"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 May 2005  January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 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.

Although the People's war against the income tax fraud and IRS abuse has been lengthy and daunting and has left many freedom fighters across our nation battered and bankrupt, there are continuing signs that the tide of tyranny may finally be meeting effective resistance.

On April 12th 2005, William Wallace Lear of
Muskegon Michigan appeared in federal District Court in Grand Rapids to face IRS charges
claiming Lear had violated the terms of his probation. William Lear had served one year in a federal detention facility in Minnesota following his conviction in 2002 for Willful Failure to File income tax returns (a misdemeanor). His probation began in March, 2004.

The basis for the probation violation hearing was an IRS claim that Lear failed to abide by the strict terms of his probation which included the requirement that he file all his delinquent tax returns and pay all back taxes and penalties owed.

Just as the hearing before Judge Gordon Quist began, the DOJ attorneys moved to dismiss the IRS's probation violation claim against Lear that would have sent him back to prison.

- for the whole of this report and all its links, go to http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-05-21.htm
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

The Secret Government
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050423secretgovernment
contributing editor to   - Rodger

If you've taken the time to explore some of the vast amount of reliable, verifiable information on WantToKnow.info, you have very likely come to the conclusion that there is a powerful shadow or secret government which manipulates global politics behind the scenes. Government bureaucracies are known for their inefficiency, yet it is their very well-organized and hierarchical military and intelligence services through which those involved with the secret government are able to implement their secret plans.

In the 22-minute PBS documentary available for free viewing below, host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives of powerful groups in the hidden shadows of our government.

The text of "The Secret Government" is also provided below for your convenience. Please help to strengthen democracy and educate others by spreading this important information. For suggestions on how each of us can work towards a better way, click here. Together, we can and will build a brighter future for us all.

With best wishes,
Fred Burks for the WantToKnow.info Team

http://207.44.245.159/video1/Secretgov1.wmv - "The Secret Government" Part 1 (11 minutes) mirror site on tellme1st
http://207.44.245.159/video1/Secretgov2.wmv - "The Secret Government" Part 2 (11 minutes) mirror site on tellme1st
Windows Media Player (free download) is required to view documentary
http://www.addictedtowar.com/bill.moyers.htm - Written transcript of "The Secret Government"
http://www.pbs.org/now/series/billmoyers2.html - PBS website gives brief bio of Bill Moyers
 
 

[On its surface, this sounds like something right up there with Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Andrew Wommack, John Hagee, and countless others.  --  Tribble]

For only 45 days, starting June 1st until July 15, 2005, Prophet Yahweh, Seer of Yahweh, will be calling down UFOs and spaceships for the news media to film and photograph. During this time, a spaceship will descend, on Prophet's signal, and sit in the skies over Las Vegas, Nevada for almost two days.

Las Vegas, NV (PRWEB) May 25, 2005 -- Prophet Yahweh was blessed to discover the lost, ancient art of summoning UFOs and spaceships on-demand.

There is a difference between UFOs and spaceships. UFOs are usually small flying objects: glowing orbs, metallic spheres, satellite-type flying machines, etc. And, their flight patterns suggest that they are not of this world.

But, spaceships are large futuristic vehicles that are clearly designed to carry passengers in like you see in the movies.

Since 1979, more than 1,500 UFOs and/or spaceships have appeared on Prophet Yahweh's signal before witnesses or at unawares.

During this time, he was performing his summons privately with only those close to him as witnesses.

But, starting June 1st until July 15th (45 days) Prophet is going public by opening up to the news media.

He will demonstrate his ability to call down UFOs and spaceships, on-demand, for them to film and photograph.

Prophet is in direct telephatic contact with his space being friends. They have revealed that they will send UFOs as soon as Prophet starts asking for them to appear.

Also, before the 45 day summoning period has ended, a spaceship will descend and sit in the skies over Las Vegas on Prophet's signal.

The spaceship will hover in the sky, not far from Nellis Air Force base, for almost two days. All Las Vegans will be able to see it, day and night, before it goes back up into space.

Some news media representatives won’t be able to come to Las Vegas to film the sightings. But, they would be interested in doing a story on Prophet’s ability to summon them.

Others would like to see videos of the UFOs, first, to determine if they are real, before coming.

Because of this, Prophet is giving the news media free access to the broadcasts area of his website where they can view his UFO videos.

Also, since some news media will not be able to come to Las Vegas, Prophet is willing to travel to any city to call down UFOs for them to document.

If your company would like to film or photograph UFOs and/or spaceships that appear on Prophet’s cue, email your request to him.

Afterwards, he will communicate with you concerning it and email you the login information you need to access the UFO videos in the Broadcast Area of his website.

For information: http://www.prophetyahweh.com or

Contact: e-mail protected from spam bots

Phone: 1-800-314-4847, 702-966-0303

Contact:
Prophet Yahweh
Seer of Yahweh/Ufologist
POB 271551
Las Vegas, Nevada 89127
Phone: 1-800-314-4847, 702-966-0303
http://www.prophetyahweh.com
e-mail protected from spam bots
 
 

I N S I G H T

The Battle for Your Mind: Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public
By Dick Sutphen
http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[There is a technique called the Delphi Technique.  There is overlap of these two processes.  It may even be argued that one is an extension of the other.  The point is, many are the people who have studied and learned how to manipulate the masses.  The media, the government, the advertisers, the police, the public schools, and others.  You can learn more about the "Delphi Technique" at the following cites.  --  Tribble]

http://www.premier1.net/~barkonwd/school/DELPHI.HTM
http://home.HiWAAY.net/~becraft/Delphi.htm
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

Spy vs. Spy
By Bill Piper, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2005.
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[It seems that the category header "D O  N O T  drink the Kool-Aid*" is getting a lot of use lately.  Truth is, it may have gotten more use in the past if it had been made earlier.  But, so very many stories and reports are ever increasing that appropriately relate to this idea.  Go figure, along the way we are tagged, like so much cattle (ID's & RFID), then we are encouraged to squeal on each other.  I am not oblivious to the initial benign nature and promotion of these things, but I am ever aware that no matter how benign or beneficial things are in the beginning, they usually will be mis-used to the detriment of the people.  Heil Hitler.  --  Tribble]

Proposed legislation would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, forcing all Americans to become foot soldiers in the war on drugs.

Neighbors spying on neighbors? Mothers forced to turn in their sons or daughters? These are images straight out of George Orwell's 1984, or a remote totalitarian state. We don't associate them with the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen here. A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force.

Sensenbrenner, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman, has introduced legislation that would essentially draft every American into the war on drugs. H.R. 1528, cynically named "Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act," would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, and even go undercover and wear a wire if needed. If a person resisted, he or she would face mandatory incarceration.

Here's how the "spy" section of the legislation works: If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" about them, you must report the offenses to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance in the investigation, apprehension and prosecution" of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory minimum two-year prison sentence, and a maximum sentence of 10 years.

Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to police within 24 hours:

    * You find out that your brother, who has children, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife;
    * You discover that your son gave his college roommate a marijuana joint;
    * You learn that your daughter asked her boyfriend to find her some drugs, even though they're both in treatment.

In each of these cases you would have to report the relative to the police within 24 hours. Taking time to talk to your relative about treatment instead of calling the police immediately could land you in jail.

In addition to turning family member against family member, the legislation could also put many Americans in danger by forcing them to go undercover to gain evidence against strangers.

Even if the language that forces every American to become a de facto law enforcement agent is taken out, the bill would still impose draconian sentences on college students, mothers, people in drug treatment and others with substance abuse problems. If enacted, this bill will destroy lives, break up families, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

Despite growing opposition to mandatory minimum sentences from civil rights groups to U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the bill eliminates federal judges' ability to give sentences below the minimum recommended by federal sentencing guidelines. This creates a mandatory minimum sentence for all federal offenses, drug-related or not.

H.R. 1528 also establishes new draconian penalties for a variety of non-violent drug offenses, including:

* Five years for anyone who passes a marijuana joint at a party to someone who, at some point in his or her life, has been in drug treatment;
* Ten years for mothers with substance abuse problems who commit certain drug offenses at home (even if their children are not at home at the time);
* Five years for any person with substance abuse problems who begs a friend in drug treatment to find them some drugs.

At a time when everyone from the conservative American Enterprise Institute to the liberal Sentencing Project is slamming the war on drugs as an abject failure, Sensenbrenner is trying to escalate it, and to force all Americans to become its foot soldiers. Instead of enacting new mandatory minimums, federal policymakers should look toward the states. A growing number have reformed their drug sentencing laws, including Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York and Texas, and they have proved it is possible to both save money and improve public safety.

Simply put, there is no way H.R. 1528 can be fixed. The only policy proposal in recent years that comes close to being as totalitarian as this bill is Operations TIPS, the Ashcroft initiative that would have encouraged -- but not required -- citizens to spy on one another. Congress rightfully rejected that initiative and they should do the same with H.R. 1528. Big Brother has no business here in America.

Bill Piper is director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y

Media Brazenly Promotes Murderers
by Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com/
contributing editor to   - Bob

[As you read this, do not omit cops who kill/murder many people every day, and defend it as just doing our job.  --  Tribble]

    On the same day a madman killed three human beings in Tucson, Arizona, doctors, many near you, killed 270 human beings, by mistake.

    Another 270 people died, many near you, because hospitals and their staff aren't kept clean enough. The Associated Press repeatedly confirms 100,000 dead every year, from each cause.

    So 540 people died that day, needlessly, some horribly, some by the same doctors, some right near you.

    On the same day three people were murdered, 540 other people were killed nationwide. The Tucson three are in the headlines, non-stop, thousands of miles away. The innocent 540 who woke up dead that day got deafening radio silence -- no mentions, at all, anywhere.

    So what? The media's use of this madman and others like him works to set public policy they want. It's not a conspiracy, they just all do it. It's why they're known as the pack media.

    This killer they like so much used a gun -- not an infected scalpel -- so the saturation coverage draws the anti-rigts bigots out to holler, and gain momentum, while our cherished medical community gets away with murder. Policy instigated by homicidal maniacs, now there's a plan.

    The next time you hear about a murder or ten, 2,000 miles away from your home, you remember that on that same day, 540 people died, some near you, because doctors made mistakes and hospitals give people lethal infections.

    And recognize that the murder stories these vicious editors and reporters bring you are straight propaganda. They want you to hate guns (like they do), depend (like they do) on the authorities (who rarely draw their guns, and usually just draw chalk lines). They want to vilify and attack our nation's right to be armed and defend ourselves, like those victims sorely needed.

    If their idea, as they would have you believe, is to keep us safer, then the repeat offender doctors would be on page one. When they keep the Tucson murderer on page one for a week, they only make us feel helpless. What's wrong with thesepeople?

    Three dead five days ago, or 540 dead today, again. Where do you think the focus should be -- right away -- if the goal was public safety and not the biased agenda of control, and government supremacy, from our hopelessly monolithic free press.

    SIDEBAR

    The three horrible murders at U of A were committed in a gun-free zone (areas where legal guns carried by licensed individuals are prohibited). Isn't it time we recognized that:

    1 - Gun-free zones are dangerous;

    2 - Gun-free zones don't protect you;

    3 - Gun-free zones don't effect murderers.

    Shouldn't there be some sort of liability for a place that recklessly leaves you defenseless, especially if the authorities know such an occurrence is possible or even likely? (See the Gun-Free-Zone Liability Act)

    We so routinely accept the denial of our right to arms that we overlook how this outcome might have been different had we not so cavalierly abandoned everyone's right to self defense.

    I heard U of A president Peter Likins say he was happy the police responded so quickly. Seems to me they were late...

    What's the point of all the news coverage of heavily armed shock troops running abouttown, now that the horse is gone and there's no barn door.

    The only people on time were the ones already there, defenseless in the school's fraudulently "safe" gun-free zone. The first person to arrive at a crime scene is always the victim, never forget that.

    When the stunning publicity of this maniac spawns another in a gun-free zone somewhere else, you ask yourself this -- would you mind if someone besides the maniac -- like someone decent with training -- had a gun there too?

    Nah, you'd probably just throw up your hands and say it's hopeless, watch the cops with black guns and black masks on TV, and push for some law to write down the names of gun owners on an FBI list, for safety.

    Alan Korwin.

This is good viewing.  It has several modes for viewing and downloading the short video.
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

We used to call it Vandalism or Theft & it was a Crime
 

"Stand and Deliver" This was so varied in relevance, it took 3 category headers. There was a time not very long in the past, when you traveled by bus, train, plane or any other such means, you expected your property to be sacred.  If you found you luggage had be rifled, then you complained to the carrier and they were happy to investigate the matter and/or try to bring you some measure of satisfaction.  It would not have mattered whether the invasion happened by an employee of the travel company, or anyone else.  Today, we seem to welcome the invasion and vandalism.  It is vandalism, make no mistake about it.  The news reports occassionally will tell of theft of items from baggage.  Whether it is openly told in the news reports does not prevent you from knowing it happens and will happen - it is the nature of people.  How long will we suffer these processes? Less than 75 years ago, we, the united States of America, fought 2 wars for reasons that allegedly included this type of process as being wrong.  Are we now saying Hitler was correct? "Stand and Deliver".  a phrase used by 17th century highwaymen (robbers) when holding up coaches.   How much different are the newest encroachements on Liberty and the essense of humans.

[right click on the image to save it somewhere on your computer,  then open it with the photo imaging program of your choice.  Then you can adjust the size and view it better.] [right click on the image to save it somewhere on your computer,  then open it with the photo imaging program of your choice.  Then you can adjust the size and view it better.]

 

[While some of us know that being a "christian" is not  part of the avenue for entering the Kingdom of Heaven, this does make a point for some of us.  --  Tribble]

An atheist was taking a walk through the woods.
What majestic trees!
What powerful rivers!
What beautiful animals!" he said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look.
He saw a 7 foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out: "Oh my God!..."
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky:

"You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident.
Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a Christian?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps could you make the BEAR a Christian?"

Very well," said the voice.
The light went out.
The sounds of the forest resumed.
And then the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed his head and spoke:
Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen”
 
 

a r t i c l e   /   c o m m e n t a r y

Tyranny is still Wrong
Dateline - Pulaski county, Arkansas, May 19, 2005, 2:15pm

{There was a time when gates and gate keepers at courthouses and airports and other places was never imagined.  The recent past has seen in increase in gates and gate keepers and their toys.  Have you ever wondered why?  Do you have ANY idea why courts "feel" they need protection from you?  Could it be they are doing somethings they know are wrong?  Have you noticed an increase in court decisions which even you shake your head wonder?  As for courts, maybe the solution is not in using gates and gate keepers, but maybe in the judges following law and what is truly right, rather than what is expedient to a cause or agenda.  By the way, I know we want some measure of security, but what most people do not realized is that security is an illusion (Luke 11:21-22).  --  Tribble]

It use to be I went to the courthouse and did my business without any trouble.  Then some years ago, maybe 10 or 15 years, I discovered a gate with a gate keeper just inside the doors.  Different courthouses placed the gates and gate keepers differently, depending on the layout of the building and entrances and other factors.

The federal courthouse, in Little Rock, on Capitol street, closed some doors for use, while others were restricted to authorized personel only, and then there are the common doors.  The feds put their gates and gate keepers just inside the doors and you can go nowhere without first passing through the gate and gain approval of the gate keeper.

The Pulaski county courthouse had one of its doors near the clerks office.  Through this door I could enter the clerks office without permission of the gate keeper.  This is because the kings men installed the gate just beyond the clerk's door.  This was much appreciated as most visits to the courthouse are to the clerk's office for filing papers, which only takes a couple minutes.

Today, I went to file some papers and, as was the custom for years, I entered the building and proceeded to enter the clerk's office.  The gate keeper, still some 10 feet down the hall, yelled to me that I must go through the gate and return to the clerk's door.

I was aghast and approached the gate keeper's table, next to the gate.  I stood there for what was surely less than a minute, but seemed like minutes, and tried to examine my shock.  Yes, shock.  I am aware of current events and know what is prophecied for the present and future.  But, I had not planned this in my day or time on the parking meter.  Finally, I tried to say something and the gate keeper saw I was having some trouble and said this was a new process of only the past 5 weeks.  How new it is does not make the matter any better.

Some almost tense moments passed while I tried to say things congent.  I undressed, which is to say, I was barely left with the cotton of my clothes, and put all my pocketed possessions and belt on the table.  The gate keeper did not like my utility tool or my knife.  The gate keeper said I must take the tool and knife back my car.  I offered to him guard them, but he declined.  A bailiff approached and offered to help.  It seems his help was for the gate keeper and not me.

The gate keeper said it was a felony to have such things in the courthouse.  I asked what law is it they are enforcing.  The gate keeper said he did not know the law but was TOLD to do this.  I asked if there was anyone who could tell me the law being enforced, and the gate keeper called a deputy sheriff.

The gate keeper told the deputy basically what was happening, but omitted the part about my agreeing to take my tool and knife outside, but only wanted to know the law being enforced.  I was certain to make that portion of the story known.  The deputy took the tool and knife, and asks if the stuff in the bowl is mine, and asked me to go with him.  Uh oh, here is come - the arrest.  The deputy lead me outside - Oh no, there must be a gang waiting in the more spacious out-of-doors.

When we get outside, the depurty tells me it is a county ordinance imposing the restrictions.  He still did not know what ordinance it is.  The deputy explained that when he is in street clothes he too must pass through the gate.  AFater a short time, the deputy obviously made his determination about me.  In an attempt to be a nice guy, the deputy asked me how long I would be in the clerk's office.  I said only long enough to get a file stamp on the papers in my hand.  The deputy told me to get the papers stamped, and he would wait for me, after which I could get my tool and knife when I returned outside.

When I re-entered the building, I suggested to the gate keep that I take the bowl with my stuff with me into the offic, and he agreed.

After I exited the clerk's office, I returned the now empty bowl to the gate keeper and he again tried explain how waht he was doing was only his job and he could lose it if he did not do as told.  I mentioned the Hitler had some men who claimed the same thing.  The gate keeper said he hoped I understand.  I told him I did understand, but it did not matter that I understood, tyranny [oppressive power exerted by government] was still wrong.

Prior to my getting the tool and knife back from the deputy, he opened the knife and was trying to explain how it was illegal to carrying it on the street (he was in error, but I did not care to argue the point with him), regardless of the building rules.  We continued to exchange some talk about how this is tyranny, (especially when no one knows the law they claime to enforce) while the deputy struggled to figure how to close the knife.  Finally I showed him how to close the knife.

The deputy said something about the recent events in other parts of the country caused this update in the county system.  I mentioned the gates do not solve the problem, it only keeps the bad guys inside, while everyone else is inconvenienced.
 
 

[THIS is how we are being protected from the bad guys.  Do you approve of the way the resources are spent?  Are you happy?  --  Tribble]

They've vanished into the netherworld of a Homeland Security gulag and their story has already disappeared from the headlines, but the shocking case of two 16-year-old girls from New York City arrested a month ago ought to inspire outrage among every American worthy of the name. Since the government's reasons for the girls' imprisonment could apply to virtually any teenager, it should also spark fear.

Like many rebellious teens, I fought with my mother. Local police, called to my home during at least one particularly impressive clash of wills and voices, talked us back into the land of the calmly reasonable. Then they left.

Like many young people, I was fascinated by morbid, violent subjects. After I turned in an essay depicting a political assassination from the killer's viewpoint, my creative writing teacher sent me to talk to my guidance counselor. After I assured him that I had no desire to knock off any politicians, he returned me to class.

A quarter century later, my mom and I are best friends and I haven't done anything the Secret Service ought to worry about. Right now, however, two girls from New York City are rotting in a HomeSec prison in Pennsylvania for doing nothing more than I did - one for fighting with her parents and writing an essay, the other accused of being her friend.

In early March, the New York Times reported on April 7, one girl's parents "went to the local police station house" in the Queens Village neighborhood because "their daughter...had defied their authority." Things calmed down and the parents, believing their daughter had been scared straight, asked the NYPD to forget the whole thing.

It was too late for that.

Without a warrant, NYPD detectives and federal agents burst into the girl's home - no wonder they don't have time to look for Osama! - where they "searched her belongings and confiscated her computer and the essays that she had written as part of a home schooling program," say her family. "One essay concerned suicide...[that] asserted that suicide is against Islamic law." The family is Bangladeshi. They are Muslim. That, coupled with the mere mention of suicide bombing in her essay, was enough to put the fuzz on high alert.

Although she is conservative and devout, the girl and her parents vigorously deny that she is an Islamist extremist (not that such opinions are illegal), but this is post-9/11 America and post-9/11 America is out of its mind.

Based solely on an essay written by one of the two, the FBI says both girls are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States based upon evidence that they plan to become suicide bombers." But the feds admit that they have no evidence to back their suspicions. Nothing.

"There are doubts about these claims, and no evidence has been found that such a plot was in the works," one Bush Administration official admitted to the Times. "The arrests took place after authorities decided it would be better to lock up the girls than wait and see if they decided to become terrorists," another told the New York Post. The same logic could be used to justify locking up any Muslim, or anyone at all. Heck, maybe that's the idea.

The Bangladeshi girl, who was homeschooled and wears a veil, says she never even met her outgoing and more Americanized "co-conspirator" from Guinea before the cops accused them of plotting to do ... something. Maybe.

She says FBI agents threatened to deport her parents and place her American-born siblings, a 4-month-old baby and an 11-year-old, in foster care unless she confessed.

Even in PATRIOT Act-era America, alleged fantasies of martyrdom aren't a crime. So HomeSec's ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is holding both two girls as illegal immigrants - one for entering the U.S. without an inspection, the other for overstaying her visa. And even that charge rests on razor-thin ice: "This is a girl who's been in this country since she was 2 years old," the Guinean girl's teacher says. Ditto for the one from Bangladesh. Holding kids accountable for the actions of their parents is crazy, which is why immigration authorities don't usually do it. Two-year-old babies don't wade across the Rio Grande or overstay their visas. Deporting American teenagers - American in every way that matters - to countries they've never even visited is equally insane.

I would be the first to applaud the FBI if they had arrested two proven would-be suicide bombers before they had the chance to strike. If they have evidence to that effect, they should make it public and bring charges in open court. But that's clearly not the case here.

When this story first broke I didn't write about it because I assumed that a public outcry would soon lead to its reasonable resolution. Sadly, this has not happened.

Homes searched without a warrant, kids thrown in prison for thoughts real and imagined, people's lives destroyed by an out-of-control federal government - will Americans speak up for what's right? Please call and write your congressman and senator to demand the release of the two girls from Queens.

Ted Rall, a New York City resident, is a columnist and cartoonist who writes for a generation unjustly maligned as a group of lazy slackers. Contact him at 4520 Main St., Kansas City, MO 64111. His column appears every Tuesday in The Aspen Times.
 
 

Gilmore v Ashcroft http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/ Meet John Gilmore. He's a 49 year-old philanthropist who lives in San Francisco, California. Through a lot of hard work (and a little luck), John made his fortune as a programmer and entrepreneur in the software industry. Whereas most people in his position would have moved to a tropical island and lived a life of luxury, John chose to use his fortune to protect and defend the US Constitution.

On the 4th of July 2002, John Gilmore, American citizen, decided to take a trip from one part of the United States of America to another. He went to Oakland International Airport -- ticket in hand -- and was told he had to produce his ID if he wanted to travel. He asked to see the law demanding he show his 'papers' and was told after a time that the law was secret and no, he wouldn't be allowed to read it.

He hasn't flown in his own country since.

On the 16th of August 2004, John Gilmore filed his case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At stake is nothing less than the right of Americans to travel anonymously in their own country -- and the exposure of 'secret law' for what it is: an abomination.
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

What's Wrong With Showing ID?
"There are good people with bad papers; and bad people with good papers."
- Bertold Brecht
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/id.html
 

What does an ID, any ID, do for security?  The honest answer is 'not much'.  If anything, relying on ID for security purposes actually makes things worse. Showing ID only affects honest people.  If you're dishonest, you can obtain false documents or steal the identity of an honest person. If a 19 year-old college student can get a fake ID to drink, why couldn't a bad person get one, too?  And no matter how sophisticated the security embedded into the ID, wouldn't a well-financed terrorist be able to falsify that, too?  The answer to both questions is obviously 'yes'.

Honest people, on the other hand, go to Pro-Life rallies.  Honest people attend gun shows.  Honest people protest the President of the United States.  Honest people fly to political conventions.  What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel?  The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere.

Bad people, besides using fake IDs and stolen identities, can also make the system of checking IDs work in their favor.  The Carnival Booth effect, as described by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, means that terrorists can probe an ID security system by sending a number of people on innocent trips through the system and noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't.  They then send only those who the system doesn't flag on terrorist missions.

Still, some Americans think that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.  Were the Founding Fathers criminals trying to protect themselves when they inserted the 4th and 5th amendments into the Bill of Rights?  After all, nobody who hasn't done anything wrong needs to worry about being searched or being forced to testify against himself.

Over the years, Americans have become accustomed to showing ID in any number of circumstances.  Few have asked the question, 'Why?'.

The custom of showing ID at airports came about in July of 1996, in the wake of the TWA flight 800 disaster.  Faulty fuel tank insulation caused TWA 800 to explode over Long Island Sound.  Before we knew that, there was concern that terrorists had blown up the plane.  According to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book, the ID requirement was instituted as a temporary measure so that then-President Clinton had something to announce to the families of the victims when he met with them.  After the 2001 World Trade Center bombings, the ID requirement became mandatory, as anyone who has flown since can testify.

The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to institute programs predicated on the use of ID to improve air security.  One such program, the Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling System II (CAPPS II) would have required every citizen to undergo a background check as a precondition to travel by commercial airline.

CAPPS II depended on the presentation of government-issued photo ID in order to function.  The information contained on the ID would have been cross-checked against a variety of public and private databases, and an individual threat assessment would be generated based on this information.  The CAPPS II program was pronounced 'dead' in July of 2004, but the Department of Homeland Security is continuing to work under wraps to produce a replacement system that works similarly.

Another program which depends on showing ID is the Watch List and No-Fly List.  Airlines are issued these lists by the federal government and are required to request ID from their passengers in order to check them against the lists.  This has resulted in countless citizens with names similar to bad people being harrassed, arrested, or prevented from travelling by air—including every person named 'David Nelson'.

Much has been done to make travel by air safer.  Cockpit doors have been secured, pilots are armed, and Air Marshals patrol airplane cabins.  Increased physical security at airports has dramatically increased the safety of our nation's skies.  Above all, the mindset of the flying public has also changed:  no longer will passengers remain passive in the event of a skyjacking.

The demand for ID does nothing for security while making honest Americans less free.

How can such systems be dangerous?  Learn more...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

Want to Fly?  Papers, Please.
http://www.papersplease.org/gilmore/facts.html
 

On July 4, 2002,  John Gilmore went to Oakland International Airport.  He had a ticket in his own name with Southwest Airlines to Baltimore-Washington International Airport.  The purpose of his trip was to petition the government for redress of grievances—specifically, the requirement for airline travelers to provide identification. John politely refused to show his ID and was not allowed to fly.

John then went to San Francisco International Airport and attempted to fly to Washington, DC on United Airlines.  There he was informed that if he was not willing to show ID he could fly, but only if he submitted to a far more intrusive search than what every passenger goes through at the security checkpoint.

He politely declined the search and again was not allowed to fly.

Showing ID.  Intensive searches.  What's going on here?

Sorry, Sir... that law's a secret.

That's what John Gilmore wanted to know.  At San Francisco's airport, just like the rest of the country's airports, there was a sign that began "A Notice From the Federal Aviation Administration" and includes the sentence "passengers must present identification upon initial check-in.

John worked his way up the bureaucratic chain and was eventually told by United Airlines that there were security directives that mandated the showing of ID, but that he couldn't see them.  These secret directives, issued by the Transportation Security Administration, are revised as often as weekly, and are transmitted orally rather than in writing.  To make things even more confusing, these orally transmitted secret rules change depending on the airport.

Demanding ID:  Plane Un-Constitutional?

Being told that there's a secret law that requires one to show ID before an American citizen can travel in his own country struck John as illegal.  We have no 'papers' to show in the United States: how could they possibly be required in order to travel?

In addition, how could any 'law' requiring any citizen to do anything be a secret?  None of this made sense.

John Gilmore left the airport and has not attempted to fly in the United States since that day.

He did, however file a lawsuit; and it's now up to the court to get to the bottom of this.

What are the constitutional issues involved?  Learn more...
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

Air Travelers Stripped Bare with X-ray Machine
By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-15-airport-xray-bottomstrip_x.htm
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[ previously published info about this tecnology when it was publicly referred to as experimental or under testing.  Such articles are found athttp://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/200305/issue.html

(May 2003 issue of )
Trading Freedom for Security
Virtual Strip Searches: In March 2002, a new whole-body-scan x-ray system was installed at Orlando International Airport in Florida. The new system, which sees through clothing, is a prototype being tested for possible use throughout the country. The x-ray machines, marketed under the name Rapiscan 1000, are supposed to speed passengers through security check points. However, critics are calling the devices Rape-a-Scan because the see-through images leave nothing to the imagination. Although still a voluntary procedure, pressures are certain to mount to make it mandatory — after a few more terrorist attacks. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), a proponent of the body scans, has argued that concerns about privacy and embarrassment are trumped by the security imperative. "We’re facing a new type of terrorist: they’re willing to blow themselves up and they can conceal explosives even within body cavities," he said.  You can not say you have not been warned.

The warnings keep coming, are you listening?  Are you paying attention?  --  Tribble]
 

Screeners plan to test the "backscatter" machines at several U.S. airports, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says. The refrigerator-sized machines are considered a breakthrough in scanning technology but have been labeled "a virtual strip search" by the American Civil Liberties Union. (Related story: Airports test 'futureworld' devices) Security workers using the machines can see through clothes and peer at whatever may be hidden in undergarments, shirts or pants. The images also paint a revealing picture of a person's nude body. The devices can potentially be used to screen hundreds of millions of air travelers each year, although TSA says more study is needed to determine how the devices may be used at U.S. airports. The agency declined to say when and where it expects to test the machines.

The agency in charge of the nation's air security expects later this year to begin using a controversial X-ray machine that will show airport screeners a clear picture of what's under passengers' clothes — whether weapons or just bare skin. The new system makes it easy to see possibly dangerous devices.    -- by Rapiscan Systems

Backscatter technology has been waiting on the sidelines for nearly four years but seems poised now to move to the forefront of aviation security. The machines are already used by U.S. Customs agents at 12 airports to screen passengers suspected of carrying drugs. They're also getting a test run at a terminal in London Heathrow Airport, the first major airport to use them.

The ACLU says the scanners invade personal privacy. "This leads directly to a surveillance society," says Barry Steinhardt, who runs the group's technology program.

But Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate subcommittee last month that he wants to employ the technology and doesn't want an "endless debate" over privacy issues.

Security consultant Douglas Laird says the machines are essential to spot explosives, which aren't detected by metal detectors.

The $100,000 machines bounce low-radiation X-rays off a person's skin to produce photo-like computer images of metal, plastic and organic materials hidden under clothes, says American Science and Engineering. The TSA is testing its BodySearch machine.
 
 

By: Devvy May 14, 2005 NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd102.htm contributing editor to   - Dan

"To whom it may concern: I, Oliver Kenneth Goff, was a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League from May 2, 1936 to October 9, 1939. During this period of time, I operated under the alias of John Keats and the number 18-B-2. My testimony before the Government is incorporated in Volume 9 of the Un-American Activities Report for the year 1939.

"While a member of the Communist Party, I attended Communist underground training schools outside the City of New York in the Bues Hall and 113 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The East Wells Street School operated under the name of the Eugene Debs School. Here, under the tutoring of Eugene Dennis, M. Sparks, Morris Chyilds, Jack Kling and others, we were schooled in the art of revolutionary overthrow of the established Government.

"We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring about a spirit of lethargy in the nation; where it would keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. We also discussed the fact that keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water reservoir would be advantageous during the time of the revolution, as it would give us opportunity to dump this poison into the water supply and either kill off the populace or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water.

"We discussed in these schools, the complete art of revolution: the seizure of the main utilities, such as light, power, gas and water, but it was felt by the leadership that if a program of fluoridating the water could be carried out in the nation, it would go a long way toward the advancement of the revolution." Oliver Kenneth Goff, 1957

Matrix III - Volume Two - Use of Sodium Fluoride for Population Behavior Control

"It is a matter of record that sodium fluoride has been used for behavior control of populations. In an "Address in reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament," [Victorian Hanstard, August 12, 1987, Nexus, Aug/Sept 1995], Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia, made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behavior control.

"Mr. Dickinson reveals that, "At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farven chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."

"According to Chemical Engineering News in 1988, each year in the United States, 80,000 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid, 60,000 tons of sodium silicofluoride and 3,000 tons of sodium fluorides are put into public water supplies (Chemical Engineering News, Vol 66, August 1, 1988, pg. 39). In view of all known research, it would be safe and accurate to rephrase the previous sentence and say that each year the United States Government allows 143,000 tons of fluoride products to be added to public water supplies in order to numb, disempower, and render docile a large percentage of the population. Present estimates in 1995 run about 200,000 tons annually. Now, why on earth would any oligarchic group (a small group) want to do this to tens of millions of people, deliberately and knowingly?

"All of these fluoride chemicals are byproducts of the aluminum and chemical fertilization industries that are considered to be hazardous wastes by the EPA, says the scientific assessment of the health risks of fluorides in 1985 "omits 90% of the literature which suggests fluoride is a mutagen - causes cellular and genetic mutation." (Water Fluoridation: A Case of Truth Decay). Several scientists in the United States and other countries have done research or written reports questioning the benefits of water fluoridation or suggesting health risks, were discouraged by their employers from actually publishing their findings."

Anyone who questions the use of fluoride in the drinking water is labeled a nut case. Fluoride helps prevent tooth decay!

I have been drinking bottled water for 30 years. In 1991, I woke up and besides researching the "Federal" Reserve, the IRS, the UN and other one world government mechanisms, I also began looking at the fluoride issue. In 1993, I had all the metal fillings removed from my teeth and my daughter's. These metal fillings were replaced with gold; a very expensive undertaking. We also stopped using any products with fluoride, i.e. toothpaste, mouthwash and any application from our dentist. The difference in our dental health changed dramatically.

My mother, her brother and my grandparents (from Sicily) never used toothpaste in their lifetime, they used baking soda. Same as my father's side of the family who came over from Munich. Both sets of grandparents died with all their teeth and never had gum disease. My mom and my uncle both have their own teeth, no bridges, no root canals, no gum disease. To this day, they use baking soda. They live in areas where the water has never been fluoridated. My four brothers and sisters have all had gum disease to some degree and huge problems with their teeth. They all use products with fluoride, all have metal fillings and two of them still drink tap water. I find these differences interesting.

Some may think it's just a bunch of conspiracy fodder, but having read thousands of pages from hundreds of documents, both historical and from research, there's no doubt in my mind that fluoride is deadly and explains much about why Americans are so apathetic and lethargic about the very real dangers crushing our Republic. The American people simply have no will to resist and you can see it all across this country. Fluoride was introduced into the drinking water in this country around 1954. Think about it.

Add into the mix the millions of gallons of diet soda pop consumed by Americans every day, ingesting deadly aspartame, also contained in more than 5,000 food products being eaten everyday, along with Splenda to "sweeten" and what you have is a population loading their bodies with deadly poisons. See the video 'Sweet Misery'

While I haven't drank more than a half dozen cans of soda in my entire life, I did use toothpaste and mouthwash which contains fluoride until 1993 when I made major changes. Everyday I thank God for my good health, but I also have worked very hard at staying healthy and keeping my weight within seven pounds from the day I graduated from high school. It's not easy, but it all boils down to will power, self control and a desire not to be a burden to myself or my family in my later years.

Education is everything. Research means giving up your fun times to thoroughly explore an issue. I have taken the time to scan several documents which contain thoroughly researched documentation and data on fluoride. Dentists all across this country will tell you that fluoride is good for your teeth and gums. City fathers will continue to tell you fluoridating the drinking water is good for you. Most of them refuse to even look at all the scientific research that's available. Thousands of cities across this country fluoridate their water. Conversely, hundreds of of cities in the U.S. refuse to fluoridate their water and dozens of countries refuse to poison their citizenry by fluoridating their water supply.

For the sake of your health and your family, I urge you to take the time to read all this important, fully documented research. You will see the major players and recognize names and companies (like Alcoa) who have been involved in this fluoride scam for decades. Americans deserve the truth and they deserve accurate information so they can make informed choices. Also, read the book The Fluoride Deception.

Click here to my Reading Room and you will see the section on fluoride. Read on-line or print out the 73 pages and share it with others. Friendly advice: keep your body free of toxic poisons - no matter how "good" you think it tastes. In my humble opinion, if the FDA says it's okay, that's the product to keep out of your body. Go natural!

© 2005 Devvy Kidd - All Rights Reserved

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty, which sold close to 2,000,000 copies. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Get a free copy of Why A Bankrupt America from El Dorado Gold. Devvy is a contributing writer for www.NewsWithViews.com.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com
E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

For the sake of your health and your family, I urge you to take the time to read all this important, fully documented research. You will see the major players and recognize names and companies (like Alcoa) who have been involved in this fluoride scam for decades.
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

LIBERTY???
contributing editor to   - Bob

"[T]he House of Representatives, in the name of security... [passed] a piece of Big Brother legislation that will establish a national identification card and...[it was] the brain child of the venerable conservative Jim Sensenbrenner who should know better. It is opposed by at least a score of organizations ranging from American Conservative Union on the right to the American Civil Liberties Union on the left. The little known 'Liberty Committee' has done the best analysis of the bill. Here's what it does: 1.1. Establish a national ID card passing as a nationally standardized driver's license. 2. Establish a federally-coordinated database of personal information on American citizens with Canada and Mexico. 3. Use the ID card to track American citizens when traveling outside -- and inside -- the U.S. 4. Redefine 'terrorism' in broad new terms that could include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups. 5. Authorize the secretary of homeland security unilaterally to expand the information inclded in driver's licenses, including such biometric information as retina scans and DNA information. The Liberty Committee notes that the bill 'does nothing' to solve the threat to national security posed by people already in the country illegally. What is does do is 'impose a Soviet style internal passport on American citizens.' Supporters say the bill is necessary to control our borders. And, as usual with this kind of legislation, they assume it will not be abused by those who administer it. Some people never learn. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America." --Lyn Nofziger
Restore the foundations!

Support the 2005 Patriot Fund:  http://FederalistPatriot.US/support/
 
 

[The footfalls are getting closer.  Do you hear them?  I ask you a simple question - How does making everyone carry ID or wear ID (such as RFID) or testing them for who they are, make us (U.S.) any safer?  If I recall correctly, the alleged attack of 9/11/2001 was reportedly conducted by people who had been in this country for months and years.  So, why can they not simply apply for whatever gubment toys and papers are required and when their time arrives (month and years later), set off a bomb as planned?  Do you see that these tactics are only for controlling sheople and they do almost nothing for protecting sheople.  How does tagging cattle protect the cattle from a fox?  How does tagging cattle protect the cattle from having a rogue cattle, poisoned a latent acting drug, from being corralled with the regular cattle?  It does not.  --  Tribble]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Florida's busiest airport will begin using high-tech iris-scanning technology to filter out possible terrorists and add an additional layer of security, according to Local 6 News.

Workers and other people at Orlando International Airport will have both irises scanned at special computers to determine their identity.

SLIDESHOW: Images From Story
VIDEO: See The Story

"This will be an additional layer of information that is enrolled, which will be biometric information," OIA director of security Brigitte Rivera Goersch said. "Employees irises will be enrolled for the additional layer of security."

The Airport Access Control Pilot Program or AACPP is a first of its kind, according to the report.

A person would be required to stand in front of a special mirror and have both eyes scanned.

"It has to verify both irises, not just one iris," Goersch. "Statistically it is very reliable. Iris scanners -- the technology of iris scanning -- is considered one of the most reliable biometric technologies."

"You know just like we did with the airplanes with the cockpit doors and air marshals and all of that kind of stuff," federal security director Art Meinke said. It is just another step to try to figure out what can we do better."

Local 6 News reported that the 90-day test could be expanded and eventually moved to airports throughout the nation.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.
 
 

I N S I G H T

A "WILDCAT" story - County Lineman's Story
contributing editor to   - Dale

[Regardless of what you think of the story, the pictures are good.  --  Tribble]
 

While patrolling a line outside of Griffin, Georgia, on the recent ice storm I spotted something unusual on top of a 45 foot distribution pole.  From a distance I thought it was a hawk since it is not uncommon to see them sitting on top of poles.  As I got closer it became apparent that it was not a hawk but appeared to be an animal of some sort.  Only after I got out of the truck and walked around the pole a couple times did I realize it was a bobcat.

 

The 2 outside phases on this circuit are energized and the middle phase is dead.  At first I assumed the cat was dead and may have been the cause of the outage.  But as I walked around the pole several times looking up at the cat I noticed that no mater where I was he was looking at me.  He was very much alive and appeared to be trying to hide from me on top of the pole.

 

I called a couple guys on the radio and told them what I was looking at.  Of course they didn't believe it and had to come see for themselves.  After we determined that it was in fact alive and appeared to be unharmed we called in a bucket truck to attempt to rescue the cat.  The initial plan was to go up in a bucket and try to convince him to climb down the pole with a hot stick.  After a quick tailboard discussion (which should be done before any job) we determined that plan presented several hazards, including the cat getting upset and shorting out one of the energized phases and causing a flash, or he may decide the best route down was across the hot stick and into the bucket.

 

As funny as that may have been we decided against it and went to Plan 2 which was to coax him down with an extendo stick.  Robert Burras, RSI, claimed to be pretty good with an extendo and also at animal mitigation so he volunteered to tackle the job.  When Robert touched the bobcat with the extendo it gave up its game of hide and seek and started running circles around the pole top pin (seriously).  Apparently on the second lap he got close enough to one of the energized phases that the static started making him uncomfortable.  He let out a loud caterwaul (scream) and jumped off the pole with all 4 legs pointed in different directions (Cat11).  I was attempting to photograph the rescue but it all happened so fast I was only able to get one picture of his escape.  The cat hit the ground with a very loud thud, jumped about 3 feet high, then ran straight under the bucket truck and out the other side.  Last time we saw him he was running at a high rate of speed across a field, apparently unharmed.

    Morals to story...

    1)  Cat's really do have 9 lives.

    2)  Evidently cats do always land on their feet, at least from 45 feet high.

    3)  Cat claws are apparently really, really sharp....CCA poles are hard!

    4)  GPC may have come up with an effective way to reduce squirrel outages (bobcats eat squirrels!).

    5)  If you are ever out alone in Georgia, be careful!  Whatever scared this cat up the pole is still out there...
 
 

5/9/2005 8:04:53 PM, by Hannibal
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-4886.html

The big news of the past two days is the impending passage of the Real ID act. I'm going to spare you any kind of detailed analysis of the ID and database aspects of this bill for two reasons a) they're already covered very well in sources I'll list below, and b) this bill contains a truly bizarre provision that caused a run on tinfoil hats in the blogosphere when it was first introduced, but has now dropped out of all coverage of this bill that I've read so far. (You'd think a clause that uses an obscure and never-before-invoked part of the Constitution to place the secretary of DHS above both the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself would get more coverage, but more on that in a moment.)

First up, the database and "national ID" portion of the bill. Bill Scannell of JetBlue privacy scandal boycott fame has launched a new site, where you can go and get last-minute information on how to fight a bill that goes up for a Senate vote tomorrow. Realistically, there's not a lot we can do at this late hour, so just hit Bill's site if you're on a manic swing and you need to come down off of it. Also of interest is this Techdirt post, which contains a good, brief summary of what's wrong with the bill, along with a link to this article on the bill's worrisome implications for ID theft. Finally, there's the EFF homepage, where you can read up on the bill and email your senator about it. While you're at it, you'll also want to check out this summary and analysis of the bill, courtesy of the Congressional Research Service.

Now to the fun stuff. If you click on the last link above (the summary and analysis PDF), and you read through the document, you'll see that the bill contains the following, seemingly harmless provision (emphasis added):

    Section 102 of the IIRIRA generally provides for construction and strengthening of barriers along U.S. land borders and specifically provides for 14 miles of barriers and roads along the border near San Diego, beginning at the Pacific Ocean and extending eastward. IIRIRA § 102(c) provides for a waiver of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)45 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)46 to the extent the Attorney General determines is necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads...

    H.R. 418 [the Real ID Act of 2005] would provide additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along the border. H.R. 418 would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws that he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102...

    Section 102 of H.R. 418 would amend the current provision to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law upon determining that a waiver is necessary for the expeditious construction of the border barriers. Additionally, it would prohibit judicial review of a waiver decision or action by the Secretary and bar judicially ordered compensation or injunction or other remedy for damages alleged to result from any such decision or action.

To understand what this business about prohibiting judicial review means, you have to know two things. First, you have to know a bit about the contested history of judicial review. Depending on who you talk to, the Federal judiciary's power to overturn a law or to put a stop to an official act of government on the grounds that the law or act is unconstitutional and/or a violation of basic rights is either a core constitutional principle that ensures the rule of law and protects the rights of minorities from the "tyranny of the masses" (e.g. from Brown v. the Board of Education to Roe v. Wade) , or it's an affront to democratic governance and the chief enabler of left-wing "judicial activism."

The concept of judicial review is actually the very thing that's at stake in the current controversy over the Senate filibuster rules and Bush's judicial nominees, and it has been a major bone of contention in the culture wars for the past few decades. One side says that judicial review allowed five unelected officials in black robes to strip prayer from public schools, while the other side says it allowed the judicial branch to do its job by enforcing the constitutionally mandated principle of separation of church and state; Or, one side says that judicial review could potentially enable five unelected officials in black robes to force the states to recognize gay marriage, while the other side says that it will allow the judicial branch to enforce the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution that mandates that contracts made in one state (like, say, marriage contracts made in Massachusetts) be recognized in all fifty states; and so on and so forth.

So if judicial review is the basic mechanism that enables the Federal court system—from the Supreme Court on down—to rule on the constitutionality of laws and government actions, then how could it be possible for Congress to pass a law that includes language prohibiting judicial review for the law in question? In other words, if Congress could somehow exempt a law from judicial review, then the principle of judicial review would be completely gutted because they could just exempt from judicial review any law they wanted to, even if that law is blatantly unconstitutional or it violates basic human rights. Surely this isn't possible?

Opponents of the concept of judicial review appeal to an obscure and cryptic article of the Constitution, the (in)famous Article 3, Section 2 (A3S2 for short), which states:

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

That last sentence is the kicker, because it looks for all the world like language that would enable Congress to wave a magic A3S2 wand over any piece of legislation no matter how outrageous and have it be completely exempt from review by the courts. The implications for the system of checks and balances if Congress actually invokes this provision are about as profound as it gets, which is why no Congress in American history has ever opted to open that particular can of worms... until now.

You can read more on the tinfoil hat implications of this here if you're interested, but I'll sum it up for you: Congress has crafted a completely unprecedented provision that guts the principle of judicial review by granting the DHS secretary complete and total immunity from the courts when it comes to the construction of "barriers and roads" in this one specific geographical region, and they've buried this provision inside a national ID card act which is itself attached to a large military appropriations bill that no Congressperson in their right mind would vote against (money for the troops and all that).

Obviously, if this passes, it'll set a precedent. First, some obscure border region outside of San Diego, and then on to bigger and better things? As the present bill stands, if DHS built a road through an endangered wetland and committed four murders in the process, nobody could take the government to court over it. Is this the kind of unchecked power that we want Congress to have? The sky's the limit, once the A3S2 can of worms is opened tomorrow.

As a postscript, the icing on the cake of this whole thing has to be the way that the Republican sponsors of the bill actually voted down a proposed provision in the national ID card part of the law that would prevent the government from using the Real ID database as a national database of gun owners. (A national database of gun owners is a longtime nightmare scenario of the NRA. As a lapsed NRA member and lifelong hunter, I can't count the number of times I've seen a national gun registration database invoked as one of the first signs of the black helicopter apocalypse.)

Copyright © 1998-2005 Ars Technica, LLC
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

Real ID Act spurs real concerns
Conservatives join outcry against measure to create standardized identification card
BY PATRICK PETERSON - FLORIDA TODAY - May 13, 2005
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050513/NEWS01/505130346/1006
 

It could be a hacker's dream come true. Imagine what a clever criminal could do with a database that held the name, digital image, signature, Social Security number and address of every licensed driver in the country. The government insists it is a necessary tool to fight terrorism, but some citizens' groups believe it creates one-stop shopping for identity thieves and opens the door for civil rights abuses. The Real ID Act will build a platform for this kind of database. Passed by the Senate on Tuesday without debate, the bill was attached to an $82 billion spending package for military operations and construction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It awaits an expected presidential signature.

Getting carded. John Sousa gets his vision checked by Larry Rogers on Wednesday at the Department of Motor Vehicles on Harbor City Boulevard in Melbourne. The Real ID Act, which passed without debate Tuesday, creates a de facto national ID card that which can be used to link a person to a number of databases. Kathleen Hinkel, FLORIDA TODAY

Within three years, all states must require proof of citizenship to get a driver's license, and states must switch to a standardized driver's license with a magnetic strip that is easily swiped though computer scanners. Some 600 groups, including conservatives, gun owners and state governors, fear the bill. "The government is saying, 'Trust us,' " said Alessandra Meetze, communication director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida in Miami. The ACLU fears government abuses similar to a California incident, where those who participated in a political protest found their names on a federal "no-fly" list, Meetze said. Beyond the civil rights concerns, the ACLU also has concerns about the potential for criminals to take advantage of the new system, which requires citizenship information, such as a birth certificate or a social security card. "It's going to force states to link data bases for information to every driver," said Meetze. "It's going to make all us more vulnerable to ID fraud." In Florida, drivers have had to prove citizenship with a birth certificate or passport Since July 2002. A random sampling of citizens waiting in line at two Melbourne DMV offices turned up none who are troubled or inconvenienced by the law. "I just called (the DMV) here to see what they needed," said Thor Peterson, 36, who moved to Cocoa from North Carolina. He presented a birth certificate and received a driver's license without delay this week. The centralization of license data doesn't worry him. "Identity theft is anywhere," Peterson said. "It's no different now." Despite the ACLU's fears, the Real ID Act should help states reduce identity theft, said Maureen Todaro, director of marketing and communications for Viisage, a Massachusetts company that sold Florida the technology to authenticate identity documents. New security procedures will help track information abuses across state lines, she said. "It's actually quite easy for someone to go from one state to the next and create multiple identities," Todaro said. She believes the fear that computers will constantly track U.S. citizens is unrealistic. "Each state currently maintains its own data base. The same is the case for law enforcement. That's a separate database, as well," she said. "The reality of linking, that would take quite a while."

Protect your identity # Destroy private records and statements. # Secure your mail. # Safeguard your Social Security number. # Don't leave a paper trail. # Never let your credit card out of your sight. # Know who you're dealing with. # Take your name off marketers' lists. # Be more defensive with personal information. # Monitor credit report. # Review your credit card statements carefully. -- MSN The Real ID Act # Within three years, state driver's licenses must have -- in addition to the traditional name, date of birth, and gender -- a digital photograph, a residential address, and "a common machine-readable technology, with defined minimum data elements." To issue a driver's license, states must require: Photo I.D. # Birth certificate or passport # Social Security card or proof of card or application that they are not eligible. # Document with applicant's full name and address. Additional effects # In addition to creating standardized driver's license requirements, the Real ID Act also: Allows judges to toss out testimony from witnesses for immigrants who seek political asylum in the United States. # Allows easier deportation. # And allows the government to ignore environmental concerns in building a three-mile fence in Smuggler's Alley, a section of the border with Mexico south of San Diego, where an endangered shrub is found.

Critics cry foul The Real ID Act's supporters insist it isn't a national ID card, even though air travel or entering a federal building will be impossible without it. "If it walks like a national ID card and talks like a national ID card, and you have to carry it like a national ID card, then . . .?" said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "We think the Senate made a terrible mistake. They've passed sweeping legislation without debate," said Rotenberg. "The federal government has opened the door for the use of the state drivers license without any safeguards." This latest federal effort to stop terrorism might be a disappointment, said Drew Lanier, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at the University of Central Florida. "If someone is terrorist-minded, he is going to defeat the driver's license," said Lanier. "You have humans involved who can be bought." Lanier added, however, that unless the information is misused, the new license system does not meet the classic test for invasion of privacy. "It's a reasonable method government uses to promote national security," he said. "I think it's a fairly minimal invasion of privacy." Immigration question Still, Florida's license law, soon to be imitated across the U.S., causes hardship for legal migrant workers, said Jesse Zermeno, founder of Operation Hope, which helps Fellsmere's migrant population. Despite being eligible to get driver's licenses, Zermeno said the stringent identification requirements under Florida's revamped law becomes an insurmountable obstacle. Some of the workers do not have the correct identification to receive a driver's license, while others do not have the time to go to the DMV and wait in line. "It's a mess. People are driving illegally because they have no choice," he added. "People are using fakes in some places." Some established immigrants, however, don't feel the new law is unfair. "I don't see nothing discriminatory about it," said New York City doorman Hamid Juman, a native of British Guyana and a naturalized U.S. citizen. Nearly 20 years a resident of the U.S., Juman helped his nephew get a Florida ID card in Melbourne this week. While the ACLU and immigrant advocate groups are concerned, the changes caused by the Real ID Act could go barely noticed by many Americans. Mike Massie, 59, of Ponce Inlet was among the thousands of Floridians who renewed their driver's licenses this week, barely troubled by the requirement for more identification. "I don't have any problem with it at all," said Massie, who received his license in Melbourne. "I have nothing to hide."

Contact Peterson at 242-3549 or ppeterson@flatoday.net
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

Real ID Card Senate Vote - Unanimous Treason
By Charlotte Iserbyt 5-12-5
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.rense.com/general65/uan.htm

[If you believe that more or better ID will protect the people and/or stop crime and/or prevent torrorism, then you have already had too much Kool-Aid.  ID, of any kind, will not, and never has, protected anyone.  -- Tribble]

The U.S Senate's unanimous vote on the REAL ID card is a tragedy for our nation. What an abuse of the U.S. Constitution! Ghastly news.

This neat little package says we won't be able to open a bank account, board a plane or bus or drive a car. And just wait until the deliberately dumbed down socialist bureaucrats have finished with writing the regulations!!!!!!

The unanimous vote by the Senate shows they have been "unanimously" dumbed down. "Deliberately" in order to take our country down. The majority of our elected officials have never read the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and, sadly enough, if one even mentions that old relic to them, they don't seem to care or take it seriously.

Had this legislation been voted on separately, there is a big possibility it would not have passed since the vote on it was close in the House. How is it possible that such a very important piece of legislation, designed to affect all Americans and their offspring forever, had little or no discussion? How deceitful, disgusting, manipulative for the Senate to have attached it to a military appropriations bill which dealt with the important issue of funding the needs of our servicemen and women. Do we really believe our young people serving abroad are going to be happy when they return to a country that tracks its citizens as is done in totalitarian countries? Surely they will ask "exactly what have we been fighting for?"

Why couldn't the Senators who opposed this totalitarian internal passport, and there were quite a few, have said they were going to vote "no" on the whole package unless the internal passport provision was removed from the military appropriation? That might have forced the Senate's hand and allowed two separate votes on these two very separate issues. This writer heard via C-SPAN two Democrat Senators, Reid from Nevada and Nelson from Florida, speak strongly against the sneaky way it was going to be voted on, but unfortunately they went along and voted with the rest of the dumbed down.

Is it any wonder Senators Snowe and Collins, ME, have refused to tell me, over a period of two years, the truth about exactly who helped design this internal passport? Former KGB Chiefs Primakov and Karpov, who were involved, must be laughing on their way to the international socialist government planned by Lenin, Stalin, Gorbachev, et al.

If these Senators (all 100 of them!) represent the views of their constituents, one must assume that our nation has gone stark, raving, mad.
 
 

D O    N O T drink the Kool-Aid*

Real ID Act Passed - The End Of America
Alert From Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050511.htm  5-12-5
http://www.rense.com/general65/realid.htm

[If you believe that more or better ID will protect the people and/or stop crime and/or prevent torrorism, then you have already had too much Kool-Aid.  ID, of any kind, will not, and never has, protected anyone.  -- Tribble]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, America became a true police state. Your U.S. senators voted -- unanimously, with no discussion, and without even reading the bill -- to create a national ID card.

The Real ID Act blackmails state governments into turning their drivers licenses into a draconian tool of the federal homeland security apparatus. If states refuse, their citizens lose such "privileges" as being allowed to board an airplane, enter a federal building, or apply for social security. President Bush is expected to sign the bill eagerly on Thursday.

In three years -- by May 2008 -- this Stalin-style internal passport will be an American reality. But your government will have _more_ control over you than Stalin ever dreamed in his most violent, vicious, anti-freedom dreams. (See links to the text of the law and articles about it at the bottom of this article.)

But that's only the beginning.

The creator of the Real ID Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, smiles and tells us that his Real ID Act is all about "solving illegal immigration" or "preventing terrorists from entering the country." This is one of the biggest of the thousands of "Big Lies" we've heard from the tyrants in Washington. The Real ID Act is about tracking and controlling Americans. You. Me. Our children. Everybody.

In May 2008, barring a miracle, America as we once knew it will be in ruins. It will be gone. And the rights of gun owners will be among the first scheduled for destruction.

Here's your future:

* You walk into a gun store, fill out your 4473, and show your government ID just as you now do. But instead of looking at your license and taking down some information, the clerk runs the license (which is likely to contain a radio-frequency ID chip) through a scanner. Your purchase is instantly recorded in your _state_ drivers license registry. The federal government isn't currently allowed to keep a gun registry. But no problem; the Real ID act gives them an open door into your state records.

* Complete information on every firearm you buy will be instantly available to every police officer (and possibly every government employee, store clerk, or computer hacker) you ever encounter. You'll be an instant criminal suspect every time you deal with someone who has access to the database.

* Just as travelers are encouraged to get background checks and give fingerprints to avoid some of the worst excesses of TSA screening, gun owners will be encouraged to get background checks and give whatever biometric ID the Department of Homeland Security requires. This will be sold as a "benefit," ensuring you'll never again experience an "instant-check" delay. In fact, Congress, the ATF, or the FBI might even "mandate" 5-day or 15-day delays for anyone not enrolled in the "Trusted Firearms Buyer" program.

* The private purchase "loophole" will be closed, so that all gun buyers must make trackable purchases. (The ultimate goal is for _every_ purchase of every kind to be trackable.)

* Buying ammo? The store scans your national ID card and -- bingo! -- your purchase is registered in the state database.

* The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the amount or kind of ammunition you're "allowed" to purchase. Try to buy more and the database instantly rejects you.

* The federal government or state governments can now also _effectively_ legislate limits on the number of guns you may own. Try to buy more, and the database rejects you.

* Eventually -- after the federal government "discovers" the obvious, that national ID won't stop either illegal immigration or terrorism -- the old attack on "evil guns" will resume. When they want your .50 BMG . they'll know just where to find it (because the Real ID act says your home address _must_ be revealed). When they want your evil "scoped sniper rifle" (you know, the one you hunt deer with), they'll know just how to get it. Ditto with you "Saturday Night Special" or your "assault weapon."

* If you don't surrender your guns, well, then the Department of Homeland Security will cut off your driving "privilege," as well as your right to escape the growing police state via plane. You'll be a prisoner in your own home, in your own country. Or you'll be forced to function as an outlaw, operating and living a precarious existence beneath the government radar.

You say these projections are ridiculous? That we're paranoid?

Well, frankly, if the Real ID Act doesn't make you paranoid, you're not paying enough attention. We ask you to consider the long-term impact of a few other acts of government.

In the 1930s, Congress promised us that our social security numbers would never, absolutely never, be used for identification. Now, they're the key to everything about us -- and without a social security number you won't get a drivers license and you won't even be "allowed" to drive after May 2008.

In 1913, Congress and the media swore to us that the brand- new income tax would only affect the rich. Well, how rich do you feel after paying 40 percent of your income (or more!) in taxes?

This is the way government works. They've even got a term for it: mission creep. And there is no creepier mission than the mission the federal government has currently set itself: to track everyone, everywhere, and to control what we do.

We warned you in _The State vs. the People_ (http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm ) that this was coming. That book is still relevant, still a good read, and still filled with information about what our future will be like in this new American police state.

Be forewarned. Be aware.

Please take a moment to go to this site:  http://www.rebelfirerock.com/home.html , then click on the link that leads to the song "Justice Day" [or go directly there at this URL  http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html].  Listen to the music or read the lyrics.

Here's the opening of the song:

You're the boot, Stomping on the human face forever.
You're the eye, Staring down on everyone and ever seeing all.
You're the lie, Twisting all our minds into your whoredom.
You are Death. You are war. You are slavery.
You're the law. You're the law. You're the LAW!

Well, tyranny is here. And it's a gift from the very people we so trustingly put into office.

Tyranny is THE LAW.

Is this a way to run a country? Tacking something as onerous as national ID onto a must-pass bill and making it law without any debate? What does this say about people the gun owners consider their friends? In the House, where the bill containing the Real ID Act passed 368-58, only three Republicans voted against it. Here's the final roll-call vote so you can see how your own congressperson voted: http://tinyurl.com/cr3bj )

In the Senate, not one person cared enough about freedom to vote against it -- or even to demand that senators _discuss_ it.

(The Real ID Act originally passed the House in February as a standalone bill (H.R. 418) by a vote of 261-to-161. House leaders, realizing national ID would have been in trouble in the Senate, then added it to a must-pass military appropriations bill in a cynical ploy to make it almost impossible to fight national ID.)

Turning America into a full-fledged police state was just business as usual to your representatives. And, just as Adolf Hitler scrupulously followed German law while committing his horrors, so your "representatives" and the bureaucrats you face at the national-ID drivers license bureau will also be following the law -- the Real ID law that allows them to enslave you.

(To see what a real Bill of Rights leader would do, read the novel _Hope_ by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith: http://www.jpfo.org/hope.htm .)

We have two choices now: Resist or submit.

More than 600 organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Governors Association, opposed the bill. Even the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (which loves national ID and was largely responsible for an earlier attempt at such legislation nine years ago) criticized it.

We can expect lawsuits against national ID, including at least one suit led by state governments.

However, nearly all the opposition from state governments focuses on one area: They're upset because the federal government didn't offer them extra money to enslave us. If Congress bribes them with enough millions and billions, they'll gladly sell our freedom.

Only one state, Montana, has so far absolutely refused to cooperate with national ID. The Montana legislature passed a law saying they would not go along. However, that will mean that Montana residents are barred from flying without extreme extra scrutiny or from applying for federal benefits because their licenses will be "non-compliant." Although we applaud the courageous Montana legislators, no doubt we'll soon hear many Montanans demanding the "privilege" of having a real national ID card.

Ultimately, real resistance is up to us, as individuals. There are certain courses of action JPFO cannot recommend. But every freedom lover should be pleased if all the people who had a hand in creating Real ID act lost their jobs -- soon. And those individuals who truly value their (and their children's) futures should seriously consider making national ID their line in the sand.

We have already heard from many people saying they will drive without a license rather than submit to a license that has become a Stalinist control document. We just hope their resolve stays equally strong when they face a world in which it's impossible to buy, sell, retire, travel -- or buy a gun -- without national ID.

We ask you to remember men like Alexandr Solzhenitzyn
http://tinyurl.com/at9yn and Natan Sharansky
http://tinyurl.com/chwet .

Both stood up and boldly opposed a tyrannical regime in the Soviet Union. Both risked their lives. Both suffered horribly for their resistance and their protests. But eventually, they triumphed -- and the Soviet Union crumbled.

We are in need of such people, and such courage, today. We cannot wait for _someone else_ to stand up and show that kind of integrity.

We must become the kind of people we admire if we are ever again to live in a nation we can trust.

G-d help us if we fail.*

- The Liberty Crew

Text of the law:
http://tinyurl.com/3qdv4

"No Real Debate for Real ID" http://tinyurl.com/b4xqv

"Last Chance to Stop National ID"
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5887 . (written before Senate passage)

* We spell G-d this way because in Judaism it is considered a sign of respect. We spell out the name of the Creator only in sacred settings.

Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.  Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact information is included:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
PO Box 270143
Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

Phone: 1-262-673-9745
Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)
Fax: 1-262-673-9746
http://www.jpfo.org/

[The audio of "Justice Day" can also be downloaded from "the RockyView" at http://www.tellme1st/rockyview/200505/rockne.mp3 ]
 
 

[If a "church" operated under the protection of the 1st Amendment, and not pursuant to 26USC501(c)(3), then they would not have to be concerned about avoiding "safety and tax liabilities", or any other legal disability.  But, once you ask the beast for something, you become beholding to the will of the beast.  --  Tribble]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Mormon chapels no longer may be used by home schoolers for activities, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced.

The announcement in a letter from the First Presidency, made up of church President Gordon B. Hinckley and his counselors, was read to several congregations on Sunday.

"The letter indicated that to help avoid safety and tax liabilities, meeting houses should not be used as home-school or day-care facilities, or for hosting home-school activities," church spokesman Dale Bills said in an e-mail statement.

The decision could send some groups scrambling for a place to have arts and crafts or sporting activities, said Jon Yarrington, president of the Utah Home Education Association.

"Necessity is the mother of invention," Yarrington said. "So, I'm sure (home educators will) come up with something. We're not unaccustomed to having to do that."

He said clarification had been needed.

Congregation leaders had been making varying decision on home educators' requests to use meeting houses for activities.

"Some leaders have let home-school families use their buildings while others have not been inclined to do so," the National LDS Homeschool Association's April 25 online newsletter said. "Many requests have gone to the church asking for clarification on this issue."

Information: The Deseret Morning News, http://www.deseretnews.com
 
 

What Is 'Real ID'? Real ID = National ID Card from the Hartford Courant, Oct. 30, 2001 http://www.unrealid.com/what.html contributing editor to   - Katherine  http://www.spychips.com/ http://www.nocards.org/

["This national ID card will make observation of citizens easy but won't do much about terrorism. The fact is, identity-based security is not an effective way to stop terrorism. ID documents do not reveal anything about evil intent - and even if they did, determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents"  I think that statement fairly well makes the point.  --  Tribble]

This Tuesday, the US Senate is scheduled to vote on the implementation of a national ID card system. The Real ID Act is nothing less than a Real National ID Act. The only thing left to the individual states is which pretty picture they will choose to put on the card: everything else will be controlled by Washington DC bureaucrats.

What does this mean for America?

1. Dead Cops.--
The Real ID Act requires that you give your permanent home address: no PO boxes; no exceptions. What about judges, police, and undercover cops? Oops!!! Hey Senators, let's endanger our police and judges!!!

2. Stolen Identities.--
Our new IDs will have to make their data available through a "common machine-readable technology". That will make it easy for anybody in private industry to snap up the data on these IDs. Bars swiping licenses to collect personal data on customers will be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel. It won't matter whether the states and federal government protect the data - it will be harvested by the private sector, which will keep it in a parallel database not subject even to the limited privacy rules in effect for the government.

3. Government Spying.--
Real ID requires the states to link their databases together for the mutual sharing of data from these IDs. This is, in effect, a single seamless national database, available to all the states and to the federal government.

4. Papers, Please.--
If Real ID passes the Senate, our nation will join the ranks of the old Soviet Union, Communist China, and Vietnam by issuing its citizens a national ID card. The Machine Readable Zone may come in the form of a 2-dimensional bar code - but the Department of Homeland Security, which will be crafting the regulations implementing Real ID, has made clear that it would prefer to see a remotely readable RFID chip. That would make private-sector access and systematic tracking even more easy and likely.

This national ID card will make observation of citizens easy but won't do much about terrorism. The fact is, identity-based security is not an effective way to stop terrorism. ID documents do not reveal anything about evil intent - and even if they did, determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents

5. Unsafe Roads.--
Once upon a time, a driver's license was a license to drive a motor vehicle. Turning driver's licenses into national identity cards will actually make our roads more dangerous: by barring illegal immigrants from getting a driver's license, Real ID means more illegal immigrants will now drive without any training or certification. Your insurance company is certain to be understanding.
What's wrong with the Senate?

The Real ID Act has never been debated on the US Senate floor. They've never talked about it in any committee. Heck, most of them haven't even read it! Yet they're planning to vote on it on Tuesday, no questions asked.

In order to make a single irresponsible Congressman with totalitarian leanings happy, the Senate leadership let him write the bill and then slipped it into a another bill, one that would keep our fighting men and women taken care of in Iraq and Afghanistan. Supporting our troops means making sure they come home to a free nation, not a surveillance state.

>> Take action now!
 
 

In 1981, when Marion County, Ind., needed a new sports stadium for Indianapolis, a temporary 1 percent tax was put on restaurant food. The Hoosier Dome was built -- and now plans call for it to be torn down to make room for a new stadium. But that's fine, right? The tax passed in large part because it had a two-year "sunset" clause, since that's all that would be necessary to pay off the $77 million stadium. But even though the tax has raised more than $250 million so far, it's still on the books. Politicians say that's because the tax is "co-mingled" with others and has been used to pay for other things, like an expansion of the convention center. In fact, so many things have been charged toward the tax that it must stay on the books until at least 2030 to pay it all off; nearly a half-billion dollars remain to be paid. So how will Indiana pay for the replacement for the Hoosier Dome? Politicians have proposed an additional 1 percent tax on restaurant food. (Indianapolis Star) ...Temporary (adj.): The period of time between a political promise and the date the last politician who supported it dies. --T.I.T. Political Dictionary
 
 

[I guess that is how you teach a lesson to a 13 year old (or anyone).  You encourage them to contribute to murder, then punish them (for running away) by not letting them watch TV for a week.  Watch lessons can we expect the child to learn from this fiasco?  Nothing is learned about life, motherhood, consequences, etc.  Then, I guess, being that the child was in a government home in the first place is probably quite a lesson by itself.  Moreover, being a ward of the state is probably quite traumatic.  --  Tribble]

A 13-year-old girl, who ran away from a government home and got pregnant, today received permission from the state of Florida to abort her 14-week-old child.

However, a spokesman for the state Department of Children and Families announced that because she broke the rules by running away, "this young lady is in big trouble and gets no TV for a whole week."

A Palm Beach County Circuit Court ruled that the teen was competent to make the decision to end the life of her child. But the judge refused to step in to lift the TV ban, dismissing her claims that the punishment could cause longterm emotional trauma.

"Running away from home is a serious infraction," the judge wrote. "Maybe if she misses a few of her favorite shows, she'll think twice next time."

An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped the girl secure the abortion, said the ACLU is still mulling whether to appeal the TV ban under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment."
 
 

[This article should be sufficient to speak for itself.  If the comment "from my understanding this curriculum isn't about sex, it's about families." is to hold any validity, then the Bible should be taught since it is a history book.  --  Tribble]

A father who protested a pro-homosexual book his 6-year-old son had been given in school spent a night in jail after being arrested by police.

David Parker, 42, confronted officials at Joseph Estabrook School in Lexington, Mass., Wednesday after his son brought home a copy of "Who's in a Family,'' a storybook that includes characters who are homosexual parents, the Boston Herald reported.

According to the report, Parker refused to leave a meeting after Lexington Superintendent Bill Hurley rejected his request that he be notified when his son is exposed to any discussion about same-sex households as part of classroom instruction.

Police arrested Parker for trespassing and he spent a night in jail before posting a $1,000 personal surety, Boston's WCVB-TV reported.

"Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied,'' Parker said in a statement.

Parker said school officials have continued to tell him he has no right to control whether or not his child is taught about same-sex marriage.

"What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don't want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,'" Parker told the TV station.

Brian Camenker, director of the traditional-values organization Article 8 Alliance, told the Herald Parker also asked that his son be pulled from discussions involving homosexuality that arise spontaneously.

According to the Lexington Minuteman, Parker spoke at a school committee meeting Tuesday and complained that schools have "unfettered ... access to children's psyches."

---
another article on the same matter.

Dad arrested in protest over gay book
Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network
Friday, April 29, 2005
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2005/04/29/2

Police in the Boston suburb of Lexington arrested a father on Wednesday after he refused to leave his 6-year-old son's elementary school over a book that featured a gay family.

The book, "Who's In The Family?" shows children from different types of families, including a family with two fathers. It was included in Estabrook elementary school's bag of books promoting diversity.

David Parker started e-mailing school officials about the subject. The e-mails became so heated the superintendent of Lexington public schools warned him, ''If you are found on Lexington public schools' properties you will be subject to arrest by the Lexington police."

Parker met with Estabrook's principal and district director of instruction on Wednesday and refused to leave school grounds until they would promise that he would be notified when his son was exposed to discussions about same-sex households.

After Parker ignored repeated requests to leave over the course of more than two hours, school officials called the police.

Parker spent the night in jail and was freed after being ordered to stay off school property. He is due back in court June 1.

He spoke to reporters, claiming this was not about hatred, but being a good dad. "What I am saying is, because of the same-sex marriage law, people are treating it as a mandate to teach the youngest of children. It is not a mandate to teach the youngest of children, particularly if parents say, 'Hold on, I want to be the gatekeeper of the information. It is not that I don't want my child to ever learn it, it is I want to control the timing and manner,'" Parker said.

But gay parents who have kids attending the same school as Parker's son say the books are necessary, since no one will be able to control when students will talk about their own families.

"This was done to reflect the fact that our families are at these schools," Meg Soens told the PlanetOut Network. Soens and her spouse, Cecilia d'Olizeira, have four kids enrolled Estabrook Elementary School: two in second grade, two in fifth grade.

"These books are about inclusion and about welcoming all of our families," Soens added. "It's about families; it's not about sex."

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, rushed to weigh in on the matter.

"We have in Massachusetts a parental notification statute specifically in matters related to human sexuality. If a parent wants to be informed of what is being taught in a classroom and wants to have their child withdrawn from the classroom for that portion of the class dealing with human sexuality, that parent has the right," Romney said.

However Rachel F. Cortez, co-president of the Estabrook Parent-Teacher Association and a member of the school's anti-bias committee, told the Boston Globe that parents receive notification about the materials in question.

''The kids don't have to take [the materials] home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."

Carisa Cunningham, the director of public affairs for the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), told the PlanetOut Network she thought the books were a good idea.

"Lesbian and gay families are a reality," she said. "The children of lesbian and gay families go to school and they deserve to have their families affirmed just like anyone. And from my understanding this curriculum isn't about sex, it's about families."
 
 

the offices of Dewey, Cheetum & Howe

When authorities screen your children for mental illness ...
by Rob Waters, Mother Jones
http://www.unknownnews.org/050426mentalhealth.html
April 26, 2005
contributing editor to   - Rodger

[This article is a little long.  Sometime last year (June, October, November & December) The Rocky View wrote and reprinted articles about the move to test everyone for mental illness as might be measured and determined by the government.  Some wrote responses to say they did not think it would really happen.  With each passing moment, more stories arise to show how the move is really happening and progressing from testing first children (FOR THE CHILDREN) and inching toward YOU.  Pay attention and watch as your turn comes to stand in line for testing.  --  Tribble]

Aliah Gleason is a big, lively girl with a round face, a quick wit, and a sharp tongue. She's 13 and in eighth grade at Dessau Middle School in Pflugerville, Texas, an Austin suburb, but could pass for several years older. She is the second of four daughters of Calvin and Anaka Gleason, an African American couple who run a struggling business taking people on casino bus trips.

In the early part of seventh grade, Aliah was a B and C student who "got in trouble for running my mouth." Sometimes her antics went overboard -- like the time she barked at a teacher she thought was ugly. "I was calling this teacher a man because she had a mustache," Aliah recalled over breakfast with her parents at an Austin restaurant.

School officials considered Aliah disruptive, deemed her to have an "oppositional disorder," and placed her in a special education track. Her parents viewed her as a spirited child who was bright but had a tendency to argue and clown. Then one day, psychologists from the University of Texas (UT) visited the school to conduct a mental health screening for sixth- and seventh-grade girls, and Aliah's life took a dramatic turn.

A few weeks later, the Gleasons got a "Dear parents" form letter from the head of the screening program. "You will be glad to know your daughter did not report experiencing a significant level of distress," it said. Not long after, they got a very different phone call from a UT psychologist, who told them Aliah had scored high on a suicide rating and needed further evaluation. The Gleasons reluctantly agreed to have Aliah see a UT consulting psychiatrist. She concluded Aliah was suicidal but did not hospitalize her, referring her instead to an emergency clinic for further evaluation. Six weeks later, in January 2004, a child-protection worker went to Aliah's school, interviewed her, then summoned Calvin Gleason to the school and told him to take Aliah to Austin State Hospital, a state mental facility. He refused, and after a heated conversation, she placed Aliah in emergency custody and had a police officer drive her to the hospital.

The Gleasons would not be allowed to see or even speak to their daughter for the next five months, and Aliah would spend a total of nine months in a state psychiatric hospital and residential treatment facilities. While in the hospital, she was placed in restraints more than 26 times and medicated -- against her will and without her parents' consent -- with at least 12 different psychiatric drugs, many of them simultaneously.

On her second day at the state hospital, Aliah says she was told to take a pill to "help my mood swings." She refused and hid under her bed. She says staff members pulled her out by her legs, then told her if she took her medication, she'd be able to go home sooner. She took it. On another occasion, she "cheeked" a pill and later tossed it into the garbage. She says that after staff members found it, five of them came to her room, one holding a needle. "I started struggling, and they held my head down and shot me in the butt," she says. "Then they left and I lay in my bed crying."

What, if anything, was wrong with Aliah remains cloudy. Court documents and medical records indicate that she would say she was suicidal or that her father beat her, and then she would recant. (Her attorney attributes such statements to the high dosages of psychotropic drugs she was forcibly put on.) Her clinical diagnosis was just as changeable. During two months at Austin State Hospital, Aliah was diagnosed with "depressive disorder not otherwise specified," "mood disorder not otherwise specified with psychotic features," and "major depression with psychotic features."

In addition to the antidepressants Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, and Desyrel, as well as Ativan, an antianxiety drug, Aliah was given two newer drugs known as "atypical antipsychotics" -- Geodon and Abilify -- plus an older antipsychotic, Haldol. She was also given the anticonvulsants Trileptal and Depakote -- though she was not suffering from a seizure disorder -- and Cogentin, an anti-Parkinson's drug also used to control the side effects of antipsychotic drugs. At the time of her transfer to a residential facility, she was on five different medications, and once there, she was put on still another atypical -- Risperdal.

The case of Aliah Gleason raises troubling -- and long-standing -- questions about the coercive uses of psychiatric medications in Texas and elsewhere. But especially because Aliah lives in Texas, and because her commitment was involuntary, she became vulnerable to an even further hazard: aggressive drug regimens that feature new and controversial drugs -- regimens that are promoted by drug companies, mandated by state governments, and imposed on captive patient populations with no say over what's prescribed to them.

In the past, drug companies sold their new products to doctors through ads and articles in medical journals or, in recent years, by wooing consumers directly through television and magazine advertising. Starting in the mid-1990s, though, the companies also began to focus on a powerful market force: the handful of state officials who govern prescribing for large public systems like state mental hospitals, prisons, and government-funded clinics.

One way drug companies have worked to influence prescribing practices of these public institutions is by funding the implementation of guidelines, or algorithms, that spell out which drugs should be used for different psychiatric conditions, much as other algorithms guide the treatment of diabetes or heart disease. The effort began in the mid-1990s with the creation of TMAP -- the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.

Put simply, the algorithm called for the newest, most expensive medications to be used first in the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression in adults. Subsequently, the state began developing CMAP, a children's algorithm that is not yet codified by the state legislature. At least nine states have since adopted guidelines similar to TMAP. One such state, Pennsylvania, has been sued by two of its own investigators who claim they were fired after exposing industry's undue influence over state prescribing practices and the resulting inappropriate medicating of patients, particularly children.

Thanks in part to such marketing strategies, sales of the new atypical antipsychotics have soared. Unlike antidepressants -- which have been marketed to huge audiences almost as lifestyle drugs -- antipsychotics are aimed at a small but growing market: schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder. Atypicals are profitable because they are as much as 10 times more expensive than the old antipsychotics, such as Haldol. In 2004, atypical antipsychotics were the fourth-highest-grossing class of drugs in the United States, with sales totaling $8.8 billion -- $2.4 billion of which was paid for by state Medicaid funds.

At a time when ethical questions are dogging the pharmaceutical industry and algorithm programs in Texas and Pennsylvania, President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has lauded TMAP as a "model program" and called for the expanded use of screening programs like the one at Aliah Gleason's middle school. The question now is whose interests do these programs really serve.

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project got under way in the mid-1990s just as the new generation of antipsychotic drugs was coming on the market. For some 40 years before, medications like Thorazine, Haldol, and Mellaril were given to patients with schizophrenia or psychosis to silence their voices and calm their agitation. But they caused terrible side effects, including sedation, social withdrawal, and tardive dyskinesia, which causes muscle and facial tics and strange jerking movements like those in people with Parkinson's disease. Many patients would refuse to take them -- when they had a choice. Some sued drug companies and doctors for failing to warn them about the side effects and won large awards.

Into that environment, drug companies brought out the new atypical antipsychotics and began describing them in almost miraculous terms. The drugs -- including Janssen Pharmaceutica's Risperdal, Eli Lilly's Zyprexa, Pfizer's Geodon, AstraZeneca's Seroquel, and Bristol-Myers Squibb's Abilify, as well as a slightly older drug, Clozapine by Sandoz -- were said to be more effective than the first-generation antipsychotics and less likely to cause motor problems and other side effects. "A potential breakthrough of tremendous magnitude," Stanford University psychiatrist Alan Schatzberg gushed to the New York Times. Laurie Flynn, executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, added that now "the long-term disability of schizophrenia can come to an end."

Despite the hoopla, not all doctors immediately embraced the new drugs, and many patients bounced haphazardly between the old and new antipsychotics. "They complained that whenever they got new doctors, their whole medication regimen usually changed," says Dr. Steven Shon, the medical director for behavioral health for the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS).

In 1995, Shon began talking with researchers at the UT-Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas about the use of algorithms to address these random prescribing practices. From the start, the process of creating the algorithms reflected the extensive ties between academic psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry. UT-Southwestern was a major research center stocked with investigators conducting drug trials paid for by pharmaceutical companies.

One of Shon's key collaborators was Dr. John Rush, a nationally known psychopharmacologist who has extensive ties to industry. Rush declined to speak for this article, but according to a disclosure statement appended to one of his published articles, he has received grant and research support from 14 pharmaceutical companies, has served as a consultant to 11, and has been a member of 10 drug company speakers' bureaus.

Together, Shon, Rush, and the then-chair of UT-Southwestern's psychiatry department convened panels of experts who drew up "consensus guidelines" for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression -- blueprints on which drugs to give patients in what order and combination. Of the 46 members of the three panels, 27 have conducted research on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, served on drug company speakers' bureaus, or served as consultants to a drug company, according to a review conducted for Mother Jones by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group that maintains a database on the financial links of researchers.

For the drug companies, TMAP represented an opportunity. Their products were given a high priority in the algorithm, and if the algorithm was widely followed, it could mean thousands of prescriptions and millions of dollars in revenue. The industry didn't miss the chance. "We went to the pharmaceutical companies or, actually, they approached us because they are always dropping by," Shon told Mother Jones. "Once we created the algorithms, they said, 'Could you use any financial help for any materials?' And we said, 'Yeah,' because we have to publish manuals. We have to create training videotapes."

Shon says the initial creation of the TMAP guidelines was underwritten by state funds, along with $3 million in grants from foundations, including $2.4 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a charity set up by the estate of a former chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, the parent of Janssen. Shon insists that no industry money went into the creation of the guidelines, though a 1999 paper he coauthored outlining the "development and implementation" of TMAP acknowledged grant support from seven pharmaceutical companies.

Shon also told Mother Jones that his department received only $285,000 from drug companies for TMAP's training materials in the program's "feasibility testing stage." But Nanci Wilson, an investigative reporter for KEYE-TV in Austin, reviewed the DSHS accounts, and her analysis indicates that gifts from pharmaceutical companies totaled $1.3 million from 1997 to July 2004, at least $834,000 of which was earmarked for TMAP. For example:

    * Janssen Pharmaceutica, the maker of Risperdal, gave $191,183 "to help support further developmental activities of TMAP" or in general support of TMAP.

    * Eli Lilly, the maker of Prozac and Zyprexa, gave $47,000 to "help fund the collaborative effort to develop medication best practices for the treatment of major depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorders." All together Lilly contributed $103,000 to support TMAP.

    * Pfizer, the maker of the antidepressant Zoloft and the new antipsychotic Geodon, contributed at least $146,500 for TMAP.

While not refuting Shon's statement, DSHS spokesman Doug McBride says he is "aware" that industry donated $1.3 million. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies contacted by Mother Jones denied that their contributions were intended to shape TMAP. "We didn't participate in the development or influence the content," said Janssen spokesman Doug Arbesfeld. "It was an arm's-length contribution." Heather Lusk, an Eli Lilly representative, said contributions to TMAP were "educational" grants made by a company grants office that "is completely independent of any kind of sales and marketing function."

Pfizer's Jack Cox pointed out that nonprofit mental health advocacy groups also raise and spend money to influence policy. "There's an assumption that our money is dirty and corrupt," he said. "I beg to differ."

As the TMAP panel members worked on the protocols, drug companies aggressively promoted the new antipsychotics across the psychiatric landscape. Their key selling point: that they were more effective and caused fewer serious side effects than the older antipsychotics, especially Haldol, the most widely used. Though it did approve six atypicals, the FDA was dubious of some of these claims. "We would consider any advertisement or promotional labeling for Risperdal false, misleading or lacking fair balance if there is a presentation of data that conveys the impression that [Risperdal] is superior to [Haldol] or any other marketed antipsychotic drug product with regard to safety or effectiveness," an FDA official wrote in a 1993 letter to Janssen Pharmaceutica. But the letter was only made public 53years later, when journalist Robert Whitaker quoted it in his 2002 book, Mad in America. Most prescribing doctors were left in the dark. (For more on how drug companies manipulated clinical trials for atypicals see motherjones.com/spinningdoctors.)

The largest study to date, a review of 52 clinical trials including more than 12,000 patients published in the British Medical Journal in 2000, found "no clear evidence that atypical antipsychotics are more effective or better tolerated than conventional antipsychotics." A 2003 study comparing Zyprexa, the top-selling atypical antipsychotic, and Haldol, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found the new drug "does not demonstrate advantages compared with [Haldol] in compliance, symptoms or overall quality of life."

The new drugs now appear to be associated with higher suicide rates and to cause tardive dyskinesia, too, though perhaps at lower rates than the first-generation drugs. They can cause rapid weight gain and thus an increased risk of diabetes. In September 2003, the FDA required the makers of all atypicals to add to their labels a warning that the drugs can cause hyperglycemia, diabetes, and even death. Janssen was also made to send doctors a letter conceding it had misled them when it said that Risperdal does not increase the risk of diabetes. In fact, the company had to admit, it probably does.

When TMAP's schizophrenia algorithm was finalized in 1997, however, it did exactly what industry representatives must have hoped for: It called for the newest, most expensive drugs -- five atypicals -- to be used first. If a patient does not respond well to one of those drugs, a second member of this group should be tried. If that drug also fails, a third drug should be tried, this time either another atypical or an older antipsychotic. The guidelines for major depression and bipolar disorder similarly favor new drugs.

"When [the drug companies] saw the newer medications were there, they liked that, of course," says Shon. "I know that has raised questions in people's minds: 'Why are the newest, most expensive first?' Well, the newest, most expensive are either the most efficacious and/or the safest."

But that assertion is increasingly disputed. "When atypicals came out, they looked a little better in effectiveness and a lot better in terms of side effects," says Mike Hogan, Ohio's mental health director and former chairman of President Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. "These days, they look perhaps a tiny bit better in terms of effectiveness, but increasingly it's not clear whether the side-effect profile is better or just different."

Ohio adopted a TMAP-like algorithm in 2001 but with a critical difference. According to Hogan, it's merely a guideline for prescribing doctors to consider. But in Texas, state officials put far more pressure on its physicians to follow the protocols. Under regulations codified by the legislature in 1999, doctors in state-owned and state-funded mental health entities must follow the algorithm, or justify a different course with a note in a patient's file -- a hurdle that sends the message that such deviation should be the rare exception.

As the TMAP guidelines began to be adopted in 1997, Texas Medicaid spending on the five atypical antipsychotics skyrocketed from $28 million to $177 million in 2004.

Many doses of these drugs went to patients like Aliah Gleason. She was one of 19,404 Texas teenagers prescribed an antipsychotic in July or August of 2004 through a publicly funded program, according to ACS-Heritage, a medical consulting firm hired by Texas to investigate the use of psychotropic drugs on children. Nearly 98 percent were atypical antipsychotics -- unapproved for children and prescribed "off-label," a controversial practice in which doctors legally prescribe FDA-cleared drugs to patients, such as children, or for conditions, such as depression, for which they are not approved. The report found that more than half of the doses for antipsychotics appeared inappropriately high, that almost half did not appear to have valid diagnoses warranting their use, and that one-third of child patients were on two or more medications.

When she was transferred from Austin State Hospital to a residential facility on March 18, 2004, Aliah was on five different medications, putting her on the extreme end of a growing practice known as polypharmacy that worries many doctors. "This is a complicated regimen using powerful psychotropic medications in a barely adolescent girl, so I would be quite concerned about it," says Dr. Joseph Woolston, a Yale University professor and chief of child psychiatry at Yale-New Haven Hospital. "It isn't grossly, acutely dangerous, but it is sedating and would make it difficult for a child to experience the world in a normal way. If you or I were on that regimen we would have a lot of trouble attending to work or school. We don't have any idea what that combination of medications does to a developing child. It may have a number of long-term side effects." He also suspects that the drugs may have been used as much to control the angry reactions of a girl who was hospitalized against her will as to treat any mental and emotional problems.

Dr. Clifford Moy, clinical director of Austin State Hospital, says that while the hospital's philosophy is to avoid using more than one member of any particular class of psychiatric medication, using multiple drugs from different classes is often the best way to treat a patient with multiple symptoms. While declining, for privacy reasons, to discuss Aliah's treatment, he said medication and restraint would never be used for punitive purposes or merely to promote compliance with hospital rules, but only in the case of a "significant emergency behavioral situation." He added that forced injection of an antipsychotic -- which happened to Aliah several times -- might be used "if there were a legal consent for an oral antipsychotic medication, which the patient refused." Such consent was apparently provided, in Aliah's case, by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.

The 46-bed child and adolescent wing where Aliah stayed was not, like the rest of Austin State Hospital, obligated to follow TMAP. Its treatment regimens were influenced more by CMAP, the children's algorithm not yet mandated by the legislature. CMAP steers clear of providing protocols for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder -- the disorders that atypicals were designed to address -- in part, says DSHS's Doug McBride, because there's "little scientific evidence" as to what the appropriate regimen for kids would be. CMAP does, however, call for combining atypicals with antidepressants for children diagnosed -- as Aliah was -- as suffering from depression "with psychotic features." McBride defends such off-label use of prescription drugs, saying that the FDA approval process "is not the end of clinical and other scientific evidence on the use of that medication."

Beyond their technical dictates, the algorithms established a culture that affected which medications were prescribed. Steven Shon, who, along with his colleagues, had led training sessions for the staff of Austin State Hospital, argues that the algorithms were designed to prevent irrational and excessive medication. Yale's Woolston agrees with the goal, though not necessarily the reality. "Algorithms are supposed to cut down on people using medications inappropriately and to take into account medication interaction," he says. "Where they become a problem is when people use them as a mandate, forget their own clinical judgment, and believe that when you're in doubt, you're supposed to move forward in the algorithm and add more medication."

Medications can be invaluable, and some patients say their lives have been transformed by atypicals. But algorithms reinforce the perception in both psychiatry and popular culture that mental problems always require drug treatment. "An algorithm may put blinders on a psychiatrist and create the presumption that the only clinical approach to problems is to use medications," Woolston says. If a patient doesn't respond to a particular medication, a doctor relying on an algorithm may think they need to use or add a different medication, he says. "But sometimes, the best approach is to say, 'Medication isn't working; let's try something else.'"

ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT of the algorithms was largely complete, Shon began hitting the road, making about one trip a month -- often at the expense of drug companies -- to spread the TMAP gospel to officials in other states. This close relationship between TMAP and the pharmaceutical industry raises disturbing questions about whether the drug companies were wielding undue influence or profiting at the expense of patients. But no one raised these questions until 2002, when Allen Jones, an investigator for the state of Pennsylvania's Office of Inspector General (OIG) began to look into a complaint that mental health officials had set up an unorthodox bank account to collect money from drug companies.

Jones, a lanky, 50-year-old chain-smoker, had spent several years with the OIG in the late '80s and early '90s, but left to pursue real estate investing to pay for his daughters' college tuition. He had only just rejoined the agency in the summer of 2002 when he began investigating this case. Over several months, he interviewed state officials, traveled to New York and New Jersey to question pharmaceutical company executives, and learned all he could about TMAP. He soon felt that something inappropriate, and possibly illegal, was going on. "It just did not pass the smell test," he says.

Jones learned that in early 2000, Dr. Steven Karp, who was then medical director of the state's Office of Mental Health, had become interested in implementing a Pennsylvania version of TMAP. Karp discussed his interest with executives of Janssen Pharmaceutica, Jones found, and the company paid for Shon to come to Pennsylvania in late 2000 to meet with Karp and Steven Fiorello, the state's chief pharmacist. Shon returned in March 2001 to train state medical personnel, according to records Jones obtained and provided to Mother Jones. To cover Shon's travel expenses, Janssen made an "educational grant" of $1,765.75. A Janssen funding request form notes that the grant was to support the "TMAP initiative to expand atypical usage and drive Steve Shon's expenses." A box marked "Risperdal" is checked on the form. Janssen's check was sent to Fiorello and placed in the account where other donations from pharmaceutical companies were deposited.

Two months later, Janssen provided $4,000 for Fiorello and a state psychiatrist to travel to New Orleans for meetings with Dr. Madhukar Trivedi, a UT-Southwestern psychiatrist and TMAP project team director. The funding request form for this payment listed the "deliverable" as the "successful implementation of PennMAP." A Janssen representative also attended and paid for $80-per-person dinners for the Pennsylvania and Texas officials. Fiorello and the psychiatrist made another trip to New Orleans later that year, also paid for by Janssen, according to Jones. Such perks, while of no great consequence to a company the size of Janssen, did forge a friendly relationship with Pennsylvania officials whose decisions carried enormous financial stakes for the company.

Fiorello told Jones he was the state's "point man" for selecting drugs for the state formulary -- those used in state hospitals -- and that industry representatives visit him often "to ensure access of their drugs to the state system," Jones wrote in a file memo as he pursued his investigation. In April 2002, Fiorello and Dr. Frederick Maue, clinical director for the state's Department of Corrections, spoke at a Janssen-sponsored symposium for prison doctors and nurses on treating mentally ill offenders. They were paid $2,000 by Comprehensive NeuroScience, a marketing firm working for Janssen that helped shape their presentation. Another marketing company hired by Janssen appointed Karp to its advisory board, flying him to meetings in Seattle and Tampa. Pfizer put Fiorello on an advisory council and twice paid his expenses to come to New York.

Jones became convinced that, as he puts it, "the pharmaceutical companies were buying influence with key decision makers in state government, trying to turn their drugs into blockbusters." But as he brought these findings to his boss, Daniel Sattele, he was told to stop pushing so hard. After he was barred from investigating whether state officials had received inappropriate payments from drug companies, Jones sued in federal court, alleging that "major public corruption investigations were being delayed, obstructed, or otherwise hindered by officials in the OIG." Sattele subsequently conceded in a deposition taken in 2003 that he asked Jones if he were "a salmon," telling him, "go with the flow, don't swim against the current." Sattele also said that after Jones came to him with his concerns for the fourth or fifth time, he reminded Jones of the industry's power and influence. "I said, 'Allen, pharmaceutical companies are very aggressive in their marketing. They probably donate to both sides of the aisle,'" he recalled in the deposition.

When Jones continued to pursue the case he was removed as lead investigator, then pulled off altogether, he says. Nonetheless, over the coming months, he quietly copied documents and, on his own time, gathered more information.

In February 2004, Jones laid out his charges for the New York Times and the British Medical Journal. In April he was suspended. In May he again sued in federal court, charging that his superiors were harassing him to "cover up, discourage, and limit any investigations or oversight into the corrupt practices of large drug companies and corrupt public officials who have acted with them." He was then fired. He is now working as a bricklayer; both his actions are pending.

A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General declined to comment on Jones' allegations or his termination. A representative of the Department of Corrections told Mother Jones that Maue donated the honorarium he was given by Comprehensive NeuroScience to the state's general fund. And Stacey Ward, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Welfare, said that the state "did not receive contributions of any kind from any pharmaceutical company to study or support the implementation of PennMAP." [Ed note: After the print edition of this story went to press, the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission fined Steven Fiorello, the state's chief pharmacist, $27,000 for using his position to earn extra income from sources that included Pfizer.]

Meanwhile, another Pennsylvania official was becoming increasingly alarmed with how drugs being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry were actually affecting patients. Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist working for the state's Department of Public Welfare, was charged with reviewing psychiatric care provided by state-funded agencies to identify cases of waste, fraud, and abuse. In the summer of 2001, he began documenting examples of what he calls "insane polypharmacy" and widespread use of drugs for reasons not approved by the FDA. Most shocking to him were the cases of children placed in state-funded residential treatment facilities, sometimes for years, and heavily drugged on the new antipsychotics and anticonvulsants, including some of the same medications given, off-label, to Aliah Gleason.

"These kids were on multiple medications without the clinical diagnoses to support the medications," Kruszewski says. One drug, Neurontin, approved for controlling seizures, "was being massively prescribed for anxiety, social phobia, PTSD, social anxiety, mood instability, sleep, oppositional defiant behavior, attention deficit disorder. Yet there's almost no evidence to support these uses in adults and no evidence for kids whatsoever."

Last year a Pfizer subsidiary pleaded guilty to criminal fraud and agreed to pay $430 million in fines for promoting off-label prescribing of Neurontin, which racked up $2.8 billion in U.S. sales in 2004. Officials estimate that off-label uses account for some 90 percent of its sales. New York attorney Andrew Finkelstein says he's been enlisted by the relatives of 425 people who committed suicide while on Neurontin, and thus far has filed 46 lawsuits against Pfizer.

Kruszewski sent memos to his bosses about dangerous off-label uses of these medications but says they were ignored. He also looked into the deaths of four children in residential programs and submitted a report on an Oklahoma facility, where Pennsylvania children were sometimes sent. He found that many of the kids "were severely overmedicated" with atypical antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants, and he theorized that the death of at least one child could be attributed to a culture that combined polypharmacy and neglect.

His report earned him no plaudits. The day after submitting it, he says, he was yelled at for "trying to dig up dirt." The next day he was fired and escorted to the street. He has since filed suit in federal court against the state officials who fired him, along with several drug companies that, he charges, have "distorted statistics, violated regulations and misrepresented the effects of the use of their psychotropic drugs simply to make money." (The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare declined to comment on Kruszewski's charges because of his pending lawsuit.) Months after he was fired, Kruszewski alternates between anger and sorrow as he thumbs through documents piled in the dining room of his Harrisburg home. "I get very emotional about these reports," he says. "The people who were paid to protect consumers did exactly the wrong thing."

Unlike some other heavily medicated children, Aliah Gleason survived. In June 2004, more than five months after she was taken from school, Calvin and Anaka Gleason saw their daughter for the first time -- in a courtroom. "I was so excited," Aliah recalls. "I hid under the table so I could surprise them. I started crying when I saw them. I thought I would never see them again."

It would take another four months of legal wrangling with the state before a district court judge ordered Aliah released into her parents' custody. Finally, the Gleasons were allowed to choose the people who would treat their daughter. They selected Austin psychologist John Breeding, a well-known critic of the overuse of psychiatric medications, and soon the whole family began meeting with him.

The first priority, Breeding said, "was to get her off the medication." Working with the family's doctor, he helped design a program for tapering her off her final drugs, Risperdal and Depakote, a process that was completed by the end of last year. He says the goal now is to help her recover from the emotional wounds she suffered as a result of her time under the state's care. She also needs to lose all the weight she gained while on the atypicals.

The good news, he says, is that "the family is reunited, she's doing well in school, and is even participating in extracurricular activities." Like her sisters, Aliah plays in the school band and also takes part in a drill team. "She's coming back, starting to get that gleam in her eye," Breeding says.

Aliah found herself at the intersection of a capricious child-protection system and a health care system that's all too ready to medicate. As doctors dispense ever-greater quantities of potent psychiatric drugs, and the industry spends ever-greater amounts of money promoting them, how can consumers be confident that decisions about their care are truly informed and in their interest? Whatever the stakes for the drug companies, the stakes for patients are infinitely higher.

    Rob Waters has written extensively on the use of psychiatric medication by children. Last year he revealed in the San Francisco Chronicle that the FDA suppressed an internal report linking antidepressants to an increased risk of suicide among children, a story that led to congressional hearings and warnings being issued for the drugs.
 
 

I N S I G H T

UN to Make Internet a Global 'Common Heritage'?
by William Norman Grigg
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_775.shtml
March 7, 2005
contributing editor to  - Viv

This November, the UN will convene a "World Summit on the Information Society" in Tunis. In Tunisia, reported a February 21 Reuters dispatch, "global control of the world wide web may be decided."
At present, "the most recognizable Internet governance body is a California-based non-profit company, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)," continued the report. "But developing countries want an international body, such as the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU), to have control over governance - from distributing Web site domains to fighting spam." According to Nitin Desai, chairman of a UN working group on the Internet created in December 2003, "There is an issue that is out there that needs to be resolved."

The draft "Declaration of Principles" for the Tunis Summit calls for the creation of "a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society . premised on the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations...." Under that vision, the Internet - rather than being a market-oriented entity controlled by no political body - would be used "to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration," particularly "the right to development, as enshrined in the Vienna Declaration...." That "right" refers to the desire of the UN to redistribute wealth and technology from the U.S. and other prosperous nations to the kleptocratic governments of the "developing world."

Furthermore, the draft declaration pointedly invokes "Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," which states that "everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of their personality is possible, and that, in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.... These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In plainer language, the UN seeks the power to suppress any use of the Internet and other information technology to criticize the world body or impede its designs for global governance.

The UN's proposed Law of the Sea Treaty would designate the oceans a UN-administered "common heritage of mankind." In similar fashion, the Tunis Summit would claim cyberspace as a UN-regulated "common heritage."
 
 

I am from the gubment,  & am here to help you - NOT

FBI seeks expanded search powers;
Justice Dept. also wants expiring Patriot Act provisions renewed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7388717/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040505X.shtml
MSNBC - Tuesday 5 April 2005
contributing editor to   - Viv

    WASHINGTON - FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday asked lawmakers to expand the bureau's ability to obtain records without first asking a judge, and he joined Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in seeking that every temporary provision of the anti-terrorism Patriot Act be renewed.

    "Now is not the time for us to be engaging in unilateral disarmament" on the legal weapons now available for fighting terrorism, Gonzales, for his part, told senators.

    He said that some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have proven invaluable in fighting terrorism and aiding other investigations. "It's important that these authorities remain available," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Mueller said sections of the law that allow intelligence and law enforcement agencies to share information are especially important.

    "Experience has taught the FBI that there are no neat dividing lines that distinguish criminal, terrorist and foreign intelligence activity," Mueller said in his prepared testimony.

    He also asked Congress to expand the FBI's administrative subpoena powers, which allow the bureau to obtain records without approval or a judge or grand jury.

    "For many years, the FBI has had administrative subpoena authority for investigations of crimes ranging from drug trafficking to health care fraud to child exploitation," he stated. "Yet, when it comes to terrorism investigations, the FBI has no such authority."

15 Provisions at Stake

    The Patriot Act is the post-Sept. 11 law that expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers. Most of the law is permanent, but 15 provisions will expire in December unless renewed by Congress.

    On the same day Gonzales was speaking to the Senate committee, Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., planned to reintroduce legislation designed to curb major parts of the Patriot Act that they say went too far.

    "Cooler heads can now see that the Patriot Act went too far, too fast and that it must be brought back in line with the Constitution," said Gregory Nojeim, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington legislative office.

    The ACLU is part of an unusual coalition of liberal and conservative groups, including the American Conservative Union, that have come together in a joint effort to lobby Congress to repeal key provisions of the Patriot Act.

'Library Provision' Is Controversial

    Among the controversial provisions is a section permitting secret warrants for "books, records, papers, documents and other items" from businesses, hospitals and other organizations.

    That section is known as the "library provision" by its critics. While it does not specifically mention bookstores or libraries, critics say the government could use it to subpoena library and bookstore records and snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

    Gonzales told lawmakers Tuesday the provision has been used 35 times, but never to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.

    But the criticism has led five states and 375 communities in 43 states to pass anti-Patriot Act resolutions, the ACLU says.

    Even some Republicans are concerned. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has suggested it should be tougher for federal officials to use that provision.

    Gonzales already has agreed to two minor changes to the provision, and was expected to support giving someone who receives a secret warrant under the provision the right to consult a lawyer and challenge the warrant in court. He was expected to also back slightly tightening the standard for issuing subpoenas.

Bigger Concerns

    Neither change addresses the central concern of opponents, which is that it allows the government to seize records of people who are not suspected terrorists or spies.

    Critics say the law allows the government to target certain groups, but the Justice Department counters that no Patriot Act-related civil rights abuses have been proven.

    Just in case, Craig and Durbin want Congress to curb both expiring and nonexpiring parts of the Patriot Act, including the expiring "library" provision and "sneak and peek" or delayed notification warrants. Those warrants - which will not expire in December - allow federal officials to search suspects' homes without telling them until later.

    The Justice Department said federal prosecutors have asked for 155 such warrants since 2001.

    That's just two-tenths of one percent of all search warrants, but their use is growing. The warrants were sought 47 times between the time the law was passed and April of 2003. Since then, it's been invoked 108 times.

    Gonzales also notes that the law has been used in non-terrorism cases. For example, federal officials used it to track over the Internet a woman who ultimately confessed to strangling a pregnant woman and cutting the fetus from her womb.

    And such searches have been allowed for years in drug and organized crime cases.

    The Associated Press and NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.
 
 

*  What does "do not drink the kool-aid" mean? [click this line]  or goto this link http://www.tellme1st.net/rockyview/kool-aid/do not drink the kool-aid.html

goto top .....mailto: rockyview@tellme#&1st.net
The above addresss is NOT correct.  For security reasons, the "#&" characters must be removed to be a correct address.  This reduces the possibility of a hacker autosearching for address links.
Simply copy and paste this address in your mail program, BUT remember to delete the "#&" characters.