"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - - - Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 Whatever the evil (poison) is, it must be presented in a mix of something good, or good for you. Rat poison is like this, 99.5% of the ingredients are tasty and nutritious for the rat (otherwise, they wouldn't eat it, would they?).  Only .5% (1/2 percent) is deadly.

of News, Current Events & Comment for June 2004 February 2004  March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 the URL for this page can be found by returning to the previous page (if a contributing editor, wishes recognition, they should so indicate with their submission) Best printing w/a black only printer is accomplished when your settings are for "black text and black lines"

To save on the amount of forced emails that consume MEGA bytes of HD space,  these pages are created for your convenience. Pictures can be saved by right clicking then follow the yellow brick road, and original of reports can be located by available links in the articles and saved as you would other web pages. I am reminded of Dad's special brownies.  It is the same truth.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39078

President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters of the administration.

The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report, seeks to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.

Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.

The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system."

The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.

The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."

Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."

The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall plan.

But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.

Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab."

Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to TMAP.

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland Security Council.

Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.

Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America," told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."

Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter program," he said.

However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends screening.

"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."
 
 

This is what Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has essentially said about your right to NOT incriminate yourself.  If you have the right to say NOTHING, and it applies at all times, such as what the case of Miranda told us, then how can saying nothing be an arrestable criminal act?  If the act of not telling something is your protection, then how can you protect yourself AFTER you say something?  The basic idea is to prevent letting someone else pry into your personal affairs.  Notice I did not say others could not pry anyway, but you should not be required to help them.  That is one of the premises of protecting our liberties, is it not?

With every passing case the Supreme Court has heard, they have manage to continually erode our liberties, all of them.  Today, with the Hiibel case, Kennedy has spoken for the court to say the following.

The narrow scope of the disclosure requirement is also important. One's identity is, by definition, unique; yet it is, in another sense, a universal characteristic. Answering a request to disclose a name is likely to be so insignificant in the scheme of things as to be incriminating only in unusual circumstances. See Baltimore City Dept. of Social Servs. v. Bouknight, 493 U. S. 549, 555 (1990) (suggesting that "fact[s] the State could readily establish" may render "any testimony regarding existence or authenticity [of them] insufficiently incriminating"); Cf. California v. Byers, 402 U. S. 424, 432 (1971) (opinion of Burger, C. J.). In every criminal case, it is known and must be known who has been arrested and who is being tried. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U. S. 582, 601-602 (1990) (opinion of Brennan, J.). Even witnesses who plan to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege answer when their names are called to take the stand. Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.

This case can be found at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554

Let us look at the law that is supposed to protect our liberty in this regard.

AMENDMENT 5.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If you know you are clean and have no fear of anything resulting from a check of your PERMENANT RECORD, then you surely think there is nothing wrong with requiring everyone to do everything a cop or other government agent wants.  I recall how this country fought 2 world wars to combat just such a practice.  Are we now what we fought, have we become the enemy?

If this is a good type of law, then why not go further and make it a requirement that anyone who did, or might have, done something, should go to the police and confess.  Whereby not confessing is a crime.  Did I just give "them" an idea they did not already have?

Now, if you pay attention to the news even a little you know you have heard or read of people who had their homes terrorized by government agents or the like, only later to have these agents say oops, we got the wrong home.  You know you have heard or read about agents killing someone and later claim mistaken identity.  You know you have heard or read of people loosing their homes, jobs, families over goofs made by cops, and other agents of the government.  Are you honestly going to sit there reading this and say you feel secure in government protecting you?

If you think this Gestapo type action is a good thing, then I have only one thing to say to you --

goto top .....mailto: rockyview@tellme1st.net