Tuesday, May 22, 2007

RE: Hubble Spots Rare Triple Eclipse on Jupiter

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Planet Pride
Date: May 22, 2007 4:09 AM

from: About: Space / Astronomy

Hubble Spots Rare Triple Eclipse on Jupiter


At first glance, Jupiter looks like it has a mild case of the measles. Five spots - one colored white, one blue, and three black - are scattered across the upper half of the planet. Closer inspection by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope reveals that these spots are actually a rare alignment of three of Jupiter's largest moons - Io, Ganymede, and Callisto - across the planet's face. In this image, the telltale signatures of this alignment are the shadows [the three black circles] cast by the moons. Io's shadow is located just above center and to the left; Ganymede's on the planet's left edge; and Callisto's near the right edge. Only two of the moons, however, are visible in this image. Io is the white circle in the center of the image, and Ganymede is the blue circle at upper right. Callisto is out of the image and to the right. On Earth, we witness a solar eclipse when our Moon's shadow sweeps across our planet's face as it passes in front of our Sun. Jupiter, however, has four moons roughly the same size as Earth's Moon. The shadows of three of them occasionally sweep simultaneously across Jupiter. The image was taken March 28, 2004, with Hubble's Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer.

Hubble Spots Rare Triple Eclipse on Jupiter. NASA, ESA, and E. Karkoschka (University of Arizona)

Seeing three shadows on Jupiter happens only about once or twice a decade. Why is this triple eclipse so unique? Io, Ganymede, and Callisto orbit Jupiter at different rates. Their shadows likewise cross Jupiter's face at different rates. For example, the outermost moon Callisto orbits the slowest of the three satellites. Callisto's shadow moves across the planet once for every 20 shadow crossings of Io. Add the crossing rate of Ganymede's shadow and the possibility of a triple eclipse becomes even more rare. Viewing the triple shadows in 2004 was even more special, because two of the moons were crossing Jupiter's face at the same time as the three shadows.

Jupiter appears in pastel colors in this photo because the observation was taken in near-infrared light. Astronomers combined images taken in three near-infrared wavelengths to make this color image. The photo shows sunlight reflected from Jupiter's clouds. In the near infrared, methane gas in Jupiter's atmosphere limits the penetration of sunlight, which causes clouds to appear in different colors depending on their altitude. Studying clouds in near-infrared light is very useful for scientists studying the layers of clouds that make up Jupiter's atmosphere. Yellow colors indicate high clouds; red colors lower clouds; and blue colors even lower clouds in Jupiter's atmosphere. The green color near the poles comes from a thin haze very high in the atmosphere. Ganymede's blue color comes from the absorption of water ice on its surface at longer wavelengths. Io's white color is from light reflected off bright sulfur compounds on the satellite's surface.

In viewing this rare alignment, astronomers also tested a new imaging technique. To increase the sharpness of the near-infrared camera images, astronomers speeded up Hubble's tracking system so that Jupiter traveled through the telescope's field of view much faster than normal. This technique allowed scientists to take rapid-fire snapshots of the planet and its moons. They then combined the images into one single picture to show more details of the planet and its moons.

Labels: , ,


RE: Ron Paul on Codex and American Independence

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pharmaceuticals KILL People & Animals!
Date: May 22, 2007 2:36 AM

American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our
independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government
to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned. The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: May 21, 2007 8:07 PM

steal this movie- this is one of my favorite movies..love Abbey Hoffman..pamela

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Niki
Date: May 21, 2007 5:00 PM

Thanks to gpandtedsmom

Thanks to Subversionary

Thanks to § Lori §

full screen

Labels: , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela's Protest
Date: May 21, 2007 6:14 PM


----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Subversionary
Date: May 21, 2007 2:42 PM

In todays news,

do NOT let ignorace stop your mind's freedom.



We have to take our flags down now???

Why working less is better for the globe.

what would happen if nothing but 'righties' where left?

------------- Bulletin Message -------------

Pat Buchanan on Dr. Ron Paul

George Carlin on the American Dream

The twisted logic of Empre

Amerikkka the Fallen

MUST SEE videos

special tips for impressing the ladies

Skullbones & Blackstones

Just some of my thoughts about all this.........

Ron Paul Cowardly Attacked By Sean Douchebag Hannity

Common Man News


Labels: , ,


RE: Whoa! "Attacked in Congress" video

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: disinformation
Date: May 21, 2007 6:29 PM

Please respond to this bulletin on the Disinfo blog. Let other know about this important film!

Writes IRAQ FOR SALE director Robert Greenwald on his blog:
A big hearty cheer to all of you who made war profiteering a potent and important issue on the national stage. As a result, I was called to testify (along with Jeremy Scahill, author of the brilliant BLACKWATER book) to the House Appropriations Committee and explain the breadth and extent of the profiteering. And they listened, they asked questions, and they discussed how to fix this national tragedy. Imagine, the film all of you helped make and you distributed, was now the subject of serious legislative focus on how to fix the problem at hand.

However, despite the hundreds of thousands who have seen the film around the country, despite the letters, phone calls and pleas from Americans and soldiers of every political persuasion, somehow despite all this, Rep. Kingston was asleep at the wheel. And so he unleashed an old-fashioned, inept, partisan attack.

His intended knock out blow? That the film was an exercise in profiteering!! Ha. He was literally speechless when I explained that 3,000 of you contributed your hard-earned dollars to make the film. That 3,000 of you were figuratively with me in testifying. That 3,000 of you were the true patriots.
Watch clips of IRAQ FOR SALE on its MySpace profile.

More info about Robert Greenwald and BRAVE NEW FILMS.

Labels: , ,


RE: Remember what i said about blackwater .NOW THIS.........

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: May 21, 2007 6:50 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: mike
Date: May 21, 2007 3:41 PM

I got this from my friend on yahoo360 Eagle eyes

Forty black uniformed foreign cops reported at Virginia truck stop on I-81

Al Cuppett

US Army & Action Officer, the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Retired)

366 Graves Mill Rd

Madison, VA 22727

18 May 2007

Somewhere about 30 miles south of Harrisonburg, VA, on I-81 is a truck stop. I believe it’s the one near Raphine, VA. However, regardless, there is a particular truck stop on I-81 because I have been there several times and seen the small arms display featured by the truck stop owner. The weapons are locked under glass and among the many guns displayed is a .45 ACP Thompson WWII submachine gun.

Last week, 7-11 May 2007, a US “citizen” who reads “my stuff”” observed four unmarked vans pull into this particular truck stop. He purposely counted the [exactly] forty black uniformed men; i.e., ten men per van, as they dismounted. He later verified the “body count” in the restaurant: Forty! The vehicles were the 10-12 passenger models such as senior citizens are shuttled around in. The windows were shaded “absolutely dark”.

The troops, who were wearing “NATO Black” BDU’s, [NO IDENTIFYING INSIGNIA VISIBLE] were all 6 feet tall, or above, and all under 30 years old. They exhibited “military bearing”, had short haircuts; and were also “throwing their weight around”, making their presence obvious.

Shortly, our “citizen” encountered one of the “officers”, who by the way, was not carrying a visible sidearm, that is, the 9mm Makerov which Clinton imported in 1994 to the tune of 700, 000. He was looking at the gun display; particularly the Thompson. “Nice gun” citizen says. The reply was, “Yeah”.

“Citizen” then asked, “Who are you guys?”. Reply, in what was described as a Russian accent, “That’s none of your business”. Citizen then asked, “Well, what’re you doing around here?” Again, “We’re training but that’s also none of your business”. Citizen persisted, with, “What kind of training?”. Reply: “It’s classified and it’s none of your business”. At this point the conversation terminated. Citizen stated the men were definitely “NOT” Americans.

Currently, I have a call in to speak with “citizen”; but for now what you see is as much as I know of the incident.

Professionally deduced and post-1994 investigative knowledge tells me they are Homeland Security-sponsored “secret police” training for the arrest of Americans when martial law is declared. Yeah, I have warned thee.

Labels: , ,


RE: Just some of Weekly Bible Studys thoughts

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♥ Angel ♥ ™ ~For Truth~
Date: May 21, 2007 5:24 PM

From: Suspension Of DisBelief

Just some of Weekly Bible Studys thoughts on all this..

I understand the feeling, but there is someting to be said for the way our elections are bought, i mean held..check this out:

Many Thanx To Truth Seeker
Date: Apr 14, 2007 4:06 AM

Join the REVOLUTION post far and wide!

cheers Pamela's Protest
Date: Mar 23, 2007 11:23 PM

Join the REVOLUTION post far and wide!

Join the REVOLUTION post far and wide!



Click to Go To Plant Seeds

Just some of Weekly Bible Studys thoughts on all this..

The Deconstruction Process

thanks to:
The Deconstruction Process

Date: May 21, 2007 4:11 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Thanks to Weekly Bible Study on the Endtimes
Date: May 21, 2007 4:06 PM

ok, first off, I think we should all put our energy into the Elections, and try and help out Congressman Ron Paul!
If we put half our efforts into that, as we do the 9-11 truth then hes bound to have a big chance at winning!

Remeber, when you are talking about Ron Paul, do not speak about 9-11 inside job stuff! Do not associate him with this..He himself has stated that he goes by the 9-11 commision report anyway.

Also, if we can get him to win, all this other stuff will be fixed, and we will win our country and its freedoms back!

So, lets try and put more focus on the elections!

Focus on Ron Paul! Spread his word!

Labels: , ,


RE: States balk at cancer vaccine mandate

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Precarious333
Date: May 21, 2007 3:20 PM

States balk at cancer vaccine mandate

For a time, Georgia was poised to become the latest state to require preteen girls to be vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer.

A powerful state Republican lawmaker proposed making the vaccine mandatory for girls entering sixth grade, and the governor included $4.3 million in his budget to make it available to some 13,000 girls whose family's insurance policies wouldn't cover it.

But state lawmakers nixed the plans after aggressive lobbying by religious conservatives, who argued that vaccinating young girls could promote promiscuity. The human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted through sexual contact.

Similar proposals were introduced in 23 other states and the District of Columbia, but only Virginia has signed such a mandate into law.

Proposals in many states died or were watered down to only provide parents with educational materials instead of requiring the vaccine. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry signed an executive order requiring vaccinations for sixth-grade girls, but the Legislature then passed a bill blocking the order.

Over the past several months, a vaccine that once was hailed as a breakthrough to prevent cancer deaths has become embroiled in some of the nation's most politically charged issues: teen sex, parental control, state mandates, a backlash against vaccines and a suspicion of drug companies.

"It encapsulates so many issues that are at the core of politics and health policy right now," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June 2006. The federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices followed with a recommendation that all girls be vaccinated at age 11 or 12. The three-dose treatment costs $360.

Cervical cancer kills 10 women a day in the U.S. and one in four U.S. women ages 14 to 59 is infected with HPV, according to a recent report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While Gardasil is not a magic bullet, it protects against the strains of HPV that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers cases.

With the vaccine potentially saving many lives, cervical cancer survivor Lori Grice said, she was "completely dumbfounded" that it had become fodder for the culture wars.

"If this were a vaccine for prostate cancer they would have to call in the National Guard to keep the men from storming the place," said Grice, of Statesboro, Ga.

Grice said she plans to have her 6-year-old daughter vaccinated when she's old enough. She said her daughter can "make every right choice," avoiding IV drug use and premarital sex, "but she can marry someone who's a carrier of HPV, develop cervical cancer and die."

The sponsor of the Georgia bill, state Sen. Don Balfour, has said it is a great thing for the health of women in the state.

"It's good for your daughters," he said in a February hearing.
Others saw the vaccine mandate proposals differently.
The religious conservatives did not want the government to mandate a vaccine for "something that is only contracted through sexual activity," said Sadie Fields, executive director of the Georgia Christian Alliance.

Some parents insist that they should decide when their preteen daughter should be offered a vaccine that involved a discussion about sex.

Moira Gaul, director of women's and reproductive health at the conservative Family Research Council, said her group doesn't oppose the vaccine, but doesn't want it required.

"We think parents ought to be given a choice about what is best for their children," she said.
Others were turned off by what they saw as heavy-handed lobbying by the drug's maker, Merck and Co. Critics saw a drug company trying to get rich.

And there were worries that not enough was known about the drug's long-term health effects. As ammunition, critics pointed to Merck's recall of it's popular arthritis drug Vioxx because of increased heart risks. Merck has since said it will not lobby states for mandate bills.

Others argue politics is winning out over public health.
"It's really a shame that politics and ideology are getting in the way of saving lives," said Cantu Hinojosa, assistant director of government relations for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Hinojosa noted that the mandate bills — including the new law in Virginia — have opt-out provisions for parents who don't want their daughters vaccinated.

Still, Hinojosa said five states — Indiana, New York, North Dakota, Utah and Washington — have agreed to fund public education campaigns, which she said is a positive first step.


Labels: , ,


RE: Experts Now Say JFK Bullet Analysis Was Wrong!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Precarious333
Date: May 21, 2007 3:23 PM

Texas A&M scientist probes bullet evidence to challenge findings in JFK assassination

COLLEGE STATION, May 17, 2007 -- Researchers at Texas A&M University are combining statistics and chemistry to shoot holes in traditional bullet-lead analysis techniques and the accuracy of so-called "expert" testimony — specifically, calling into question critical evidence that has long supported the theory of a lone gunman in the 1963 assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy.

In challenging the evidence for the lone-gunman theory, Cliff Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet-lead analysis, recently teamed with former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent and forensic scientist William A. Tobin of Forensic Engineering International in Virginia and William D. James, a research chemist with the Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis (CCCA). Together, they conducted a chemical and forensic analysis of bullets reportedly derived from the same batch as those used by suspected assassin Lee Harvey Oswald to gun down Kennedy on that fateful day at Dealey Plaza.

Their findings, which show that evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed, will be published in a forthcoming edition of "Annals of Applied Statistics." The paper currently is available online at http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html.

Using new compositional analysis techniques not available in the 1960s, the team found that the bullet fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously reported. In addition, their findings show that one of the 10 test bullets from one box analyzed is considered a match to one or more of the five existing assassination fragments, meaning that the matching fragments could have come from three or more separate bullets and, therefore, more than one shooter.

As one of the most traumatic events in U.S. history, the Kennedy assassination sparked a wave of scientific investigation, both immediately after the murder and in the decades since. One such investigation, the 1976 House Select Committee on Assassinations, re-examined the murders of Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

With respect to the Kennedy assassination, the committee concluded, largely on the basis of comparative bullet lead analysis and expert testimony by University of California-Irvine chemist Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, that if there were another shooter or shooters — likely firing from the Grassy Knoll — they missed all limousine occupants.

Ancient history — that is, until Spiegelman got a telephone call in 2004 from Stuart Wexler, a humanities and advanced placement government instructor at Highstown High School in New Jersey, who eventually served as the historian for the team’s paper. Wexler had read online about Spiegelman’s recent work on a National Research Council committee that helped the FBI assess its Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL) procedure used as forensic evidence in hundreds of murder cases, including the Kennedy assassination.

"Wexler and a friend of his had bought some bullets of the same type believed to have been used in the Kennedy assassination," Spiegelman recalls. "They were Mannlicher-Carcanos, which were only manufactured in 1954 and are now antiques, mainly because most surviving bullets have been bought up by conspiracy buffs. He was looking for someone to analyze them. I thought it was interesting and that it would be a neat project, so I agreed."

To find a qualified metallurgist and forensic expert, Spiegelman had to look no further than to one of the key figures behind the NRC study in the first place — William Tobin, a decorated FBI agent who in retirement had made a veritable second career out of testifying against his former employer where its evidentiary techniques were concerned.

Spiegelman and Tobin turned to Texas A&M research chemist William James and D. Max Roundhill, former head of the Department of Chemistry at Washington State University and now a consultant in Austin, for the chemical portion of their analysis. Finally, Spiegelman recruited Dr. Simon J. Sheather, professor and head of the Texas A&M Department of Statistics, at the writing stage of the project.

In their study, James analyzed the chemical composition of 30 bullets — 10 from each of three boxes of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets that originated from two of the only four separate lots ever produced. Using a measurement approach similar to Guinn’s, they applied more appropriate standards, such as additional chemical elements beyond those considered at the time, as well as a known quality control procedure. They also analyzed physical samples with a known geometry.

In comparing their data to Guinn’s testimony as well as to NRC report findings, the team determined that many bullets within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition, leading them to conclude that two-element chance matches to assassination fragments are not extraordinarily rare — even less rare, considering they came from the same box.

Based on their findings, not to mention the international significance of the Kennedy assassination, Spiegelman and his team say it is "scientifically desirable" for the bullet fragments to be reanalyzed.

Kennedy once said during a Yale commencement address, "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." Spiegelman claims that "by properly reanalyzing the bullet fragments, our nation has a chance to shatter a myth about the JFK assassination."

"The reanalysis should include at least the seven elements identified in the NRC report, should establish the scientific basis for matching fragments originating from a single bullet, and should address the critically important issues of bullet and source heterogeneity," he adds.

To read the complete paper, entitled "Chemical and Forensic Analysis of JFK Assassination Bullet Lots: Is a Second Shooter Possible"" go to http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html and scroll down to the appropriate link.

For additional information about Spiegelman or his research, visit http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~cliff/.

Labels: , , ,


Constitution according to Bush

RE: !!! Bush Instates New Martial Law Rules !!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Precarious333
Date: May 21, 2007 3:27 PM

Good comments at the source URL:

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

By Matthew Rothschild
May 18, 2007

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive [1]/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos [2] led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.
She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

Source URL:

[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/11/0401/26667

Labels: , ,


RE: Former US President Jimmy Carter blasts Bush and Blair

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Wendy Bird
Date: May 21, 2007 3:45 PM


Former US President Jimmy Carter blasts Bush and Blair over Iraq

By Bill Van Auken
21 May 2007

In a pair of back-to-back interviews, former US President Jimmy Carter delivered a blistering critique of George W. Bush—declaring his administration the “worst administration in history”—and Tony Blair, describing the British prime minister’s support for US foreign policy “abominable.”

The harshness of the critique was virtually unprecedented for an ex-president commenting on the performance of a successor, not to mention a key US ally. It was all the more unusual since it was directed against a sitting president.

In an interview published Saturday in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Carter declared: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. The overt reversal of America’s basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.”

Carter, in particular, denounced the Bush administration’s adoption of a policy of “pre-emptive war.” He said, “We have a new policy now on war. We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.” He described this as “a radical departure from all previous administration policies.”

Carter also condemned the administration’s Middle East policy. The former president was given the Nobel Peace Prize largely for negotiating the Camp David treaty between Egypt and Israel—a deal that served to isolate the Palestinian people’s struggle for liberation. He was vilified by pro-Israeli circles for his recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

“For the first time since Israel was founded, we’ve had zero peace talks to try to bring a resolution of differences in the Middle East’” he said. “That’s a radical departure from the past.”

He also called the administration’s nuclear weapons policy a “radical departure,” charging it with having “abandoned or directly refuted every nuclear arms control agreement ever negotiated down through history.”

Turning to domestic policy, the former president denounced the Bush White House for having jettisoned “almost every previous administration’s policy on environmental quality,” including those of Republicans like Richard Nixon.

Carter, a devout Baptist, was particularly caustic in condemning the Bush administration’s cementing of ties with the religious right through the promotion of government-funded “faith-based” programs, a practice he described as “quite disturbing.”

Citing programs that have allowed churches to funnel taxpayers’ money exclusively to their own members, Carter charged the administration with violating the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. He declared that he had upheld this principle while in office, adding, “And so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one.”

In relation to Blair, Carter gave an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation Saturday, as the British prime minister was in Baghdad and just after his farewell stop at the Bush White House. Asked to describe Blair’s support for Bush, the former president replied, “Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.”

He added, “I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.”

Carter suggested that had the Blair government not aligned itself with Washington in the Iraq war and instead opposed the invasion, the war might have been avoided or the occupation ended.

“I can’t say it would have made a definitive difference, but it would certainly have assuaged the problems that arose lately,” he said. “One of the defenses of the Bush administration, in the American public and on a worldwide basis—and it’s not been successful in my opinion—has been that, OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us.”

The national press largely buried their reports of Carter’s extraordinary statements. What clearly constituted major news justifying front-page coverage—a former president’s blunt denunciation of the Iraq war and the foreign and domestic policy of the current president—was treated as a second-rate item and relegated to the inside pages of both the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Carter’s interviews came as part of a promotion campaign he is conducting for a new audio-book series entitled “Sunday Mornings in Plains,” which consists of recordings of weekly Bible lessons he delivered at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia. Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the sermons were given at the time of the US invasion of Iraq and that they “interrelate my condemnation and criticism of this unnecessary invasion with the ministry of Christ as the prince of peace.”

Whatever his religious beliefs, Carter as president was no pacifist and as president (1977-1981) presided over a number of policies that helped prepare the present wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These included covert CIA support for Islamic fundamentalist guerrillas against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan, a venture in which Washington ultimately invested some $5 billion in money and arms—some of them funneled through Osama bin Laden—and that cost an estimated 1.5 million lives.

Likewise, after his support for the hated dictatorship of the Shah failed to prevent the Shah’s overthrow in the 1979 Iranian revolution, Carter proclaimed a new US militarist policy in the region aimed at maintaining US hegemony over its vast oil wealth.

Dubbed the Carter Doctrine, this policy decreed that an attempt by any other power to gain control of the oil resources of the Persian Gulf region would be “regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America” and that Washington would oppose it “by any means necessary, including military force.” To back up this threat, his administration established the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), consisting of some 200,000 US military personnel prepared for intervention in the Persian Gulf.

These preparations and the Carter Doctrine itself helped pave the way for the eruption of US militarism in a more aggressive and violent form in the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 as well as in the present war threats against Iran.

In the final analysis, Carter’s denunciations of the Bush administration’s policies flow not from the Sunday sermons in Plains; rather, they reflect the extreme tensions and recriminations that are roiling the US ruling establishment as a result of the debacle that has been created by US policy in Iraq.

Labels: , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Totalreality_2012
Date: May 21, 2007 2:50 PM

I haven't written anything for awhile, sometimes you need a break to find where you're coming from to know exactly where you want to go

Reality hit me hard yesterday, in the form of the vicious media backlash against Ron Paul, the ONLY Presidential Candidate worth the name.


Add to My Profile | More Videos

The pathetic corporate media are breaking their backs, with tirades and shallow personal attacks, scrounging for any thread or semblence of dirt on Mr.Paul, and they find nothing, but cower and attempt to silence him.


Add to My Profile | More Videos

The massive outpouring of support for Ron Paul has been devastating to the Shakespearian Theatre that is known as modern elections.

Ron Paul's actions speak louder than any scripted slogans or evoking the ghosts of 9/11.

Those actions are reflected in his VOTING RECORD.

Now the attack dogs are calling for his exclusion from the debate

He defies party lines as, what I feel, the last great hope of America, before the dying vestige of what America once was, has finally been gutted and processed into the North American Union, with the Whore of Babylon, Hillary Clinton, riding America into oblivion.

Ron Paul is the only one who stands out in the crowd of purposely weak individuals throwing the match in order to change pitchers, and just in case you think it's a left-right issue, keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, holds fundraisers for Hillary Clinton

Think about it.. Check here for a thorough archive on Ron Paul in '08


Add to My Profile | More Videos

Labels: , ,


UK brings war home

RE: UK: 'Flying saucer' police spy camera takes to the skies

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *Galactic Consciousness*
Date: May 21, 2007 2:18 PM

From: Mike4freedom(Power 2 The People)
Date: May 21, 2007 1:09 PM

'Flying saucer' police spy camera takes to the skies

The UK's first police "spy drone" took to the skies today.

The remote control helicopter, fitted with CCTV cameras, will be used by officers in Merseyside to track criminals and record anti-social behaviour.

The drone is only a metre wide, weighs less than a bag of sugar, and can record images from a height of 500m.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

The 'spy drone' was originally used for military reconnaissance

It was originally used for military reconnaissance but is now being trialled by a mainstream police force.

The spy plane was launched as a senior police officer warned the surveillance society in the UK is eroding civil liberties.

Ian Readhead, deputy chief constable of Hampshire Police, said Britain could face an Orwellian situation with cameras on every street corner. However, senior officers in Merseyside, who are trialling the drone, said they did not believe it was the next phase in creating a Big Brother society.

Assistant chief constable Simon Byrne said: "People clamour for the feeling of safety which cameras give.

"Obviously there is a point of view that has been expressed but our feedback from the public is anything we can do to fight crime is a good thing.

"There are safeguards in place legally covering the use of CCTV and the higher the level of intrusion, the higher the level of authority needed within the police force to use it. So there is that balance there."

Police said the drone is expected to be operational by June and will be given a three-month trial.


Labels: , ,


RE: The rise of power - Guiliani: not so nice of a guy

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Philo-sophia
Date: May 21, 2007 2:35 PM

The truth about the politics of New York City and surprisingly, many people spoke up!

This documentary examines Giuliani’s rise to power, his policies and his so-called turnaround of New York City. Interviewing journalists, ... all » activists, legal experts, and many of the city’s poor, “Giuliani Time” reveals that while the Mayor touted his Broken Windows, Quality of Life and Zero Tolerance policies, the reality on the streets was police brutality, violations of the First Amendment and racist actions.

Then 9/11 happened and Giuliani’s actions endeared him forever to Americans. Should we allow that to overshadow the darker moments of his administration?

Labels: , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *Galactic Consciousness*
Date: May 21, 2007 1:22 PM

Date: May 21, 2007 11:43 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: NINURTA999 Quantum Is Reality
Date: May 21, 2007 11:05 AM

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

In the past, we Nuwaubians, use to find ourselves in debates with people of many religions. We would quote the bible or quran and "bust up" muslims and christians on various topics. Now time appeared to move on and we find ourselves in debates with each other. Nuwaubians debating Nuwaubians. The Master Teacher told us that this would happen and even the fact that Nuwaubians will be their own enemy.

Many people do not know how to have a constructive debate. Anyone can toss arguments around, however constructive debating is more than that. If we are to debate one another in a constructive progressive manner then we all should learn how to debate properly. Debate is important if we dont want to live in a dictatorship or loose our freedoms. The Master Teacher is doing a masterful job at helping us to preserve our freedoms by informing us of various issues and aquainting us with alternate points of view. This gives us the tools to be able to have rational and constructive debates to measure everything from our own point of view, that is, from where we can see it and overstand it. Here are some pointers on rational and constructive debating....

Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can use such terms that are commonly & regularly used in small groups of people and feel reasonably sure that we will be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially disagree and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such words.

Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.

Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself. There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."

Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!) Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher incomes.

Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately, frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or impossible to defend against rational attack.

Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted" to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper. Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.

Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and everybody has his reasons for thinking so.

Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough. There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous.

Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very frequently is the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical, but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing. Perhaps we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So we give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring individuals. We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. We find that there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. Is this evidence that the drug increased the IQ? Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is this evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Not necessarily! Any statistician knows that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average score and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly universal statistical principle. It has nothing to do with what is being measured. It works with molecules and atoms just as it does with juvenile delinquents and schizophrenics.

More pointers on debating....
# Apply the scientific method.
# Cite relevant personal experience.
# Be polite.
# Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
# Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also anti-gun.)
# Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
# Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
# Read the post you are responding to.
# Stay open to learning.
# Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
# Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
# Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
# Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
# Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
# Quantify, wherever possible.
# If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
# "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
# Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
# Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
# Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .


Right Knowledge without use and expression is a vain thing, bringing no good to its possesor, or to the Nuwaubian. - The Master Teacher Rev. Dr. Malachi Z. York

Labels: , ,


RE: FEMA - The Plan to Kill America

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *Galactic Consciousness*
Date: May 21, 2007 1:27 PM

Date: May 21, 2007 11:14 AM

Since that day our bumbling boy wonder stole the office of president some have wondered about the ulterior purposes behind this administration and all it's nefarious doings. They have not been alone in this mini-quest. Part of the dilemma for anyone who truly wants to understand these actions and re-actions, within the circles of power and greed is that 'nothing they do' seems to make any logical sense.

Ordinary criminal schemes are usually easy to decipher. Money trails can be found and their telltale tracks followed, to whatever may have been the point of such an effort. But this 'super-plan' for domination includes the complete destruction of most or all that matters - in or to the civilized world - and none of it makes sense.

The litanies of the theft of everything constitutional have been well documented. The voracious greed of the warlords, while perhaps less clearly delineated, are finally taking shape: At least as to which countries are now being targeted, even when it remains unclear as to why those countries might now find themselves in that position. In addition to the above we also have the destruction of the entire system of social programs, the welfare of the states, the counties and the cities of the United States - as well as the total isolation of all the citizens of this country - inside a massive shroud of secrecy and fear.

In addition to all of this, the Bush Crime Family has targeted the viability of the environment, the supply of clean water, the fertility of the soil, and the breathablity of the air itself - as though they somehow will not have to suffer the same consequences as the rest of the human race - once their policies begin to destroy all possibility for life on this planet.

Where's the sense - where's the profit in all the artificial fear, all the hate and all the aggression? Recently they've begun to destroy the very instruments of dialogue and discussion. In their haste to attack Iraq they destroyed the Atlantic Alliance, did major damage to the United Nations, and managed to severely wound the NATO alliance. How can they hope to triumph against such a background of belligerence and destruction? What's left to crush or threaten once we've finished declaring ourselves to be the Supreme Rulers of the World?

It turns out that most of the above has only been a side-show, an 'introductory video' of what will happen to the United States and to all its citizens if we should fail to comply with every command on the Bushwhacker's hit list of rights to be taken, property to be stolen, or dreams to be denied. It seems there is a plan beneath all this after all.

This little nightmare was brought to us by Nixon's creation of something called FEMA, The Federal Emergency Management Agency. And over the years each consecutive president has contributed to it's continuing health and viability - until we got to '41,' bullyboy's daddy. GWH Bush saw to it that this weapon against the people was armed and ready - the only thing not in place was a sufficient excuse to implement it.

What exactly is FEMA, in terms of its powers, once it is activated?

"EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months."

A complete explanation is here: http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html

Then came the events of 911. Here was the beginning of the real possibility to make the transition from a science fiction fantasy to living reality. http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm

To facilitate the onset of civil unrest in the United States, a number of actions by the executive branch of government have been undertaken with the complicity and collusion of both the congress and the courts, under the direction of a loosely defined coalition of the eager - that involves both the USA and a faction of extremists within the government of Israel. All of this is being financed by you and I - through the monetary choices we have allowed this government to make, since the ascension of the Bush Crime Family to their executive posts in Washington D.C.

To understand how this was possible one needs to go back in time to a little known but extremely important occurrence that reshaped our country in 1871. The changes created by the "Act of 1871" altered the words "The Constitution for the United States of America - to read:


This latter form is the corporate constitution, and it operates in an economic capacity that was designed to deceive us into thinking that "it is the same parchment that was meant to govern the Republic. It absolutely is not." The differences go well beyond the capitalization. Legally the entire key is to be found in the difference between a United States Constitution that is "for" and the one that is "OF" the United States. http://www.babelmagazine.com/issue66/uscorporation.html

Once the differences are understood, between a Corporate Charter and a civil Constitution, it becomes clear that what serves the corporation, may often work against the people of the civil society. This action killed the Republic created by our revolution, and replaced our charter with a corporate democracy - and that is exactly what is playing out in history as it's being written today.

When one combines the "Act of 1871" with the 'rights of personhood' granted to the Corporations in an 1886 Supreme Court decision (that freed American corporations from individual responsibility for their actions) that act completely revised the intent and purposes behind the original Constitution "for" the people of the United States of America. Taken together these two major alterations became the basis for our two-tiered system of both law and life. Americans are now trying to cope - as second-class supplicants to the corporations that now rule our lives. Add to this the introduction of our defacto dictator, George Walker Bush, crown-prince-in- waiting for the title of Leader-of-the-World - and one can easily see that we are just one hair's breath short of complete and outright slavery.

The amazing thing about these facts is how few people are even remotely aware of their existence - not to mention the above historical precedents that have become the bedrock of America, as we now know it.

Americans since 911 have been traumatized by the shock of unfolding events. As such we could be said to resemble a patient who has been in a coma for an extended period of time. IF we ever learn what happened to us, we will awake from that coma in a rage of righteous anger. Anger that while we were defenseless - the government has metaphorically 'been having its way with us.' Figuratively we've been raped and sodomized, used and abused at will by this government to flesh out their fantasies of world domination - at the expense of everything we thought our lives were made of.

The Bush Crime family has been secretly and voraciously devouring the critical funding for everything from schools and medicine to infrastructure and the 'privatization' of social security. The willful destruction of social programs, coupled with an economically irresponsible foreign policy of continual and unnecessary wars; plus a 'reorganization' of the entire federal government through implementation of the HOMELAND Security Act that has obviously - all been created to bring this nation to the brink of economic collapse. This brings us back to the original question - "Why are we doing this?"

The answer is beyond ugly. The goal it seems is to get us to relinquish all our rights - to the government - to "protect us from all the evil in the world." The actual problem is that all the evil resides in the compacts that have been forged between the Cabal in Washington and the thugs in Tel Aviv, under the international cover of 'fighting terror on a global scale.'

Once the next 911 happens, the nation will be put on condition RED, and then we'll have PATRIOT II by executive order. This will unleash FEMA to do what it was designed to do - which is to round us all up, strip us of anything anyone in government might want, and throw the rest of us away. This will be courtesy of that secretive black-ops shadow government known as FEMA - that rising curse that gives shape to all the nightmares that Bush wants each of us to fear. This terrifying new world will exceed all natural bonds, and will even surpass our innate wish to remain a viably free and prosperous society. This will make Orwell's 1984 look like a fairy tale. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/camps.html

Once FEMA has the reins in it's slavering jaws, there will be no going back, no governmental oversight, no review of events, or of transgressions - we will be absorbed into a monolithic morass that serves the corporations and only the corporations for only as long as we may be useful to their purposes. All else will be discarded or recycled into something useful to the new powers that will replace what used-to-be the United States in America. Life as we have known it will cease to exist!

The only question now is "Will we ever awaken from our self-imposed comas?"

Labels: , ,


RE: Senators Want CIA to Release 9 / 11 Report

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Wendy Bird
Date: May 21, 2007 1:43 PM

(in case you missed it)


Senators Want CIA to Release 9 / 11 Report

Published: May 17, 2007
Filed at 9:21 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A bipartisan group of senators is pushing legislation that would force the CIA to release an inspector general's report on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The CIA has spent more than 20 months weighing requests under the Freedom of Information Act for its internal investigation of the attacks but has yet to release any portion of it.
The agency is the only federal office involved in counterterrorism operations that has not made at least a version of its internal 9/11 investigation public.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and two other intelligence committee leaders -- chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Kit Bond of Missouri -- are pushing legislation that would require the agency to declassify the executive summary of the review within one month and submit a report to Congress explaining why any material was withheld.
The provision has been approved by the Senate twice, but never made into law.
In an interview, Wyden said he is also considering whether to link the report's release to his acceptance of President Bush's nominations for national security positions.
''It's amazing the efforts the administration is going to stonewall this,'' Wyden said. ''The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11.... I am going to bulldog this until the public gets it.''
Completed in June 2005, the inspector general's report examined the personal responsibility of individuals at the CIA before and after the attacks. Other agencies' reviews examined structural problems within their organizations.
Wyden, who has read the classified report several times, wouldn't offer any details on its findings or the conversations he has had with CIA Director Michael Hayden, former CIA Director Porter Goss and former National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
But he did say that protecting individuals from embarrassment is not a legitimate reason for protecting the report's contents from public review. He also said the decision to classify the report has nothing to do with national security, but rather political security.
Hayden declined to be interviewed about the report. In a statement Thursday, his spokesman Mark Mansfield said the CIA director wants the agency to learn from any past mistakes, but doesn't want to dwell on them.
''Given the formidable national security challenges our nation faces, now and down the road, General Hayden believes it is essential for the Agency to move forward,'' Mansfield said. ''That's where our emphasis needs to be.''
The agency's actions prior to Sept. 11 have gotten renewed attention with the release of a memoir by former CIA director George Tenet. He has been criticized for not doing more to warn Bush about the al-Qaida threat.
In interviews about his memoir, he has said instead he worked the bureaucracy beneath the president by asking then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others for action.
Bond said some intelligence officials have dismissed the inspector general's report as ''ancient history,'' which he doesn't accept. He said the report has additional information which would be useful to the public.
''We have no desire to embarrass or throw cold water on the enthusiasm of the great men and women of the CIA, but let's just take a clear and open look at what the IG found and see if we have all of those problems corrected,'' Bond said.
In an October 2005 statement Goss said the officers involved in counterterrorism were ''stars who had excelled in their areas'' singled out by the CIA to take on difficult assignments. ''Unfortunately, time and resources were not on their side, despite their best efforts to meet unprecedented challenges,'' he said.
Goss rejected a recommendation from CIA Inspector General John Helgerson that the agency form accountability review boards to examine any personal culpability. Bond said that move was regrettable.
In his statement, Goss also noted that the agency had received a Freedom of Information Act request for the report, and that a review process was ongoing. But the CIA has not released any documents to The Associated Press or other organizations that began requesting the information at least 20 months ago.
The law requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days, but officials rarely meet those deadlines and often blame lengthy backlogs.
Groups including the National Security Archive have clashed with the agency over its FOIA policies. Last year, the archive gave the CIA its prize for the agency with the worst FOIA record. Called the ''Rosemary Award,'' it's named after President Nixon's secretary, Rosemary Woods, who erased 18 minutes of a key Watergate conversation on the White House tapes.
The citation noted that CIA's oldest FOIA requests could apply for drivers' licenses in most states. ''CIA has for three decades been one of the worst FOIA agencies,'' archive Director Thomas Blanton said this week.
Many of the individuals highlighted in the inspector general's report are likely to have retired. But some are believed still to be in senior government positions, making the report's findings even more sensitive at the CIA and perhaps elsewhere within the intelligence community.
The AP has reported that the two-year review of what went wrong before the suicide hijackings harshly criticized a number of the agency's most senior officials.
That includes Tenet, former clandestine service chief Jim Pavitt and former counterterrorism center head Cofer Black, according to individuals familiar with the report, who spoke in 2005 on condition they not be identified.
Yet the report also offered some praise for actions of Tenet and others.
Pavitt is now a principal with The Scowcroft Group, an international business advisory firm, and Black is vice chairman of Blackwater USA, an international security firm whose clients include the CIA and other U.S. agencies.

Labels: , ,


RE: Ron Paul introduces Parental Consent Act

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: An American
Date: May 21, 2007 11:55 AM

Parental Consent Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 2387 IH


1st Session

H. R. 2387

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.


May 17, 2007

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. DOOLITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    This Act may be cited as the `Parental Consent Act of 2007'.


    The Congress finds as follows:

      (1) The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued findings and recommendations against screening for suicide that corroborate those of the Canadian Preventive Services Task Force. `USPSTF found no evidence that screening for suicide risk reduces suicide attempts or mortality. There is limited evidence on the accuracy of screening tools to identify suicide risk in the primary care setting, including tools to identify those at high risk.'.

      (2) The 1999 Surgeon General's report on mental health admitted the serious conflicts in the medical literature regarding the definitions of mental health and mental illness when it said, `In other words, what it means to be mentally healthy is subject to many different interpretations that are rooted in value judgments that may vary across cultures. The challenge of defining mental health has stalled the development of programs to foster mental health (Secker, 1998). . . .'.

      (3) A 2005 report by the National Center for Infant and Early Childhood Health Policy admitted, with respect to the psychiatric screening of children from birth to age 5, the following: `We have mentioned a number of the problems for the new field of IMH [Infant Mental Health] throughout this paper, and many of them complicate examining outcomes.'. Briefly, such problems include:

        (A) Lack of baseline

        (B) Lack of agreement about diagnosis.

        (C) Criteria for referrals or acceptance into services are not always well defined.

        (D) Lack of longitudinal outcome studies.

        (E) Appropriate assessment and treatment requires multiple informants involved with the young child: parents, clinicians, child care staff, preschool staff, medical personnel, and other service providers.

        (F) Broad parameters for determining socioemotional outcomes are not clearly defined, although much attention is now being given to school readiness.

      (4) Authors of the bible of psychiatric diagnosis, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, admit that the diagnostic criteria for mental illness are vague, saying, `DSM-IV criteria remain a consensus without clear empirical data supporting the number of items required for the diagnosis. . . . Furthermore, the behavioral characteristics specified in DSM-IV, despite efforts to standardize them, remain subjective. . . .' (American Psychiatric Association Committee on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV 1994), pp. 1162-1163).

      (5) Because of the subjectivity of psychiatric diagnosis, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a person's disagreement with the psychiatrist's political beliefs a mental disorder.

      (6) Efforts are underway to add a diagnosis of `extreme intolerance' to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Prisoners in the California State penal system judged to have this extreme intolerance based on race or sexual orientation are considered to be delusional and are being medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. (Washington Post 12/10/05)

      (7) At least one federally-funded school violence prevention program has suggested that a child who shares his or her parent's traditional values may be likely to instigate school violence.

      (8) Despite many statements in the popular press and by groups promoting the psychiatric labeling and medication of children, that ADD/ADHD is due to a chemical imbalance in the brain, the 1998 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference said, `. . . further research is necessary to firmly establish ADHD as a brain disorder. This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric disorders, including disabling diseases such as schizophrenia. . . . Although an independent diagnostic test for ADHD does not exist. . . . Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains speculative.'.

      (9) There has been a precipitous increase in the prescription rates of psychiatric drugs in children:

        (A) The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased nearly fivefold between 1995 and 2002 with more than 2.5 million children receiving these medications, the youngest being 18 months old. (Vanderbilt University, 2006)

        (B) More than 2.2 million children are receiving more than one psychotropic drug at one time with no scientific evidence of safety or effectiveness. (Medco Health Solutions, 2006)

        (C) More money was spent on psychiatric drugs for children than on antibiotics or asthma medication in 2003. (Medco Trends, 2004)

      (10) A September 2004 Food and Drug Administration hearing found that more than two-thirds of studies of antidepressants given to depressed children showed that they were no more effective than placebo, or sugar pills, and that only the positive trials were published by the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of effectiveness of antidepressants has been known by the Food and Drug Administration since at least 2000 when, according to the Food and Drug Administration Background Comments on Pediatric Depression, Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration Office of Drug Evaluation acknowledged the `preponderance of negative studies of antidepressants in pediatric populations'. The Surgeon General's report said of stimulant medication like Ritalin, `However, psychostimulants do not appear to achieve long-term changes in outcomes such as peer relationships, social or academic skills, or school achievement.'.

      (11) The Food and Drug Administration finally acknowledged by issuing its most severe Black Box Warnings in September 2004, that the newer antidepressants are related to suicidal thoughts and actions in children and that this data was hidden for years. A confirmatory review of that data published in 2006 by Columbia University's department of psychiatry, which is also the originator of the TeenScreen instrument, found that `in children and adolescents (aged 6-18 years), antidepressant drug treatment was significantly associated with suicide attempts . . . and suicide deaths. . . . '. The Food and Drug Administration had over 2000 reports of completed suicides from 1987 to 1995 for the drug Prozac alone, which by the agency's own calculations represent but a fraction of the suicides. Prozac is the only such drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in children.

      (12) Other possible side effects of psychiatric medication used in children include mania, violence, dependence, weight gain, and insomnia from the newer antidepressants; cardiac toxicity including lethal arrhythmias from the older antidepressants; growth suppression, psychosis, and violence from stimulants; and diabetes from the newer anti-psychotic medications.

      (13) Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it. Universal or mandatory mental health screening and the accompanying treatments recommended by the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health will only increase that problem. Across the country, Patricia Weathers, the Carroll Family, the Johnston Family, and the Salazar Family were all charged or threatened with child abuse charges for refusing or taking their children off of psychiatric medications.

      (14) The United States Supreme Court in Pierce versus Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510 (1925)) held that parents have a right to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

      (15) Universal or mandatory mental health screening violates the right of parents to direct and control the upbringing of their children.

      (16) Federal funds should never be used to support programs that could lead to the increased over-medication of children, the stigmatization of children and adults as mentally disturbed based on their political or other beliefs, or the violation of the liberty and privacy of Americans by subjecting them to invasive `mental health screening' (the results of which are placed in medical records which are available to government officials and special interests without the patient's consent).


    (a) Universal or Mandatory Mental Health Screening Program- No Federal funds may be used to establish or implement any universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program.

    (b) Refusal to Consent as Basis of a Charge of Child Abuse or Education Neglect- No Federal education funds may be paid to any local educational agency or other instrument of government that uses the refusal of a parent or legal guardian to provide express, written, voluntary, informed consent to mental health screening for his or her child as the basis of a charge of child abuse, child neglect, medical neglect, or education neglect until the agency or instrument demonstrates that it is no longer using such refusal as a basis of such a charge.

    (c) Definition- For purposes of this Act, the term `universal or mandatory mental health, psychiatric, or socioemotional screening program'--

      (1) means any mental health screening program in which a set of individuals (other than members of the Armed Forces or individuals serving a sentence resulting from conviction for a criminal offense) is automatically screened without regard to whether there was a prior indication of a need for mental health treatment; and

      (2) includes--

        (A) any program of State incentive grants for transformation to implement recommendations in the July 2003 report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the State Early Childhood Comprehensive System, grants for TeenScreen, and the Foundations for Learning Grants; and

        (B) any student mental health screening program that allows mental health screening of individuals under 18 years of age without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of the parent or legal guardian of the individual involved.

Labels: , ,

eXTReMe Tracker