Hold your horses Trump supporters...Lys I'm looking in your direction.

No, seriously wait.

 

I graduated from MUN.  I earned two degrees from MUN, nearly 20 years ago.  In my day, we would have laughed this idiot off campus.

 

Here, read this absolute horseshit.

http://themuse.ca/2018/04/04/why-north-korea-needs-nuclear-weapons/

 

I only agree with one sentence in this whole thing (which is poorly written): "North Korea has done a lot of terrible things to their own people which cannot be excused."  You mean Little Rocket Man?

 

He tries to paint Mr. Trump and the US as a bunch of blood thirsty warmongers.  That the fucking Norks are peaceful people dedicated to peaceful reunification.  This idiot can go fuck his hat.

 

Lets leave whether you love or hate Trump aside.  President Trump is subject to term limits, rule of law, and is fully accountable to the American people.

 

Jim Jong Asshole is subject to nothing.  His word is law.  He can do what he pleases.  The only way to remove this blood soaked dictator is by military coup. 

 

President Trump can be removed by an impeachment vote in Congress. 

 

Bloody hell.  As far as I'm concerned the author of this shameful piece of crap should do himself a favour.  Stop wasting his money, drop out of University, because he's too stupid to be there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"protecting people from themselves" like *really* that's how you want to justify imposing your ideals?.

Buddy... I'm not the one out there trying to twist the US Constitution to fit my lifestyle, or ignore the portions that don't go along with whatever trendy fad that happens to blow air up my pants. There's a reason for every word, and an entire nation ratified it long before we arrived. It would serve you well to learn those reasons, then at least you would understand why they exist. Live by it, leave, or go through the proper means of changing it. California does not run the country. There are many reasons I moved away from my birth state of California 21 years ago, and I'll move away from my current home state if California politics continue to invade my home. I'm not imposing my ideals on anyone... I'm doing everything possible to keep others from imposing their ideals, on me.

 

 

On topic: the North Korea meeting is boring. while this is the first time this has happened in a while, it's not the first time this has happened.

In a while? This is the very first time a North Korean leader has set foot on South Korean soil... ever. 65 years of war and hostile hatred ended today. I have high hopes that this is a lasting peace, and our military can come home from South Korea after so many decades of constant threat. Maybe Little Kimmy will find a stronger ally in the USA than China? Wouldn't want to give Trump credit for that one. Obama blamed eight years on George Bush, and now wants to take credit for the first year of Trump. Too damn funny.

Buddy... I'm not the one out there trying to twist the US Constitution to fit my lifestyle, or ignore the portions that don't go along with whatever trendy fad that happens to blow air up my pants. There's a reason for every word, and an entire nation ratified it long before we arrived. It would serve you well to learn those reasons, then at least you would understand why they exist. Live by it, leave, or go through the proper means of changing it. California does not run the country. There are many reasons I moved away from my birth state of California 21 years ago, and I'll move away from my current home state if California politics continue to invade my home. I'm not imposing my ideals on anyone... I'm doing everything possible to keep others from imposing their ideals, on me.

 

Oh goody, we've got a game of bingo!

 

Alright I'm in a good mood and i need to figure out which bingo card to break out for you so...elaborate I guess? What "politics" out there is erasing the constitution. Be specific 

 

 

 

 

 

In a while? This is the very first time a North Korean leader has set foot on South Korean soil... ever. 65 years of war and hostile hatred ended today. I have high hopes that this is a lasting peace, and our military can come home from South Korea after so many decades of constant threat. Maybe Little Kimmy will find a stronger ally in the USA than China? Wouldn't want to give Trump credit for that one. Obama blamed eight years on George Bush, and now wants to take credit for the first year of Trump. Too damn funny.

 

 

North korea has a very long history of pulling similar shit. Going to the south is new, but everything else we've seen? This isn't the first time the topic of  inter-korean reconciliation has come up. It's not even the first time in either of our lifetimes. I'll be pleasantly surprised if it happens but north korea has a history of being the international diplomacy equivalent to someone's cheating asshole ex asking to get back together but only if *you* promise to change. 

 

North korea has reneged on almost every single agreement made, and it's leadership has more in common with organized crime than a functioning government. I'll be surprised if NK actually agrees to denuclearize on any reasonable terms. I'll be even more surprised if it sticks with it any longer than  it takes for whatever initial concessions it gets to expire. 

 

Also the fact you seem to think NK finding an ally in America is...honestly disturbing. The only thing the NK government deserves to find is a long rope and a short drop. 

 

Oh goody, we've got a game of bingo! Alright I'm in a good mood and i need to figure out which bingo card to break out for you so...elaborate I guess? What "politics" out there is erasing the constitution. Be specific

Are you seriously asking me to list all the left wing Progressive organizations and comment specifically which Amendments they are attacking and actively attempting to change? I think you're smarter than that. Maybe you want me to do all the work for you. Want me to hook you up with all the right people? I don't have that kind of time for this, but you can start with the name "Democrat". Democrats believe in Democracy. Which means they believe in "Majority Rule". Get the most votes, and it's law. Sounds good on it's face, but if you dig a little deeper you will see that it actually means... "Mob Rule"... where 51% can crush the rights of the other 49%. History will show you that staying the path of mob rule leads to Socialism, poverty, misery, rebellion, and war. Progressives want to make everyone the same... and contrary to what they want, it will never change that all people have differences. Do you really believe that the 21st century has put all that to rest?

 

North korea has a very long history of pulling similar shit.

You are correct. But I have hope that countries can change with new leadership. Sometimes the new leadership changes things badly... Venezuela?  Sometimes new leadership changes things for good... Germany? Let's give Little Kimmy a chance.

Off topic, but here's some current news about where the conversation ended up.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/24/calexit-gets-go-ahead-to-start-collecting-signatures.html

 

Meh, never liked independence movements, definatly when they are coming from an economical background. The weak trying to get away from the oppressors I can understand, the strong going away from the weak cause of basic narcissism is beyond me.

 

And while I understand that further globalization isn't an end goal to strive for, I definatly don't want further city states propping up.

 

My jaw practically hit the floor when I read that last night. North Korea has always had a tendency to agree to curtail their nuclear program in exchange for economic relief, and then immediately go back on their word. But seeing Kim Jong Un step over the border and shake hands with the South Korean President speaks volumes. Something very strange is going on in North Korean leadership and I can't help but think this new, radical approach to seeking peace, may actually be the truth. Maybe North Korea has finally realized even with nuclear weapons in their arsenal they are still severely outmatched in a conventional war. And if you want to deescalate a conflict, why not ask for some concessions to sweeten the pot.

 

NK nuke program is a direct responce to the USA. As such NK will denuclearize when the US pulls back all its nuclear capability from SK. NK never needed nukes to deter SK, it had enough mortars on Seoul to level that place for decades...

 

As I said before, before the nukes time was the major issue for NK but now it is it's best ally. They will hand out peacemeal offers, show their best side and be able to stay excisting just by virtue of letting go when they actually never needed in the first place (nukes).

 

The only thing that will change is the signing of a peace treaty in exchange for the present ceasefire. Anything else? Nope.

 

And yes claiming this is a Trump thing is hilarious, they would have played out the same scenario whoever moved into the White House.

Are you seriously asking me to list all the left wing Progressive organizations and comment specifically which Amendments they are attacking and actively attempting to change? I think you're smarter than that. Maybe you want me to do all the work for you. Want me to hook you up with all the right people? I don't have that kind of time for this, but you can start with the name "Democrat". Democrats believe in Democracy. Which means they believe in "Majority Rule". Get the most votes, and it's law. Sounds good on it's face, but if you dig a little deeper you will see that it actually means... "Mob Rule"... where 51% can crush the rights of the other 49%. History will show you that staying the path of mob rule leads to Socialism, poverty, misery, rebellion, and war. Progressives want to make everyone the same... and contrary to what they want, it will never change that all people have differences. Do you really believe that the 21st century has put all that to rest?

 

 

Sorry, thought I used the words  "be specific". Go on, list some specific examples. Cause if we wanted to listen to broad an unsupported assertions about "THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDER ATTACK" we could go listen to alex jones. At least then we might find out what's really making the frogs gay. 

 

I'd recommend staying away from the 2nd though if you want to build an argument off the supposed immutable and perfect nature to the US constitution. There's kinda been some widely diverging interpretations of that in the past, and whatever position you care to take, we can find older precedent that disagrees. Gun Control in the 18th century USA is a really fun topic, and the heller decision was a dramatic departure from the historical interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Also it's the free space on a lot of this bingo cards....

 

 

 

 

You are correct. But I have hope that countries can change with new leadership. Sometimes the new leadership changes things badly... Venezuela?  Sometimes new leadership changes things for good... Germany? Let's give Little Kimmy a chance.

 

 

" Little Kimmy" is a mass murdering fuck. he's not some teenager, dudes nearly fucking 40. He's a beneficiary and prime contributor to north korea's bullshit and he's been it's leader for more than half a decade. Do not even attempt to minimize his role in that shit. 

 

 

NK nuke program is a direct responce to the USA. As such NK will denuclearize when the US pulls back all its nuclear capability from SK. NK never needed nukes to deter SK, it had enough mortars on Seoul to level that place for decades...

 

 

 

NK doesn't even need that to deter the south (and it's question if they can even make that deterrent work). NKs military exists because it's a way to maintain local control, and a fantastic source of grift for political elites to enrich themselves, not to deter the south.

 

NK is an unstable shitshow of a country only held together by force of arms. If anyone kicks over the political leadership there, the entire region implodes into a massive humanitarian and economic crisis. SK has zero interest in military action against the north outside of self defense. Taking any aggressive action would to the political and economic equivalent of shooting themselves in the dick...with the main gun of one of their K2s.  

 

ooo sure, as with any propaganda run country the army is just their to ward of imaginary enemies. Was more trying to lean into the inevitable "US has to retract its nukes from SK" line that will be the center point of upcomming talks. Talks which stopped being about "humanitarian" topics and will now solely be about NK's military complex. You'd wonder why the US is even wanting to talk to them nowadays, they can't claim "the greater good" anymore if the only thing you care about is the green shining objects

Sorry, thought I used the words "be specific". Go on, list some specific examples.

I fear taking this thread too far off topic, so I won't get too detailed, but I don't have to.

 

There is a reason you have a desire to stay away from the 2nd Amendment and it's because that's the Holy Grail for Progressives. The 2nd Amendment is the one part of the Constitution that enforces everything else. Pretty much says "You will not break the promises you have made here under penalty of we will blow your head off if you do".

 

You are a Democrat, and the party has been hijacked by Progressives, which is a more acceptable and cooler name of Socialists. What you believe in is an all powerful Federal Government, or really any government that can legislate the law of the land on everyone that lives in the USA. The US Constitution prevents Progressives from going all the way... Progressives have already succeeded in changing much... but they can't "seal the deal" because the Constitution is firmly blocking their way.

 

The US Constitution is a set of restrictions, specifically limiting what the Federal Government has the power to do. It does this by specifically declaring, in detail, that Congress cannot do this, or that. This infuriates Progressives, and they do everything they possibly can to get around it. They would really rather just dustbin the whole document, and draw up their own new version. Can't do that without disarming the population, because Progressives can't rule the country if they're dead.

250 words of not answering the question. Spectacular. This is only getting off topic because you refuse to support your point. 

 

And no, you're the one floating the "the constitution is under attack!" argument. I'm recommending avoiding the 2nd because the Heller decision  and much of what the 2nd amendment represents in the USA today does not date back to the "wisdom" of the founding fathers, but instead dates back to 2008

 

 I'm not the one out there trying to twist the US Constitution to fit my lifestyle, or ignore the portions that don't go along with whatever trendy fad that happens to blow air up my pants. There's a reason for every word, and an entire nation ratified it long before we arrived. 

 

Even if you agree with and like the Heller decision, basing an argument in support of that quote there (especially the bit bit i've emphasized) on something that happened all of 9 years ago would be something of a poor rhetorical choice. Also any topic in which common talking points can be refuted by quoting Scalia of all people may not be a good one for you. Bonus points for the second not even arising out of wisdom for the common man but out of  Madison looking to appease states worried that congress would nationalize state militias and then invade them. 

 

Anyways, you're the one floating such ridiculous theories. Leave the waffling to the belgian and start giving examples of non fringe groups. Cause at this point I'm not sure you can. 

 

 

 

You are a Democrat, and the party has been hijacked by Progressives, which is a more acceptable and cooler name of Socialists.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sRS1dwCotw

I agree with Lysistrata, on the Democrat party getting hijacked by Progressives. It all happened circa 2009 when the Democrat party went from semi moderate to far left. And as a response, a year later the Republican party transitioned from semi moderate to taking steps in the direction farther right. Both parties have since remained on the extreme polar opposites.

 

I distinctly remembering this occurring as back in October 2010, I participated in an undercover drinking sting operation with the NYS Police. For those who do not know, Troopers with high seniority, Sergeants, Lieutenants, and other high ranking Officers, are largely Democrats. During this Operation there was a moment where the higher seniority Troopers and Sergeants began talking politics. To paraphrase it went like this, "What happened to our Federal Government and our Party? We went from Moderates to far left politics in less than a year. Something has to change soon, if the country continues down this route things wont be good". One month later things changed when the Republicans gained control of the House. Even hard line Democrats that fully supported their political party understood what was occurring. The party took a gamble on radical policies and lost big time in 2016.

 

 

250 words of not answering the question.

I did answer your question, and I'm not wrong. Who would you support? Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz? Elizabeth Warren or Nikki Haley? Keith Ellison or Paul Ryan? Chuck Schumer or Marco Rubio? Of course, you would support the Progressive Socialist Democrat in every instance. The only time Progressives use the Constitution is when it helps them weaken another piece of it, in order to destroy another chunk of Capitalism. What is your obsession with the Heller decision?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

​Notice this guy doesn't talk about the 2nd Amendment either. He would then have to acknowledge why it's there in the first place.

> It all happened circa 2009 when the Democrat party went from semi moderate to far left. 

 

​The democrats are literally a center right party. They're only slightly further to the left than the littreal conservative parties of many other countries. America littrealy does not have a left wing party at all.  Not only that but the democrats have swung further right over the last couple  elections. Hillary literally ran a campaign to the right of bush senior on several topics.  They're left only in comparison to the republican party.

 

The last time the democrats ran on a truly leftist platform was sometime in the 70s, back before nixon and the republican hissy fit about the civil rights act dismantled the new deal coalition. And it was that era and those policies that the american golden age was built on. 

 

 

@lys. Still avoiding the question. Provide a single example of a non fringe group working to dismantle the US constitution. 

 

 

@lys. Still avoiding the question. Provide a single example of a non fringe group working to dismantle the US constitution.

Randomdude: Who is working to dismantle the US Constitution?

Lysis: Progressives

Randomdude: You're not answering the question. Who specifically is working to dismantle the US Constitution?

​Lysis: Progressives

Randomdude: You're still not answering the question. Who specifically is working to dismantle the US Constitution?

Lysis: Progressives

Randomdude: Typical Republican... can't answer a simple question.   

*popcorn gif*

 

I do keep wondering where this fairy tail "socialists" in the USA are, even most of what Bernie spouts is fairly moderate and obvious US-styled.

 

Lys, you know very well that RH just wants 1 example, just 1. You keep handing him the 2nd which is hardly up for repeal, let alone the complete abolishment of the entire Constitution. Granted their are voices that could be marked as "anti-constitution" but I would hardly call them progressives (you making a cuss-word out of it doesn't help), I would call them authoritarians.

 

*popcorn gif*

 

As for the topic, it seems current US foreighn politics (if you would call it that) is to make NK's position seem weak. Wonder why they wanted nukes in the first place... Think it was something about not being taken serious... Clearly thus going around claiming you just slain the big bad Jong-un isn't going to score you brownie points for your peacetalks.

 

*popcorn gif*

 

 

Lys, you know very well that RH just wants 1 example, just 1.

The ACLU. It's a conglomerate of Progressive lawyers assembled for the sole purpose of using the US Constitution as a weapon against itself. One of those Progressive lawyers made it all the way to the highest court, dispensing her own ideals, with her very own interpretations, and condemning us all with her poisonous opinions. Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

So you wish to blame your US Constitution from being used AGAINST your US Constitution in a way YOU find it a misinterpretation of the US Constitution.

 

It is in the very nature of laws and regulations that they hold both a "spirit" and a "letter", either not always coinciding with eachother or the current prevelant  desire of the nation itself.

 

I sense disagreement from your side, no malice from the "progressive side".

 

Lys, you know very well that RH just wants 1 example, just 1.

The ACLU. It's a conglomerate of Progressive lawyers assembled for the sole purpose of using the US Constitution as a weapon against itself. One of those Progressive lawyers made it all the way to the highest court, dispensing her own ideals, with her very own interpretations, and condemning us all with her poisonous opinions. Her name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

 

Lets see: ACLU cases.

 

Jennings v. Rodriguez

 

Which is a case regarding:

 

"Whether it violates the Constitution and the immigration laws to subject immigrants in deportation proceedings to long-term detention without individualized bond hearings."

 

The current ruling in the Ninth Circuit is that the government is not allowed to detain someone for period of time exceeding 6 months without giving them a bond hearing. Not doing so violates the 4th through 8th amendments, all of which prohibit the US government from engaging in arbitrary detainment.   

 

 

Benisek v. Lamone

 

Which has to do with if the redistricting of maryland's congressional map by the democrats overly favours the democrats and if by doing so they've violated the 1st amendment. To quote the ACLU:

Locking up the political process for the purpose of disabling competition among partisan viewpoints is at odds with the proper role of government in administering elections. It is inconsistent with democratic values and constitutional precedent holding that government must function as a neutral referee in administering elections. 

 

 

DOE V. MATTIS 

 

Which is another arbitrary detention case, specifically if the US military is allowed to hold and detain an american citizen while overseas without trial or due process. 

 

 

Xi v. Haugen

 

On if the US government (under the obama admin) violated Xiaoxing Xi's civil rights during it's now abandoned investigation into him, specifically in regard to the FBI's use of warrantless surveillance. 

 

 

Stone v. Trump

 

Whether or not the trump admins ban on transgender persons in the US military violate the equation protection clause of the constitution, particularly following the Defense Department's own determination that there is no basis for refusing to allow transgender persons to serve 

 

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump

 

Whether or not the latest incarnation of the travel ban, by specifically  targeting out religious groups  (ie muslims) violates the equal protection clause, as well as the first amendment prohibition of government establishment of religion and the 5th amendment  requirement for equal protection under the law. 

 

 

 

 

So, where are they undermining the US constitution here Lys? Or is undermining the constitution just code for "v. Trump"

 

I guess the shots they took at  and are still taking at the obama admin are also just ""progressive"" plots right? 

I guess you don't see any benefit to the cause, or advancement in the Progressive agenda, by clogging our courts with frivolous lawsuits, or confusing the public confidence in the US Constitution. I would prefer they leave it alone, or man up and get it on the ballot.

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps? 

 

 

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps?

Sure. I know nothing about this case, but Doe vs. Mattis sounds like John Doe vs. The Secretary of Defense. In other words, it's based on a "hypothetical anyone" who may run into a hypothetical situation, and receive a hypothetical outcome, of an undetermined scenario. The very definition of "frivolous" in my book. If an American Citizen runs afoul of the U.S. Military in a foreign country... which sounds like a matter of National Security to me... I would expect them to be captured or killed. The courts can sort it out back home. Easy.

 

So which one is frivolous? The one where the US military thinks it can detain US citizens overseas without due process or trial perhaps?

Sure. I know nothing about this case, but Doe vs. Mattis sounds like John Doe vs. The Secretary of Defense. In other words, it's based on a "hypothetical anyone" who may run into a hypothetical situation, and receive a hypothetical outcome, of an undetermined scenario. The very definition of "frivolous" in my book. If an American Citizen runs afoul of the U.S. Military in a foreign country... which sounds like a matter of National Security to me... I would expect them to be captured or killed. The courts can sort it out back home. Easy.

 

 

 

So you know *nothing* about the case, but you're going to declare it frivolous. That's a brave move.

 

Have some context. 

 

So bit of information you don't seem to understand. In order to launch a suit in the USA, it requires standing. The short of this being that it must be launched by a person or organization or on behalf of such who has been actively harmed. Your proposed hypothetical would be thrown out instantly. 

 

 

Your correct on John Doe. t's John Doe because the US military has ordered public records redacted. The short and uncontested fact is that the US military captured an American citizen in Syria in september of 2017. They have decided that this person was engaged as a combatant for ISIS, and have detained them in Iraq for the last 8 months without charge, trial, or access to legal council. After the ACLU filed for a writ of habeas corpus, it took till january for the US military to accede to the court order for contact with legal council, which was only allowed via videoconference. There is no particular reason to believe attorney–client privilege was preserved in this process. 

 

 

You would I imagine, expect this person to have been returned to the USA to be charged and tried, and given the full benefit of every single protection in the US constitution including access to legal council. Assuming the charge is accurate and founded, they'd then get to spend a significant period of time in prison.  Instead the US military has fought, and is still fighting against something as utterly basic as a writ of habeas corpus. Most recently the courts needed to hand down an order preventing the US military from transferring this person into another country in order to "remove them from US custody", in what is an  specuatarly fuckheaded attempt to do an end run around the Constitution.  

 

 

The short and uncontested fact is that the US military captured an American citizen in Syria in september of 2017. They have decided that this person was engaged as a combatant for ISIS

Oh okay... that clears things up a bit. They should have shot him for treason rather than costing US taxpayers more. End of story.

uh huh. So you think the US military should be allowed to detain any american citizen overseas, produce no information about if they are an enemy combatant and then shoot them without benefit of legal counsel or trial. 

 

But the ""progressives"" are attacking the constitution. 

 

Unless you've got something a lot better than that lys, I think i've made my point. 

I believe he lost his citizenship, and his Constitutional rights, when he left and took up arms against the USA. His previous citizenship status is not a benefit after capture by US Military... it's one more good reason to end it. War is expensive business... costs a lot and takes lives. Obviously he's part of the reason we're forced to be there, and there are consequences for that. I'm not a lawyer, or responsible for enforcing law, so you can't really expect me to have any sympathy for terrorists or traitors. I do have my opinion.

I believe he lost his citizenship, and his Constitutional rights, when he left and took up arms against the USA.

 

 

Wrong and wrong. 

 

One: Citizenship in the USA is borderline impossible to revoke and can not be done without legal process. There are a very very limited number of cases where the constitution allows for the revocation of citizenship  and almost all of them have to do with fraud (bascily, if you lie to get citizenship in the first place). They also literally cannot revoke the citizenship of Natural-born citizens. Literally forbidden. If the US government can revoke citizenship at all, let alone without due, it could at will, remove any and all rights granted to you under the constitution. 

 

Two: The constitution has two different types of phrasing. The first details rights granted to citizens. The second details things the US government can or cannot do period. The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment is a solid example of both:

 

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

The red part applies to citizens of the united states. The green part outright forbids the government from taking that action period. For example the state can prevent non citizens from voting because that's not a right non citizens have (duh), but cannot randomly arrest a non citizen. 

 

Pretty much all of the bill of rights uses the latter language.  The second and the tenth are about the only ones that don't. 

 

For example:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

 

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

 

 

I do have my opinion.

 

And your opinion is contrary to about two centuries of established understanding of the constitution, and is in direct opposition to some of the oldest and most fundamental sections of it.

Which is funny coming from a guy so concerned about the US constitution being disregarded. 

 

 

Wrong and wrong.

A bullet is faster, cheaper, and much more efficient than the ACLU, and everything else you wasted your time with up there. What is lacking is a new Constitutional Amendment addressing the "Things you can do to lose your Citizenship, your Constitutional Rights, or your Life". It appears you have given me a new mission in life. Thank you very much.