Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Marijuana and Multiple Sclerosis

UC studies find promise in medical marijuana - LATimes.com

Making marijuana illegal is unChristian.

First, it requires politicians to take the Lord's Name in vain. Here's how:

Politicians raise their right hand toward heaven and take a solemn oath to abide by the Constitution, "so help me, God." They violate that oath when they criminalize marijuana, or act to override state laws favoring medical marijuana. A century ago, when federal politicians were asked to make alcohol illegal, they correctly and properly replied, "The Constitution doesn't give us the power to make alcohol illegal. You'll have to amend the Constitution to give us that power." Anti-alcohol advocates did so, and amending the Constitution to give Congress power over alcohol created Al Capone and organized crime. So that Amendment was repealed, and with it, all federal power to outlaw alcohol. The Constitution has never been properly amended to give the federal government power to put people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other Founding Fathers in prison for growing certain plants. But nobody cares about oaths these days.

Second, the criminalization of hemp violated the Biblical prohibition against "engrossing commodities to enhance the price," and still does. If newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst had owned hemp instead of trees, hemp would have been used to make his newspapers, and would be America's number one cash crop today. But Hearst was invested in trees. He used his influence to slander "marihuana" and get politicians to pass laws against it. Hearst's trees would have been worth much less with competition from hemp.

Third, inflicting pain and suffering on patients who could benefit from marijuana is like inflicting pain on Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

A Christian should not vote for any politician who promises to punish people solely for possessing or using -- or even selling -- marijuana.




The War on Drugs

Medical Marijuana

The International War on Drugs

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

If She Were a Darkie, She'd Be Tortured

Mark P. Shea, who says he's Catholic and Enjoying It!, points the finger at neo-conservative racism:


She says her Dad was a hero...

Although she said that act was "inappropriate", she hopes that "now maybe people will listen."

Charles Krauthammer has instructed us that if you have the "
slightest belief
" that torture will save a single life then you are morally bound to do it. Krauthammer, to be be sure, adds the science fiction caveat that we can only do this to people we know have life-saving information (apparently through our CIA mind reading devices which flash "SUBJECT POSSESSES LIFE SAVING INFORMATION OF INDETERMINATE NATURE"). This, apparently was the moral calculus the Bush Administration used when it renditioned the completely innocent Maher Arar for ten months of torture. Because, of course, torture always and only targets those who are surely guilty of something.

So, using this "slightest belief" moral calculus Krauthammer recommends, then surely, there is at least the chance that this woman is linked to other extremists and terrorists. She was, after all, raised by an extremist and terrorist and she publically acclaims him as a hero. So according to the Krauthammer Doctrine (as applied to Maher Arar), we are obliged to torture her for life-saving info that she may (or may not) possess. Sure, she said the attack was wrong, but she also said that, since he stood up to the system by this Al Quaeda-like act of terrorism, "now maybe people will listen".

I have the slightest belief that this was double-talk intended to justify the act of terrorism even while pretending to condemn it (those terrorist types are past masters at this sort of doublespeak. Their sacred texts tell them it's okay to do this). How can we sit there while precious seconds are ticking away and she may, even now, be flushing away the information linking her to the network of Timothy McVeighs which have killed before and may, even now, be preparing to kill again? We have to act NOW and nothing is too extreme when we are fighting a war against Real Evil. If she weren't guilty, would we even be torturing her? Of course not. Everybody we torture is always guilty. That's why we do it. We're not like the Bad Guys you know.

In short, if this woman were Muslim, the Rubber Hose Right would be demanding that she be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques in order to determine who else she may know who might be about to fly a plane into a building as an act of terrorism. But because she's the white daughter of a home grown terrorist who looks and sounds like part of the
right wing tribe of kooky "Patriot" types
, she gets a pass, even while Marc Thiessen is seriously expecting that subjecting a low level lackey like the panty bomber to waterboarding for the sake of email addresses is going to accomplish something.

Make no mistake: part of what drives the push for torture is racism. Or, to put it another way, part of what keeps torture from being fully implemented in our culture is that those who advocate it would never dream of inflicting it on their own kind. It is for the Other.

The problem is that, once you open Pandora's box and press it into the hands of Caesar, he is famous for being color-blind and open to the indiscriminate use of the tools of tyranny in the service of his own acquisition of power. Someday that happy time will come when Caesar will be willing to torture this woman with the same alacrity that he has tortured people with dark skin and strange accents.

You won't like that day when it comes. That's why Catholics are bound to say something now. We've been on the receiving end of Caesar's magnanimous willingness to torture anybody for the sake of state security in the past.




Thanks to Will Grigg for the email.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

"False Flag" Foreign Policy

America's original Foreign Policy was summed up by her Founders:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
— Washington, Farewell Address (1796) [Washington’s emphasis]

I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration,…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
— Jefferson, First Inaugural Address (1801)

Or in a nutshell: "Businessmen make the best diplomats."

Butter wins hearts better than bombs. America's businesses bring the world a higher standard of living. America's politicians -- and the diplomats who front for them -- bring intimidation, extortion, destruction and death.

One way politicians get their way is by inflicting terror in the name of their enemies, and inviting the victims of terror to repudiate the enemy and seek security in the arms of the politicians. Pretending to be the enemy is called a "false flag" operation. It's part of a strategy called the "Strategy of Tension." The "terrorist attacks" of 9-11 brought a great deal of tension. Here is a history of American False Flag Operations.

Washington's Blog reprinted many of these operations last week on Tuesday and Friday. They're worth reprinting here too.

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

Governments from around the world admit they carry out false flag terror:

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred).

As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. Neither plan was carried out, but they were both discussed as serious proposals.

* Note: While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan.

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers.

At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.

And this is not just ancient history:

Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag

If you have a couple of hours, watch this BBC program on the "false flag" operations of "Gladio," a British-American terrorist operation:

Gladio - Ringmasters 1 of 5




Gladio - Ringmasters 2 of 5





Gladio - Ringmasters 3 of 5





Gladio - Ringmasters 4 of 5






Gladio - Ringmasters 5 of 5






Gladio - Puppeteers 1 of 5






Gladio - Puppeteers 2 of 5






Gladio - Puppeteers 3 of 5






Gladio - Puppeteers 4 of 5






Gladio - Puppeteers 5 of 5






Gladio - Foot Soldiers 1 of 5






Gladio - Foot Soldiers 2 of 5






Gladio - Foot Soldiers 3 of 5






Gladio - Foot Soldiers 4 of 5






Gladio - Foot Soldiers 5 of 5





After reading these reports and watching this BBC documentary, the first question is simple: "Do you believe that the federal government has ever engaged in "false flag terrorist operations?" The obvious answer being yes, the next question is, why could 9-11 have not been a "false flag operation?" Does the federal government deserve a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, or should the government be required to prove itself innocent?



Update:
"Prosecutors on Tuesday interrogated 51 Turkish military commanders, including former Air Force and Navy chiefs, over alleged plans to destabilize the country by blowing up mosques to trigger a coup and topple the Islamic-rooted government."
-- Turkish Prosecutors Interrogate 51 Officers for False Flag Terrorism Plot

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Drones of Dictatorship

For the purposes of this blog post, I define "dictatorship" as "arbitrary power." This means the "right" to exercise governmental power for any reason, or no reason at all, or contrary to reason.
The dictionary defines "arbitrary" as
1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

Now Daniel Rubin reports on Another case of TSA overkill, an event that happened last year.

Ryan Thomas of New Jersey was taking his first flight, to Walt Disney World, for his fourth birthday. Ryan was born 16 weeks prematurely. His ankles are malformed and his legs have low muscle tone. On his fourth birthday he was just starting to walk. He has leg braces and uses a stroller. Rubin reports:

Mid-morning on March 19, his parents wheeled his stroller to the TSA security point, a couple of hours before their Southwest Airlines flight was to depart.

The boy's father broke down the stroller and put it on the conveyor belt as Leona Thomas walked Ryan through the metal detector.

The alarm went off.

The screener told them to take off the boy's braces.

The Thomases were dumbfounded. "I told them he can't walk without them on his own," Bob Thomas said.

"He said, 'He'll need to take them off.'"

Ryan's mother offered to walk him through the detector after they removed the braces, which are custom-made of metal and hardened plastic.

No, the screener replied. The boy had to walk on his own.

Leona Thomas said she was calm. Bob Thomas said he was starting to burn.

They complied, and Leona went first, followed by Ryan, followed by Bob, so the boy wouldn't be hurt if he fell. Ryan made it through.

By then, Bob Thomas was furious. He demanded to see a supervisor. The supervisor asked what was wrong.

"I told him, 'This is overkill. He's 4 years old. I don't think he's a terrorist.'"

The supervisor replied, "You know why we're doing this," Thomas said.

No, I would say, I don't know why you're doing this. "Why" assumes some kind of rational purpose. There is no rational reason for TSA power.

This would not take place in a Free Market, where airlines were competing for customers by providing the safest travel with the least inconvenience for passengers. Apart from government regulations, there is no "why." There is no reason for this to have been done. The Transportation Security Administration has subsequently apologized, admitting this should never have happened.

The question is, why did it happen? Why does it happen every day?

A Dictatorship consists of two types of people:
  • Archists, who derive pathological enjoyment out of bossing other people around
  • Drones, who mindlessly carry out the orders of dictators
Hitler did not kill six million Jews. I don't know if he killed a single one. Rather, a million Germans killed the Jews. They were drones. They never asked what's wrong with what they do.

Generally speaking, TSA employees are drones. "I'm just feeding my family," they will say. They grease the wheels of dictatorship.

America's Founding Fathers would say that Americans who accept the drones of dictatorship are slaves. I'm not saying we should follow in the footsteps of America's Founding Fathers and get out our muskets and kill all the drones, whether they wear Red Coats or Blue TSA Coats. But we need to make it clear that being a drone for dictatorship is socially unacceptable. Drones should repent.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Justice Price on the "War on Drugs"

The Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court has come out with a very important message for lawmakers: Stop putting non-violent offenders and drug users in prison.

The Folly of Locking Up Non-Violent Offenders

Sunday, February 14, 2010

The D.C.-Terrorism Connection

William Norman Grigg reminds us that while many right-wing writers have long decried a Moscow-Terrorism connection, the real connection to terrorism can be traced to Washington D.C.



Sure, Russian intelligence cultivated Muslim assets, just as the CIA did. The latter were much more successful, because they had more money to play with. Practically every Arab/Muslim dictator and his intelligence apparatus was on Langley's payroll. The Saudis, who fund most of the Jihadists, have never been pro-Soviet. It was Washington, not Moscow, who built the European Jihadist network in the Balkans during the 1990s.

In fact, Russia (acting out of historic cultural and religious affinities) supported Serbia's admittedly brutal efforts to contain Islamic expansion in the Balkans, a fact which on at least one occasion (Kosovo, spring 1999) quite nearly led to war between the U.S. and Russia.

It was the CIA that funded and organized the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s, not the KGB. As Zbig Brzezinski has admitted in a January 1998 interview with the French newspaper Le Nouvel Obserateur, the CIA cultivated the Afghan Mujahadeen before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

Brzezinski certainly qualifies as an "Insider" as the JBS uses the term. Here he admits, candidly and on record, that it was Washington, not Moscow, that catalyzed the modern phenomenon of revolutionary Islam.

The same CIA, working through Pakistan's ISI continued to arm and support terrorist training camps in Afghanistan long after the Soviets had left. It likewise funded, armed, and trained the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army and helped entrench Islamic radicals in Bosnia.

Much of this information regarding the CIA's role in fomenting Islamic terrorism can be found in "Civilizations in Conflict."



More evidence that America has The Best Enemies Money Can Buy.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The Salem Terrorist Trials

Adam Serwer notes that newly-elected Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown represents the voices of a growing number of Americans who hate the idea of "due process" getting in the way of "the War on Terror."

Judge Samuel Sewall, who presided over the "Salem Witch Trials," repented (apologized) for the actions of his court, and important legal reforms were put in place to prevent another "war on witchcraft."

One wonders if the junior Senator from Massachusetts will now foment the hysteria needed to set aside due process for the new witch trials. Or non-trials, actually. I haven't heard Sen. Brown comment on the Obama Administration's program to assassinate Americans who are labeled "terrorist" -- executed without any trial at all.

Glenn Greenwald wonders:

A very long time ago, I would be baffled when I'd read about things like the Salem witch hunts. How could so many people be collectively worked up into that level of irrational frenzy, where they cheered for people's torturous death as "witches" without any real due process or meaningful evidence? But all one has to do is look at our current Terrorism debates and it's easy to see how things like that happen. It's just pure mob mentality: an authority figure appears and affixes a demonizing Other label to someone's forehead, and the adoring crowd -- frothing-at-the-mouth and feeding on each other's hatred, fears and desire to be led -- demands "justice."

Ben Franklin is quoted as saying:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Similarly, those who would give up Essential Checks on the government -- like Due Process -- to purchase an illusory "National Security," deserve neither Limited Government nor Security.

Sunday, February 07, 2010

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

I hereby challenge Tom Knapp and David Barton to debate each other over homosexuals in the military. I will act as the anything-but-impartial "moderator," interrupting both sides at will to impose my anarcho-theocratic agenda on the debate.

I will interrupt David Barton's opening presentation to make the following points:

I'll interrupt Tom Knapp as he makes the following points:

If you're forced to keep a secret from your employer, you're vulnerable to extortion.
And if you're vulnerable to extortion, your employer is vulnerable to you.

This is a problem only if Bill Clinton makes it impossible for you to refuse to hire or to fire employees who make you vulnerable.

Dose of reality number one: Homosexuals have been serving in the US armed forces since the Revolution.

Not openly, not knowingly (known to their superiors), as Barton overwhelmingly proves. (Libertarians seem to be susceptible to this kind of historical revisionism, as I've shown before.)

Dose of reality number two: Homosexuality is no longer the taboo or stigma that it once was. That's not to say that the age of gay-bashing and shunning is completely over, but it's certainly moving in that direction.

This doesn't tell us what ought to be the case. What if the position of Washington and Adams becomes dominant once again?

If they're in the military, then they are vulnerable -- not because of their sexual orientation, but because of the military's policy of requiring that that orientation be kept secret on pain of discharge.

But their behavior is kept secret only because Clinton removed the possibility of enquiring about their behavior and preventing their enlistment in the first place.

Vulnerability:

"You can bring some documents home in your briefcase for us to photograph, or your commanding officer can receive an anonymous letter that says you are a homosexual."

"You can dial the phone number I give you when your unit is mobilized, or I can post pictures of you at a gay bar on the Internet."

The same thing could be said if child molesters were knowingly admitted to the military under "Don't ask, don't tell." The answer is to keep child molesters out, not to allow them in, openly and approvingly.

Because they are vulnerable, the military is vulnerable. "Don't ask, don't tell" makes every man and woman in the military -- of any sexual orientation, because a false allegation can be just as much a career-killer as a real one -- a potential vector for infiltration by foreign intelligence services.

Completely illogical. People were vulnerable to false accusations before Clinton. You can't bar someone from employment because they might be falsely accused. Everybody is vulnerable to a false accusation. Jesus Christ was falsely accused. (But then, I hope Knapp's kind of thinking catches on, because it would bar everybody from joining the military.)

[That conservatives are willing to] maintain a dying form of bigotry as a military institution makes it clear that "national security" is way down their list of priorities.

"Bigotry" is mindless conservatism. America's Founding Fathers were not mindless conservatives. If Thomas Jefferson was a bigot, then I am a bigot. Dr. James Dobson's beliefs concerning marriage are increasingly buttressed by scientific studies; his cheerleading for the military is not.

The military makes our nation less secure. There is only one way to make our nation secure: observe "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

That brings us to the article Knapp links to, "My secret life under 'don't ask, don't tell'."

Consider the incident of March 14, 1778, cited by David Barton, in which Lieut. Frederick Gotthold Enslin was convicted of Sodomy with John Monhort, another soldier. Let's imagine the convicted telling his side of the story like Joan E. Darrah, author of the article Knapp cites:

For most of my career in the Continental Army, I lived two lives and went to work each day wondering if that would be my last. Whenever General George Washington would call me to his tent, 99.9 percent of me was certain that it was to discuss an operational issue. But there was always that fear in the back of my mind that somehow I had been "outed," and he was calling me to his tent to tell me that I was fired. So many simple things that straight people take for granted could have ended my career, even a comment such as "My homosexual partner and I went to the movies last night."

I had pretended to be straight and played the games most gays in the military are all too familiar with -- not daring to have a picture of John on my desk, being reluctant to go out to dinner with him, telling him not to call me at work except in a real emergency, not going to church together, avoiding shopping for groceries together and generally staying out of sight of anyone I knew when we were together. I didn't want to have to lie about who John was or have someone conclude that we were more than casual friends.

Does the military prohibit two women or two men from being "more than casual friends," even best friends? Of course not. The problem only arises when the two women claim a right to violate "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," to say that the Declaration of Independence and America's Founders were all wrong, to say that God is wrong, and that the "marriage" of two men or two women is the moral equivalent of what God ordained.

Maybe the Bible is wrong, and there's nothing immoral about homosexuality or sex with animals, and no basis for keeping people who commit such acts out of the military. Maybe there's really no such thing as "morality." But did Bill Clinton have the authority to use the federal government to make this decision for America? Would Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and John Hancock have agreed with this use of the federal government for social engineering? When Bill Clinton took his oath of office, he said "so help me God," and according to the U.S. Supreme Court, promised to support our nation's "organic law," which rests on "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

The real issue is much bigger than military policy.

Dig beneath the surface of Joan Darrah's story here.