by Patrick Buchanan
Source
“John Demjanjuk Guilty of Nazi Death Camp Murders,” ran the headline on the BBC. The lede began:
“A German court has found John Demjanjuk guilty of helping to murder more than 28,000 Jews at a Nazi death camp in Poland.”
Not until paragraph 17 does one find this jolting fact: “No evidence was produced that he committed a specific crime.”
That is correct. No evidence was produced, no witness came forward to testify he ever saw Demjanjuk injure anyone. And the critical evidence that put Demjanjuk at Sobibor came — from the KGB.
First was a KGB summary of an alleged interview with one Ignat Danilchenko, who claimed he was a guard at Sobibor and knew Demjanjuk. Second was the Soviet-supplied ID card from the Trawniki camp that trained guards.
There are major problems with both pieces of “evidence.”
First, Danilchenko has been dead for a quarter of a century, no one in the West ever interviewed him, and Moscow stonewalled defense requests for access to the full Danilchenko file. His very existence raises a question.
How could a Red Army soldier who turned collaborator and Nazi camp guard survive Operation Keelhaul, which sent all Soviet POWs back to Joseph Stalin, where they were either murdered or sent to the Gulag?
As for the ID card from Trawniki, just last month there was unearthed at the National Archives in College Park, Md., a 1985 report from the Cleveland office of the FBI, which, after studying the card, concluded it was “quite likely” a KGB forgery.
“Justice is ill-served in the prosecution of an American citizen on evidence which is not only normally inadmissible in a court of law, but based on evidence and allegations quite likely fabricated by the KGB.”
This FBI report, never made public, was done just as Demjanjuk was being deported to Israel to stand trial as “Ivan the Terrible,” the murderer of Treblinka. In a sensational trial covered by the world’s press, Demjanjuk was convicted and sentenced to hang.
But after five years on death row, new evidence turned up when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia opened up. That evidence wholly validated the claims of Demjanjuk’s defenders.
Not only had Demjanjuk never even been at Treblinka, the Soviet files contained a photograph of the real “Ivan” — a larger and older man.
To its eternal credit, the Israeli Supreme Court reversed the conviction, rejected a request to retry Demjanjuk as a camp guard elsewhere in Poland, freed him and sent him home to America.
Exposed as a laughing stock, and denounced for fraud by Ohio district and appellate courts, the Office of Special Investigations began crafting a new case, John Demjanjuk of Sobibor, to deport and try again the old man whose defense attorneys had made fools of them.
Thus the Sobibor story and Demjanjuk’s supposed complicity in the murder of 28,000 Jews — though, as the BBC notes, no one testified at the trial that they ever saw John Demjanjuk injure anyone.
Consider the life this tormented American has lived.
Born in Ukraine in 1920, as a boy he endured the Holodomor — the famine imposed on his people in 1932 and 1933 by Stalin and his hated henchman Lazar Kaganovich, which resulted in the starvation and death of somewhere between 5 million and 9 million Ukrainians.
It has been called by historians the “forgotten Holocaust.”
Conscripted into the Red Army, Demjanjuk was captured in the German blitzkrieg. Unlike American and British POWs, whom Germans regarded as racial equals, Ukrainians were untermensch who could be used for medical experiments.
Not only did Demjanjuk survive, he managed to evade the Allied order, under Keelhaul, for all Red Army POWs to be repatriated to Stalin, which was the Soviet dictator’s demand before he would return the U.S. and British POWs his troops liberated in the march to Berlin.
In the war’s aftermath, Demjanjuk married his wife Vera, who had been conscripted in the Ukraine and brought forcibly west to work in the German economy.
Thence he moved to Cleveland, became an autoworker, raised a family and practiced his Christian faith. But he made a mistake.
He sent his wife to Ukraine to tell his aged mother that he had survived the war and was living in the great United States of America.
Word got around the village. The KGB came calling. Swiftly, the payments his mother had been receiving for her war hero son were halted, and suddenly, there turned up an ID card that said John Demjanjuk had been trained at Trawniki to be a Nazi camp guard.
The KGB began feeding OSI from its “files,” as OSI began a manic persecution of Demjanjuk that has lasted 30 years.
Stalin died in bed in 1953. Kaganovich died with his family around him in Moscow in 1991. And John Demjanjuk, 91, after spending five years on death row for a crime he did not commit in a place he never was, is stateless and homeless in a Germany where veterans of the SS walk free.
That is justice — in our world.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Read more...
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."
David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.
The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.
When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.
Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence.
"It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."
Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Read more...
Friday, May 13, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Dangerous Naivety of the Lone Wolf Theorist
by Szandor Blestman
Source
If one listens to the establishment media and talking heads lately, one will hear much about conspiracy theorists. Now of course this term is used to impugn anyone who would endorse such theories. Everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are crazy, right? Everyone knows that government wouldn't lie about important things like world events. Everyone knows that the establishment would never try to cover anything up and hide the truth from the populace. Well, at least not the important stuff. Well, at least no people in power would ever plot against their own people, right? Not even if the outcome would be beneficial to their personal interests, right? Hmm? Perhaps we should explore the world of the lone wolf theorist. After all, if an event was not carried out as part of some kind of conspiracy, it must have been carried out by a single entity, a lone wolf if you will.
The lone wolf theorist appears to me to be very trusting. He seems to trust in the establishment implicitly. He does not wish to question whether or not facts are true, even when they seem questionable. He prefers to take opinion and conjecture as fact so long as they come from an established source. Yet he seems to believe that he is, in fact, the knower of all things there are to know. He believes that he has the facts, and the facts tell him that government is good, conspiracies don't exist, and the establishment account of events is never wrong.
The lone wolf theorist believes that nutcases are able to plan complicated actions on their own and gain access to highly valued and protected targets without any problems. They believe that paranoid schizophrenics can quite easily plan things weeks and perhaps months ahead of time without anyone suspecting a thing. They must believe that these people are among the most intelligent among us, certainly the most devious. Indeed, in many cases it seems that these lone wolfs must have near super human qualities in order to pull off some of the schemes they have been accused of.
No man is an island. We all engage in some kind of contact with our fellow humans. Even Ted Kaczynski, who did his utmost to remove himself from the rest of humanity, had to interact with others from time to time. A true lone wolf and intellectual, Mr. Kaczynski had to stick to soft targets and mail bombs to avoid capture. It is highly unlikely he could have ever pulled off an assassination of a well protected person or the kind of terrorist attack people seem to fear most, for those kind of operations almost require a conspiracy, and certainly so if the perpetrator wishes to not get caught.
Of course, the other aspect of conspiracy theory is the theory aspect. I suppose one who thinks conspiracies theories are crazy could believe that conspiracies exist, but the version he believes in is fact. Could we call such a person a conspiracy factist? How about a conspiracy knower? Either way, I believe that the only way someone could be absolutely certain as to whether or not a given event was plotted the way it was reported to be plotted would be if he was personally involved. Unless that's the case, one has to take the word of someone else as to what is or was the truth of a given situation.
The vast majority of the population all across the planet are entertaining some kind of theory when it comes to news stories. Some people might realize this, but most probably don't. They simply watch establishment news programs on the television, listen to establishment news radio, or read establishment newspapers or magazines and take them at their word. There's never any questioning. There's never any investigation. People just take it for granted that establishment media is being honest, have done their due diligence in terms of investigating a story, and are accurate and realistic in their reporting. The problem is that the establishment media often uses government sources. In fact, they have come to depend on government sources for their stories in many cases. The establishment media may well take for granted that the government sources are being honest and accurate. They have, in essence, failed in any watchdog duties that may be expected of them.
In the United States of America, in the legal system, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is supposed to weigh upon the prosecution. Yet in too many cases people who were "proven" to be guilty were later proven to be innocent. It seems to me that there is some kind of disconnect at work here to make this possible. Perhaps in law, as in the court of public opinion that is shaped by establishment media, it is not so much "facts" and "proof" that count, but who the jury will believe, who they trust, and who they tend to disagree with. It seems to me that these days, as many who have become involved with the legal system have come to find out, that one is guilty until he can prove himself innocent in a court of law. The legal system in this nation has devolved into the type of system that the founders fought to escape from. It is no longer a system we can be so proud of because our system is so much better than tyrannical legal systems. It has become as corrupt as many other legal systems around the world and so few seem to care. This is because so many are brainwashed and no longer question the authorities because they'd rather believe the lone wolf theorists they see on television and feel good that their nation's legal system is still the bestest, most greatest, most honest, in the whole, wide world and would never make a mistake.
The biggest difference between the conspiracy theorist and the lone wolf theorist, or the conspiracy theorist and the conspiracy knower, is who they trust for their information. Most conspiracy theorists, if they are at all reputable, will follow their instincts and ask questions of those who should know, who were involved, or who have done research that may have been missed by the mainstream. Most lone wolf theorists or conspiracy knowers will simply take the word of the establishment media, its talking heads and government sources. At least, it seems that way to me.
I got news in case you didn't know, government lies. Politicians lie and make promises they don't intend on keeping to get votes. Bureaucrats lie, misrepresent and exagerate to increase the budgets for their bureaucracies. Establishment corporations lie to get legislation passed that will help them maintain their markets. Establishment media lies, misrepresents and embellishes to maintain its relationships with all those listed above in order to make sure they don't loose access to their sources. Yet somehow these people who have been shown to deceive are still seen as reputable and even held in high esteem by some.
This is where the biggest danger lies. Threats to freedom come not from outside enemies trying to control us with military force, but from enemies within manipulating our emotions. We are indoctrinated from childhood. Those we trust abuse their status. They use fear and guilt to steal our wealth and as excuses to violate our liberties. Those who do not wish to see will defend their actions even as those in power become more controlling and tyrannical. They forget to question authority. They neglect to look into motive. They obey dictates from the top, centralized authority without thought of who benefits from such regulations. They go along to get along, lowering their chins and watching their feet as they make their way through life hoping to stay off the radar. They become a small cog in a system that slowly turns the masses into slaves for a power elite while grinding down opportunity and innovation. They loose the individualist concepts of liberty and independence and replace them with the fallacious collectivist promises of protection and being cared for. We should not be a nation of people dependent upon hope in a centralized government, but a nation of self governing individuals confident in our abilities to provide for our own needs independent of government interference.
Do not be so critical of conspiracy theorists questioning the government point of view. They are rightly questioning authority and showing a healthy skepticism. Instead, be more wary of those who would vehemently defend the establishment storyline and trust in such an historically untrustworthy organization. Be more wary of those who would offhandedly judge the messengers as crazy rather than disputing the facts and checking out the sources. Perhaps it is the lone wolf theorists and conspiracy knowers who should be questioned and investigated. Perhaps they have more to gain or loose than one might imagine. Oh wait, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I must be crazy.
Source
If one listens to the establishment media and talking heads lately, one will hear much about conspiracy theorists. Now of course this term is used to impugn anyone who would endorse such theories. Everyone knows that conspiracy theorists are crazy, right? Everyone knows that government wouldn't lie about important things like world events. Everyone knows that the establishment would never try to cover anything up and hide the truth from the populace. Well, at least not the important stuff. Well, at least no people in power would ever plot against their own people, right? Not even if the outcome would be beneficial to their personal interests, right? Hmm? Perhaps we should explore the world of the lone wolf theorist. After all, if an event was not carried out as part of some kind of conspiracy, it must have been carried out by a single entity, a lone wolf if you will.
The lone wolf theorist appears to me to be very trusting. He seems to trust in the establishment implicitly. He does not wish to question whether or not facts are true, even when they seem questionable. He prefers to take opinion and conjecture as fact so long as they come from an established source. Yet he seems to believe that he is, in fact, the knower of all things there are to know. He believes that he has the facts, and the facts tell him that government is good, conspiracies don't exist, and the establishment account of events is never wrong.
The lone wolf theorist believes that nutcases are able to plan complicated actions on their own and gain access to highly valued and protected targets without any problems. They believe that paranoid schizophrenics can quite easily plan things weeks and perhaps months ahead of time without anyone suspecting a thing. They must believe that these people are among the most intelligent among us, certainly the most devious. Indeed, in many cases it seems that these lone wolfs must have near super human qualities in order to pull off some of the schemes they have been accused of.
No man is an island. We all engage in some kind of contact with our fellow humans. Even Ted Kaczynski, who did his utmost to remove himself from the rest of humanity, had to interact with others from time to time. A true lone wolf and intellectual, Mr. Kaczynski had to stick to soft targets and mail bombs to avoid capture. It is highly unlikely he could have ever pulled off an assassination of a well protected person or the kind of terrorist attack people seem to fear most, for those kind of operations almost require a conspiracy, and certainly so if the perpetrator wishes to not get caught.
Of course, the other aspect of conspiracy theory is the theory aspect. I suppose one who thinks conspiracies theories are crazy could believe that conspiracies exist, but the version he believes in is fact. Could we call such a person a conspiracy factist? How about a conspiracy knower? Either way, I believe that the only way someone could be absolutely certain as to whether or not a given event was plotted the way it was reported to be plotted would be if he was personally involved. Unless that's the case, one has to take the word of someone else as to what is or was the truth of a given situation.
The vast majority of the population all across the planet are entertaining some kind of theory when it comes to news stories. Some people might realize this, but most probably don't. They simply watch establishment news programs on the television, listen to establishment news radio, or read establishment newspapers or magazines and take them at their word. There's never any questioning. There's never any investigation. People just take it for granted that establishment media is being honest, have done their due diligence in terms of investigating a story, and are accurate and realistic in their reporting. The problem is that the establishment media often uses government sources. In fact, they have come to depend on government sources for their stories in many cases. The establishment media may well take for granted that the government sources are being honest and accurate. They have, in essence, failed in any watchdog duties that may be expected of them.
In the United States of America, in the legal system, one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is supposed to weigh upon the prosecution. Yet in too many cases people who were "proven" to be guilty were later proven to be innocent. It seems to me that there is some kind of disconnect at work here to make this possible. Perhaps in law, as in the court of public opinion that is shaped by establishment media, it is not so much "facts" and "proof" that count, but who the jury will believe, who they trust, and who they tend to disagree with. It seems to me that these days, as many who have become involved with the legal system have come to find out, that one is guilty until he can prove himself innocent in a court of law. The legal system in this nation has devolved into the type of system that the founders fought to escape from. It is no longer a system we can be so proud of because our system is so much better than tyrannical legal systems. It has become as corrupt as many other legal systems around the world and so few seem to care. This is because so many are brainwashed and no longer question the authorities because they'd rather believe the lone wolf theorists they see on television and feel good that their nation's legal system is still the bestest, most greatest, most honest, in the whole, wide world and would never make a mistake.
The biggest difference between the conspiracy theorist and the lone wolf theorist, or the conspiracy theorist and the conspiracy knower, is who they trust for their information. Most conspiracy theorists, if they are at all reputable, will follow their instincts and ask questions of those who should know, who were involved, or who have done research that may have been missed by the mainstream. Most lone wolf theorists or conspiracy knowers will simply take the word of the establishment media, its talking heads and government sources. At least, it seems that way to me.
I got news in case you didn't know, government lies. Politicians lie and make promises they don't intend on keeping to get votes. Bureaucrats lie, misrepresent and exagerate to increase the budgets for their bureaucracies. Establishment corporations lie to get legislation passed that will help them maintain their markets. Establishment media lies, misrepresents and embellishes to maintain its relationships with all those listed above in order to make sure they don't loose access to their sources. Yet somehow these people who have been shown to deceive are still seen as reputable and even held in high esteem by some.
This is where the biggest danger lies. Threats to freedom come not from outside enemies trying to control us with military force, but from enemies within manipulating our emotions. We are indoctrinated from childhood. Those we trust abuse their status. They use fear and guilt to steal our wealth and as excuses to violate our liberties. Those who do not wish to see will defend their actions even as those in power become more controlling and tyrannical. They forget to question authority. They neglect to look into motive. They obey dictates from the top, centralized authority without thought of who benefits from such regulations. They go along to get along, lowering their chins and watching their feet as they make their way through life hoping to stay off the radar. They become a small cog in a system that slowly turns the masses into slaves for a power elite while grinding down opportunity and innovation. They loose the individualist concepts of liberty and independence and replace them with the fallacious collectivist promises of protection and being cared for. We should not be a nation of people dependent upon hope in a centralized government, but a nation of self governing individuals confident in our abilities to provide for our own needs independent of government interference.
Do not be so critical of conspiracy theorists questioning the government point of view. They are rightly questioning authority and showing a healthy skepticism. Instead, be more wary of those who would vehemently defend the establishment storyline and trust in such an historically untrustworthy organization. Be more wary of those who would offhandedly judge the messengers as crazy rather than disputing the facts and checking out the sources. Perhaps it is the lone wolf theorists and conspiracy knowers who should be questioned and investigated. Perhaps they have more to gain or loose than one might imagine. Oh wait, that sounds like a conspiracy theory. I must be crazy.
Psychopharmaceutical industry seeks world of dispassionate sheeple
Natural News
(NaturalNews) – People who obediently follow the herd, never markedly sad, angry or excited; children who play quietly and never annoy or talk out of turn – this is the object of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industries. And when anyone steps out of line, the answer is simple: stamp them “abnormal” and give them a pill.
Human sorrow could soon be more easily diagnosed and medicated as a mental disorder. Psychiatrists creating the next edition of the psychiatric bible – the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5, due out in 2013) – are recommending to eliminate the time clause for major depressive disorder. So instead of grieving for two months to qualify, if you mourn the loss of a loved one for only two weeks doctors could label you mentally ill and prescribe a drug.
The first DSM published in 1952 was a 132-page volume listing 128 mental disorders. With nearly 900 pages, the current edition (DSM-IV, published in 1994) lists 357 disorders – an over 300% increase. Since its release, DSM-IV has generated a 256% increase in psychiatric drug sales and billions of dollars in government funding.
Drug companies are notorious for downplaying disabling effects of psychotropic drugs. Additionally, medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker reports that many psychiatric drug users acquire a more severe form of mental illness than they started with. For instance, antidepressant users tend to spiral down into long-term depression – yielding even greater profit for psychiatrists and drugmakers.
Creating drugged and docile youth
Psychiatry’s worst social meltdown concerns our youngest. The threat of ADHD, bipolar, autism and other alleged childhood diseases – which duped teachers, counselors and parents are on constant lookout for – presses children into a “socially acceptable” mold.
Several ADHD websites even boast that medication benefits include: “the child is no longer distinguishable from classmates” – their words!
A Medco Health Solutions Report in 2009 revealed children to be the pharmaceutical industry’s most expanding market. Child prescriptions have increased at four times the rate of the general population.
Every new disorder equals more prescriptions and more profit. With changes planned for DSM-5, toddlers with recurring tantrums could be drugged for “temper dysregulation disorder”, upset six-year-olds could be drugged for “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” and kids with “overly familiar behavior (verbal or physical violation of culturally sanctioned social boundaries)” could be drugged for “Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder.”
Social totalitarians
DSM officials admit that everyone has instances of sadness and anger, and assert that diagnoses depend on the severity and frequency of symptoms.
And who decides when a child or adult has crossed from normality into abnormality? Psychiatrists – a field financially joined at the hip with Big Pharma.
Per the current DSM, social no-nos deserving an abnormal imprint (and likely to lead to a prescription drug) include:
* Heightened self-esteem (“manic episode”)
* Very sensitive to criticism (“avoidant personality disorder”)
* Defying and disobeying authority figures (“oppositional defiant disorder”)
* Behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture (“personality disorder”)
The Soviet Union also used psychiatric labels for social control. People who defied communism were diagnosed as mentally ill, isolated and forcefully medicated.
Ahead of his time, Aldous Huxley anticipated psychiatric totalitarianism in his classic novel, Brave New World: “And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma* to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are.” [*In this fictional novel, soma is a hallucinogenic drug used by those in power to subdue the citizens.]
(NaturalNews) – People who obediently follow the herd, never markedly sad, angry or excited; children who play quietly and never annoy or talk out of turn – this is the object of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industries. And when anyone steps out of line, the answer is simple: stamp them “abnormal” and give them a pill.
Human sorrow could soon be more easily diagnosed and medicated as a mental disorder. Psychiatrists creating the next edition of the psychiatric bible – the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM-5, due out in 2013) – are recommending to eliminate the time clause for major depressive disorder. So instead of grieving for two months to qualify, if you mourn the loss of a loved one for only two weeks doctors could label you mentally ill and prescribe a drug.
The first DSM published in 1952 was a 132-page volume listing 128 mental disorders. With nearly 900 pages, the current edition (DSM-IV, published in 1994) lists 357 disorders – an over 300% increase. Since its release, DSM-IV has generated a 256% increase in psychiatric drug sales and billions of dollars in government funding.
Drug companies are notorious for downplaying disabling effects of psychotropic drugs. Additionally, medical journalist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Robert Whitaker reports that many psychiatric drug users acquire a more severe form of mental illness than they started with. For instance, antidepressant users tend to spiral down into long-term depression – yielding even greater profit for psychiatrists and drugmakers.
Creating drugged and docile youth
Psychiatry’s worst social meltdown concerns our youngest. The threat of ADHD, bipolar, autism and other alleged childhood diseases – which duped teachers, counselors and parents are on constant lookout for – presses children into a “socially acceptable” mold.
Several ADHD websites even boast that medication benefits include: “the child is no longer distinguishable from classmates” – their words!
A Medco Health Solutions Report in 2009 revealed children to be the pharmaceutical industry’s most expanding market. Child prescriptions have increased at four times the rate of the general population.
Every new disorder equals more prescriptions and more profit. With changes planned for DSM-5, toddlers with recurring tantrums could be drugged for “temper dysregulation disorder”, upset six-year-olds could be drugged for “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” and kids with “overly familiar behavior (verbal or physical violation of culturally sanctioned social boundaries)” could be drugged for “Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder.”
Social totalitarians
DSM officials admit that everyone has instances of sadness and anger, and assert that diagnoses depend on the severity and frequency of symptoms.
And who decides when a child or adult has crossed from normality into abnormality? Psychiatrists – a field financially joined at the hip with Big Pharma.
Per the current DSM, social no-nos deserving an abnormal imprint (and likely to lead to a prescription drug) include:
* Heightened self-esteem (“manic episode”)
* Very sensitive to criticism (“avoidant personality disorder”)
* Defying and disobeying authority figures (“oppositional defiant disorder”)
* Behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture (“personality disorder”)
The Soviet Union also used psychiatric labels for social control. People who defied communism were diagnosed as mentally ill, isolated and forcefully medicated.
Ahead of his time, Aldous Huxley anticipated psychiatric totalitarianism in his classic novel, Brave New World: “And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there’s always soma* to give you a holiday from the facts. And there’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are.” [*In this fictional novel, soma is a hallucinogenic drug used by those in power to subdue the citizens.]
FEMA Asks Disaster Victims to Return Aid Money
By John Johnson
Source
(Newser) – Oh, FEMA. It's hard to top those formaldehyde Katrina trailers, but this comes close. The agency has begun sending letters to thousands of people who received disaster aid asking for its money back, reports AP. Specifically, FEMA says it mistakenly doled out $22 million to victims of tornadoes, floods, etc., since 2005, and it's obligated by law to get the money back. The agency is still reviewing old cases, including Katrina cases, meaning the total could rise.
One example: An Arkansas couple whose home was ruined in a 2008 flood received $27,000 that year to make repairs. In March of this year, FEMA informed them they had 30 days to pay it all back. "That money really helped," says the homeowner. "And now they want the check back like we've been sitting on it for all this time. It makes no sense." Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas agrees, and he's pushing a bill to give FEMA the legal leeway to waive debts that arose from its own mistakes. "This is not the victim's fault," Pryor says. "They did nothing wrong. They just followed FEMA's directions."
Source
(Newser) – Oh, FEMA. It's hard to top those formaldehyde Katrina trailers, but this comes close. The agency has begun sending letters to thousands of people who received disaster aid asking for its money back, reports AP. Specifically, FEMA says it mistakenly doled out $22 million to victims of tornadoes, floods, etc., since 2005, and it's obligated by law to get the money back. The agency is still reviewing old cases, including Katrina cases, meaning the total could rise.
One example: An Arkansas couple whose home was ruined in a 2008 flood received $27,000 that year to make repairs. In March of this year, FEMA informed them they had 30 days to pay it all back. "That money really helped," says the homeowner. "And now they want the check back like we've been sitting on it for all this time. It makes no sense." Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas agrees, and he's pushing a bill to give FEMA the legal leeway to waive debts that arose from its own mistakes. "This is not the victim's fault," Pryor says. "They did nothing wrong. They just followed FEMA's directions."
Scottish First Minister supports sanctions against Israel
By Mick Napier
Source
London – First Minister Alex Salmond supported economic sanctions against Israel. He described Israel’s massacre of nine Mavi Marmara passengers as an “atrocity on the high seas” and put Israel firmly beyond the pale. “This has implications for example in trading relationships—you can’t have normal relationships if you believe another country has been involved in what Israel has been involved in.”
Scotland’s elections shattered political mould – SNP triumphant. The pro-war and pro-Israel Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties punished SNP Leader Alex Salmond tried to impeach Tony Blair for war crimes in Iraq. Scottish Government offered open access to Scottish hospitals for Palestinian victims of Operation Cast Lead. Nationalist government must be pressured to match deeds with words
Scotland’s elections have shattered the political mould, battered every political party other than the SNP (Scottish National Party) and given us a nationalist majority in the Edinburgh Parliament. The voting system was expressly designed to prevent such an outcome. Unlike Palestinians, though, we do not expect to be punished severely for voting in a way that London disapproves of.
The Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties that are attacking living standards have been punished and the SNP has reaped the benefits of being seen to oppose the cuts to living standards, services and jobs .
We should also remember that the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has steered his party over the years to oppose many of the core militarist policies of the other parties: he launched an initiative in 2004 to impeach Tony Blair for war crimes in Iraq, and the SNP opposes the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Salmond, far and away Scotland’s most popular and effective politician, has also been harshly and publicly critical of Israeli crimes. Following Israel’s abuse of British passports to murder a Hamas official in a Dubai hotel room in March 2010, First Minister Salmond supported the idea of economic sanctions against Israel. He dismissed the London Government’s expulsion of a low level Israeli Embassy official when he told a BBC Question Time audience that Israel’s unceasing crimes merited more than a “diplomatic dance” over passport mis-use.
Salmond labelled Israel’s massacre of nine Mavi Marmara passengers as an “atrocity on the high seas”. No UK Government officials would condemn Israel for the killings and David Miliband said he was “seeking clarification” from Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman. Alex Salmond, in contrast, put Israel firmly beyond the pale. “This has implications for example in trading relationships—you can’t have normal relationships if you believe another country has been involved in what Israel has been involved in”.
One newly elected MSP, Humza Yousef, correctly pointed out in a letter to SPSC that there have
“been actions also, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been released in aid to Gaza , and opening our hospitals to treat those who were injured in the horrific assault in 2009 (this was an appeal you made at the time directly to the Scot Gov’t).”
Alex Salmond has also opposed those who seek to conflate political criticism or opposition to Israeli crimes with hostility to the Jewish Community. Addressing a Glasgow Jewish community meeting in May 2010, he was asked “to do what he could to halt” BDS actions outside Glasgow supermarkets. Salmond responded with an elementary distinction:
“I don’t think we should accept as a community that your position in Scottish society should be judged or affected by the policies of Israel. The Jewish community is not liable for those policies. It is possible to be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. The Jewish community should not be judged on whether people approve or disapprove of the actions of Israel.”
He also dismissed claims by some Zionists that anti-Semitism was driving Jews out of Scotland, an unfounded claim that serves the Zionist programme to have Jews move to Israel:
“I don’t share the analysis that the Jewish community is suffering a wave of persecution or that anti-Semitism in Scotland is rapidly growing and such a severe problem that it is jeopardising this community..I don’t believe that the Jewish community is under siege nor do I believe that it feels itself to be under siege…Scotland has never had to introduce any laws to deal with anti-Semitism”.
Salmond’s positions have been in sharp contrast to the London Government, which attacked and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and endorsed every Israeli crime. David Miliband, for example, refused to condemn the Israeli attacks on boats to Gaza with humanitarian aid and David Cameron described himself as “a proud Zionist” supporting Israel, which acted with “great restraint” against Lebanese or Palestinian “terrorists”.
But the Israeli violations of international law, and the ongoing killings, mass imprisonment and dispossession of the Palestinian people, mean that we have to go beyond humanitarian aid and words to support the Palestinian appeal for BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until Palestinians gain their freedom.
That means that we must pressure the newly-mandated Scottish Government to live up to First Minister Alex Salmond’s words that Israel’s behaviour merits trade sanctions. That must include the rescinding of the £200,000 Scottish Enterprise grant to Eden Springs, the Israeli water cooler company involved in serious human rights violations in the Golan, Syrian territory held by the British Government to be illegally occupied by Israel.
Help us to keep the pressure on the Government to act on First Minister Alex Salmond’s call for trade sanctions against Israel. Join and support the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Mick Napier
Chair, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
c/o Peace & Justice Centre
Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 4BJ
chair@scottishpsc.org.uk
00 44 (0)131 620 0052 / 00 44 (0)795 800 2591
Source
London – First Minister Alex Salmond supported economic sanctions against Israel. He described Israel’s massacre of nine Mavi Marmara passengers as an “atrocity on the high seas” and put Israel firmly beyond the pale. “This has implications for example in trading relationships—you can’t have normal relationships if you believe another country has been involved in what Israel has been involved in.”
Scotland’s elections shattered political mould – SNP triumphant. The pro-war and pro-Israel Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties punished SNP Leader Alex Salmond tried to impeach Tony Blair for war crimes in Iraq. Scottish Government offered open access to Scottish hospitals for Palestinian victims of Operation Cast Lead. Nationalist government must be pressured to match deeds with words
Scotland’s elections have shattered the political mould, battered every political party other than the SNP (Scottish National Party) and given us a nationalist majority in the Edinburgh Parliament. The voting system was expressly designed to prevent such an outcome. Unlike Palestinians, though, we do not expect to be punished severely for voting in a way that London disapproves of.
The Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties that are attacking living standards have been punished and the SNP has reaped the benefits of being seen to oppose the cuts to living standards, services and jobs .
We should also remember that the SNP leader, Alex Salmond, has steered his party over the years to oppose many of the core militarist policies of the other parties: he launched an initiative in 2004 to impeach Tony Blair for war crimes in Iraq, and the SNP opposes the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Salmond, far and away Scotland’s most popular and effective politician, has also been harshly and publicly critical of Israeli crimes. Following Israel’s abuse of British passports to murder a Hamas official in a Dubai hotel room in March 2010, First Minister Salmond supported the idea of economic sanctions against Israel. He dismissed the London Government’s expulsion of a low level Israeli Embassy official when he told a BBC Question Time audience that Israel’s unceasing crimes merited more than a “diplomatic dance” over passport mis-use.
Salmond labelled Israel’s massacre of nine Mavi Marmara passengers as an “atrocity on the high seas”. No UK Government officials would condemn Israel for the killings and David Miliband said he was “seeking clarification” from Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman. Alex Salmond, in contrast, put Israel firmly beyond the pale. “This has implications for example in trading relationships—you can’t have normal relationships if you believe another country has been involved in what Israel has been involved in”.
One newly elected MSP, Humza Yousef, correctly pointed out in a letter to SPSC that there have
“been actions also, hundreds of thousands of pounds have been released in aid to Gaza , and opening our hospitals to treat those who were injured in the horrific assault in 2009 (this was an appeal you made at the time directly to the Scot Gov’t).”
Alex Salmond has also opposed those who seek to conflate political criticism or opposition to Israeli crimes with hostility to the Jewish Community. Addressing a Glasgow Jewish community meeting in May 2010, he was asked “to do what he could to halt” BDS actions outside Glasgow supermarkets. Salmond responded with an elementary distinction:
“I don’t think we should accept as a community that your position in Scottish society should be judged or affected by the policies of Israel. The Jewish community is not liable for those policies. It is possible to be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic. The Jewish community should not be judged on whether people approve or disapprove of the actions of Israel.”
He also dismissed claims by some Zionists that anti-Semitism was driving Jews out of Scotland, an unfounded claim that serves the Zionist programme to have Jews move to Israel:
“I don’t share the analysis that the Jewish community is suffering a wave of persecution or that anti-Semitism in Scotland is rapidly growing and such a severe problem that it is jeopardising this community..I don’t believe that the Jewish community is under siege nor do I believe that it feels itself to be under siege…Scotland has never had to introduce any laws to deal with anti-Semitism”.
Salmond’s positions have been in sharp contrast to the London Government, which attacked and invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and endorsed every Israeli crime. David Miliband, for example, refused to condemn the Israeli attacks on boats to Gaza with humanitarian aid and David Cameron described himself as “a proud Zionist” supporting Israel, which acted with “great restraint” against Lebanese or Palestinian “terrorists”.
But the Israeli violations of international law, and the ongoing killings, mass imprisonment and dispossession of the Palestinian people, mean that we have to go beyond humanitarian aid and words to support the Palestinian appeal for BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until Palestinians gain their freedom.
That means that we must pressure the newly-mandated Scottish Government to live up to First Minister Alex Salmond’s words that Israel’s behaviour merits trade sanctions. That must include the rescinding of the £200,000 Scottish Enterprise grant to Eden Springs, the Israeli water cooler company involved in serious human rights violations in the Golan, Syrian territory held by the British Government to be illegally occupied by Israel.
Help us to keep the pressure on the Government to act on First Minister Alex Salmond’s call for trade sanctions against Israel. Join and support the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Mick Napier
Chair, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
c/o Peace & Justice Centre
Princes Street
Edinburgh EH2 4BJ
chair@scottishpsc.org.uk
00 44 (0)131 620 0052 / 00 44 (0)795 800 2591
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)