the USA....get used to it.
"It's George Bush that is anti-American" I disagree. You may not like any of his administrations policies, but to call him anti-american is a joke.
Why don't YOU check out the facts that you question? Or, Cheryl invites her readers to email her with questions. Yeah, like I really care what one radical persons opinion is....especially hers.
posted on June 8, 2002 01:54:07 PM new
The genuine, traditional conservative forces in the nation appear to be increasingly divorcing themselves from the Bush administration with its totalitarian aspirations. Judicial Watch will get no information, but they make a significant political statement that taking the form of a lawsuit is difficult for the media to ignore.
Associated Press
Saturday, June 8, 2002; Page A11
A conservative group is suing the Bush administration for access to documents about last fall's anthrax attacks, asserting that top officials might have known the bioterrorist attack was coming.
Judicial Watch said yesterday it has yet to receive documents from several agencies after filing requests under the Freedom of Information Act. The group says the documents will show who knew what, and when.
Judicial Watch, which also has sued for documents about Vice President Cheney's energy task force, represents U.S. postal workers at the Brentwood post office in the District. Two workers from Brentwood died of inhalation anthrax before officials closed the site, which had handled anthrax-laden letters headed to Capitol Hill.
Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, said administration officials said last fall that some White House staff members had begun taking the antibiotic Cipro on Sept. 11, weeks before the anthrax attacks were made public.
"We believe that the White House knew or had reason to know that an anthrax attack was imminent or underway," Klayman said. "We want to know what the government knew and when they knew it."
"We did not know about the anthrax attacks. Period!" said Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman.
Johndroe said he did not know why staffers were given Cipro but guessed it was "a precautionary measure in the early hours of Sept. 11 before the situation could be fully assessed."
He said he has not seen the lawsuit and had no comment on whether the administration would release the documents.
Judicial Watch is suing the U.S. Postal Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Federal agencies have come under fire for failing to realize that the postal workers at Brentwood were at risk for anthrax even after an anthrax letter was discovered on Capitol Hill and treatment had begun for Senate staffers. Health officials have said they did not realize then that anthrax could have escaped a sealed envelope.
Klayman said the mistake goes beyond a bad judgment call.
"They deliberately withheld information," he said. "The political elite, they'll be protected from day one. The ordinary folks will be treated in a lesser fashion."
posted on June 8, 2002 02:43:17 PM new
So, the staffers deserve a precautionary dose of cipro but the postal workers do not? Judicial Watch should win this case without even trying.
Now, SEVERAL AGENCIES have not responded to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that news about this lawsuit travels all over the world.
posted on June 8, 2002 04:17:11 PM new"Borillar you've been on here a long time...your comments are usually anti-american."
Excuse me? It's been polite up to now between us, but I think you've cut the cord between us with that statement! I really take offence at that directed personal attack on me. I haven't made any on you and your post is out of line with AW policy and Guidelines. If I was like some other people, I'd be running home to Momma complaining IN WRITING. As it is, that is an obscence comment directed towards me personally and you have lowered yourself below anybody's expectations of you for it. I can see by your statement that you no longer wish to be civil towards one another on here - don't let anyone from hereon say that I started the Dirt.
posted on June 8, 2002 06:02:43 PM new
first off Bonilar is right about el savings and loano,
and while I am at it desquirrel I do not buy the accuracy of the pollsters if they were accurate Jesse Ventura would still be a wrestler. I hope the chemical data you use is more accurate than that.
Yellowstone I generally agree with you but i think you miss the big picture, we have not had a 2 party form of government since the 60's. who is in jail for the 60 billion missing from the savings and loans.? The fact is is that none of the investigations into anything ever result in anything because its a scam, like the blue ribbon fact finding comission on revenge of the nerds and while we are on that subject.
we are not running the country based on what rednecks in small towns think or on what a coffee house in ann arbor might come up with. we are running it based on the ravings of a tiny gang in hollywood.
posted on June 8, 2002 06:43:17 PM new
Borillar
I read Linda_k's post and it doesn't look to me to be a personal attack instead it's an observation. However, my observations show that you have made statements that do appear to me to be anti-American in that they can be construed as threats against the President.
Or do we just all go and grab some good old-fashioned Tar & Feathers and string the rascal up from the nearest tree branch?
In krs' thread "Courts Uphold Rights of Aliens" you made the following statement where you accuse Bush of being anti-American;
Bush is so anti-American that it's a wonder that Americans are too stupid to see it.
You invite this sort of conversation or did you mean something else by your statements in the "Pet Peaves" thread
Yes, my attempts to lure them in do seem senile, but that is how you have to trap Republicans and conservatives if you want to catch them in debate.
I think that if you read my commentaries (and rants) long enough, you'll see that I'm just trying to stir up conversation.
.....and then you cry foul, but you will be heald accountable for your statements.
posted on June 8, 2002 07:11:47 PM newadministration officials said last fall that some White House staff members had begun taking the antibiotic Cipro on Sept. 11, weeks before the anthrax attacks were made public.
They're toast. If they had just a few brains, they'd have been given doxycycline,which is effective, but was not FDA approved for anthrax. Cipro usage in the White House staff raises the huge question as to who knew what and when.
From the FDA site here:
Cipro (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride) therapy should not be begun in the absence of suspected or confirmed exposure to aerosolized Bacillus anthracis. Cipro reduces the risk of severe disease following exposure, but does not prevent exposure to aerosolized Bacillus anthracis. If a person is exposed to B. anthracis, the risk of adverse events caused by Cipro (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride) therapy may be acceptable because of the severity of this disease.However, in the absence of exposure, the risk of these side effects may not be acceptable.
bolding mine
Let's see the lab reports documenting those bacterial infections. Oh, it was prophylactic? Against what?
fixubb
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Jun 8, 2002 07:13 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2002 07:38:44 PM new
I'm not sure, but I think that there had been a confirmed case of an anthrax attack before the attacks involved in these suits...maybe in Florida?
In that case, the cipro may have been used as a prophylactic aganist anthrax. But I don't understand why the postal workers were not given the drug along with the staff workers.
It would help to have a chronological
list of the cases.
Helen
sp.ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on Jun 8, 2002 07:40 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2002 07:50:23 PM new
Yellowstone, I'm not crying Foul at Linda_K's assessment of the content of my remarks - that's her opinion. But we have had a good relationship so far on here, and that is what I was decrying.
Yellowstone, as far as my comments go, in case you hadn't looked around you, you're still living in a Democracy. You have the right to descent. The measure of the health of a Democracy lies in its willingness to be openly criticised. Democracy 101. To show you how absurd those complaints and observations are, eith you and Linda are saying that to criticize the government is anti-American, or you're saying if Borillar criticisezes the government, it's anti-American.
I've got news for you and Linda: I don't have to Love Bush in order to Love my Country!
The other stupid observation is that criticizing the government is anti-American. The government is not America - the PEOPLE are what makes America, America! That the the second place where you are both wrong.
Now if the two of you want to go live in a country where its illegal to openly criticize the government, then go find some fascist state to live in elsewhere and LEAVE OUR DEMOCRACY ALONE!
posted on June 8, 2002 08:35:53 PM new
Calm down Borillar, don't get so emotional.
I could care less if you criticize the government and I agree that is your right to do so in a Democracy. What I took exception to was/are your posts that seem like threats against the President and that in my opinion is anti-American. I also took exception to your complaint about what others say about the content of your posts when you clearly made those statements in the "Pet Peaves" thread.
It's strange that now you are calling Linda_k' post her opinion before you called it a directed personal attack
posted on June 8, 2002 08:46:50 PM new
>>Larry Klayman, chairman of Judicial Watch, said administration officials said last fall that some White House staff members had begun taking the antibiotic Cipro on Sept. 11, weeks before the anthrax attacks were made public.<<
posted on June 8, 2002 09:05:38 PM new
OK, yellowstone, I see that you are just pointing some things out. Sorry. However, I know better than to make open threeats to anyone, especially to the President of the United States. I'm hardly that stupid. Yes, taken completely out of context, it may sound like I was saying that, but by reading it in context, it shows the resentment that I have towards our Glorious Leader. Resentment is not illegal, nor is it unAmerican. Hell, you should have read the comments for years on end here on the Internet when Clinton was in office! Christ, there were a lot worse suggestions made than mine. Tar and Feathering is not so much a punishment as it is a humliation. If I had said that the President should be assasinated - which I didn't, THEN you would have something to take offence about. I don't want Bush harmed, I want him out of office and power as quick as possible. I have also never suggested that we take up arms against our country, nor have I ever suggested that we use violence of any sort to resolve our grievences. So, if you or others wish to read Anti-American into it, that's your perogative. Only don't make out a case where there is none.
"It's strange that now you are calling Linda_k' post her opinion before you called it a directed personal attack."
You're twisting what I said. I won't bother to correct you. Figure it out for yourself.
posted on June 8, 2002 09:31:17 PM new
Borillar
Allright maybe I did twist what you said and i'll say I am sorry for that.
I wasn't around here posting against Clinton when he was President so I can't say anything about that. But I know of what you say as far as how bad Clinton was bashed. So, is this the reason for all the Bush bashing that is going on now? Is this a valid reason to post your resentment of Bush? It all seems like revenge.
posted on June 8, 2002 09:39:20 PM new
We just don't like Bush. Simple.
I really wish that one of you that does like Bush would give me five reasons why you think he is a good leader..what has he done to "sell" himself to you? I can't think of one thing but I would really like to know what others see in him.What has he done for our country that should make me want to admire him?
posted on June 8, 2002 09:43:42 PM new
Actually, I need to clarify.I don't like Bush ,true but I really do not like the whole team that is the republican administration. Bush can be a bumbling idiot...he can be that because he is a figurehead and there are others on the "team" that will take up the slack. When we as a people vote in a Democratic administration we get that administration one time[ maybe two if re-elected] with the Republicans we get the same team over and over with a new figurehead.When we vote in Democrats we vote in our countries leader. When we vote Republican we vote in a team and an ideology more than just a leader.
AND it appears that the "team" has an agenda that is taking years~maybe decades~ to realize.
JMHO
[ edited by rawbunzel on Jun 8, 2002 09:45 PM ]
[ edited by rawbunzel on Jun 8, 2002 09:47 PM ]
posted on June 8, 2002 09:59:53 PM new
Yellowstone, I think Borillar was referring to the Internet in general. The lengthy American political threads started on the Round Table back in September 2000. This was the first I think:
posted on June 8, 2002 10:04:31 PM new
Yellowstone, if I was a Democrat, which I'm not, then that assessment might be correct. I'll put it straight and simple for everyone here:
I think that People are what makes Amereica and what makes it great. Not their values, per-se, but the people themselves. PEOPLE elect representatives to go to Congress to represent their interests and they elect such leaders as will do the People the most Good.
What PISSES me off is ANY politician who passes a piece of legislation or a President who makes any action that is NOT in the Best Interests of the American People. Clinton pissed me off at times, Ronald Reagan pissed me off a lot, and Carter really pissed me off on several occasions. I was too young to vote for Nixon or not.
I don't care if the politician is a local representative in the state that you reside in or a Federal level politican. Their JOB is to DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! Period!
So, when any politican, like Bush, who has consistantly demonstrated that he couldn't give a rat's ass about any Amrican other than himself and his buddies, he becomes my target. When you have a whole political party who ABUSES the United States Constitution, as the Republican Party did with Clinton's Impeachment and when the Supreme Court WENT AGAINST the Constitution in the last Presidential election and when Bush illegally declared War all on his own without any Constitutional authority, I badmouth the whole ball of wax!
I only want: a) a political party and President who acts SOELY in the best interests of the American People. That's it!
Furthermore, as a history buff of many decades (meaning more than two), I know a Dictatorship in the making when I see it! If we do not hold the United States Constitutiuon Holy second only to religous texts, then we DESERVE the type of government that we are about to ALL live in if people like me and others on here stop sounding the alarm bells!
Now, I hope that this is clear enough for everyone.
posted on June 8, 2002 10:52:48 PM new
Alrighty, let me clear up the other thing I've said on here. What did I say? "Hell, you should have read the comments for years on end here on the Internet when Clinton was in office!"
Now, I didn't say here at the Round Table, or even Auction Watch in fact. I said "the Internet"; meaning that there is more than once place on the Internet where politivcal discussions take place. Since the media was full of the trivial BS that Clinton was up to at the White House, the local forums were all full of it as well. The Republicans did such a smear job on Clinton that there were more than a few posters on the Internet talking about taking direct action against Clinton. The heavy-duty slander came to a slow-down when some idiot took out an Uzi and strafed the White House (remember that?) and the Republican Party backed off a bit on their nonsense, seeing how serious some people were taking it.
At any rate, you can hear the echoes of it in auroranorth's opinions of "Clinton-as-Murderer" of witnesses, etc. It was a lot nastier than anything EVERY written on this messageboard and furthermore, any messageboard that "tolerated" Clinton Supporters were called Traitors and every other filthy name in the book as well. Oh, yes. I do recall the YEARS of that nonsense!
So, my mild remarks are nothing, and I mention other remarks not as a gesture of revenge, but to compare the caliber of the bullets.
posted on June 8, 2002 11:02:11 PM new
Finally, some two-cents of mine concerning polls. Any of you know any politicans? Tell them that I said this:
"Real Leaders make the polls, not the other way around."
I've been given to understand that Bush is not the only dimwit on Capitol Hill, so I'll put it straight: A Real Leader makes the polls what he or she wants them to be, by the sheer force of personality and charisma. Polls shift with the wind and the whims of the American People can never truely be known or felt until election time. Politicians that bow to the Almighty Polls risk nothing, thereby they gain nothing of value. A Real Leader uses his or her common sense in making deals and keeps in mind why they are there in the first place. The People do not forget the favors that you do for them -- this is what made the Democratic Party last century. When you withhold favors for the People, they'll forget about you when you need them the most.
I hope that message goes through to all the politicans up there on the Hill.
posted on June 12, 2002 07:50:13 AM new
Putting It All Together:
With the hotlines that exist between these offices, the time that it would take from the moment the
FAA put in its call to Arnold for Bush to respond (allowing 2 minutes tops per communication and 2
minutes dial up and relay to the correct party) would have been roughly 12 minutes, plus or minus as
minute or two. The FAA called NORAD at 8:38 am about the first hijacking. It was 14 minutes later
— right within the above timing estimates made above — that two F-15s were ordered — by Bush —
to be scrambled from Otis AFB.
The evidence clearly shows that Bush had decided AHEAD OF TIME how to handle Flight 77.
The FAA call to NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked was made at 9:24 — it was at 9:24 that the
order to scramble planes from LANGLEY was given. This means this move had already been
authorized by BUSH. How could he have pre-authorized such a response unless he had 1) been told
about the plane some minutes before when it was obvious to NORAD's radar system that the plane
was headed for D.C. (NORAD did not require an active transponder on Flight 77 to track the plane),
or 2) Bush knew before 9/11 that a plane would be hitting the Pentagon at around 9:45 am.
Bush also had the authority, at all times after 8: 52 (when he obviously gave his first orders re:
Otis) to call for an evacuation of the WTC and, at the LATEST, by 9:24 to order federal buildings and
landmarks in D.C. to be evacuated. Had he made these orders, hundreds of lives would have been
saved. Even if the order to evacuate the second tower of the WTC had been made by 8:55, that
precious 7 minutes would have made all the difference to hundreds of WTC workers. The Pentagon
workers would have had nearly 15 minutes to evacuate if a call had come in by even 9:30.
Because he had seen the warnings throughout the summer, and the last, strongest one on August
6, he should have been completely prepared for every scenario he had been briefed on and read to
take decisive, urgent action to save lives. But he didn't. Instead, as Pentagon workers sat at their desks
or moved down the halls, oblivious to the impending danger, at 9:29, Bush had just finished reading
the Hungry, Hungry Caterpillar and was getting ready to announce that an "apparent" terrorist attack
was underway. Apparent?
But let's take a look for a moment at the bigger picture:
From the first, the plan of the Bush administration has been to extend military power into space
while creating a domestic police state in the name of "Homeland Security. In this scheme, the line
between military and police would be blurred. Elements of the CIA, which has traditionally worked
more with the military have now been folded into the FBI, while yet more restrictions on the power of
the agencies over ordinary citizens have been removed.
For a grim picture of where Bush et al were trying to take America as of August, 2001, see "The
Next Battlefield," by Jack Hitt.
Here's an excerpt from that article: "The political attention devoted to national missile defense,
which is an updated version of President Reagan's Strategic Defensive Initiative, has obscured its larger
purpose. According to the Strategic Master Plan, N.M.D. is but one part of a triad of technologies —
along with improved space surveillance and antisatellite offensive weaponry — that, the Air Force
hopes, will lead to total "space control." George Friedman, an intelligence consultant and the author of
"The Future of War," calls the national missile defense plan a "Trojan horse" for the real issue: the
coming weaponization of space. The cost of expanding our space assets is only now beginning to show
itself. Many of the specific systems for space have had their budgets increased in President Bush's first
defense-spending."
The three major proponents of this "new military": Richard B. Myers, Ralph Eberhardt, and
Donald Rumsfeld.
However, in the summer of 2001, the American public's support for the Bush administration's
schemes, in general, was weak and waning fast. In August Bush's approval rating had slumped to
under 50%. However, within just a few weeks of 9/11, with virtually no opposition from Congress,
Myers had been confirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. By April 2002 — a little over 6
short months since 9/11, Rumsfeld, Myers and Eberhardt had announced the formation of the
NORTHCOM, the mega-military complex that consolidated their power. Here's an excerpt from an
April 18, 2002 article in the Boston Globe:
"Air Force General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was responsible
for drafting the new command plan — and who calls the establishment of the new command the most
significant structural change in his 37 years in uniform — said yesterday that the Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) 'takes the various homeland security missions being performed by various combatant
commanders and some agencies and puts them under one commander [to] bring unity and focus to the
mission.' Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhardt is slated to head the new command, which will also
include oversight of NORAD and the territorial defense missions of the JFCOM."
In short, 9/11 was used as a spring board for the pre-9/11 Bush scheme. The steps taken in the
name of Homeland security that were done in the name of 9/11 were actually already planned well
before that event. It was the event that made it possible to implement them. If you want to get an idea
of where this merger between the military and law enforcement is headed, how about this statement
made by Ralph Eberhardt at the Space Symposium held in Colorado Springs in early 2002: "Over time
we can leverage our space assets to support homeland security and law enforcement. " So does this
mean the use of military satellites to spy on citizens?
Now ponder this point: Since Bush took office, he has richly rewarded every person who helped
him substantially, usually with top posts or the legislation they wanted. After 9/11, we see Myers and
Eberhardt moving up into top posts of incredible power. What were they being rewarded for?
Now, back to 9/11. The simple fact is, if Bush had not ignored the August 6 (and earlier) warnings
of terrorist strikes, and had instead acted decisively and responsibly, the scenario that unfolded on 9/11
would have been very different. First of all, on high alert, the airports may have screened passengers
more carefully — some or all of the hijackers may have failed to get aboard their target aircraft.
Secondly, if they had succeeded in boarding the craft, the FAA would have been in a state of readiness
for a serious event. At 8:25 AM, Boston FAA would have immediately called NORAD, who would
have been in readiness, perhaps even with pre-authorized orders from Bush. The WTC would have
been on high alert from Aug 6 on and an evacuation could have been undertaken as early as 8:30 —
time enough to save countless lives.
But instead, Bush did not warn the public. When called by NORAD, he failed to respond in a way
designed to save lives. In short, the trail of smoke from the smoking gun leads ultimately...and
unavoidably, back to G. W. Bush.
posted on June 12, 2002 09:45:13 AM new
".......Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of
free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual
curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, [b]we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological
elite[/b].
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. [b]As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our
own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow[/b].
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy;
as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble
with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may
experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty,
disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.
