"Democracy Murdered, Film at ...?"

"Woe unto thee, if being thyself vicious or criminal, thou dost asume to judge others and still more if thou givest corrupt judgment. For then will thy memory be execrated, and in all time, it shall be the bitterest reproach to an unjust judge to call him by that name."

Wrote this early 2001, posted it at Bart Cop.
-"Peggy Carter"



I think, upon reading it now, that the article shows I felt a foreboding of evil.

Democracy Murdered, Film at ...?

Why does the whole rest of the world
know that Bush stole the election,
but the Americans get to be kept in
the dark about it?

I wonder why investors are pulling money
out of the US?

As well as talking down the economy into a sell off.
The man's Residency is cursed, no doubt about it.
I don't care *how* lucky he is supposed to be.

There should be a "Gate" Topic devoted
to Voter Scam Gate. Cheat Gate.

Whatever it is people want to call it.

Interfering with an election by a government
official is a crime punishable by a $10,000 fine or
one year in jail. There are many that should be prosecuted.

Why isn't Katherine Harris being fined for
hiring a private consulting firm for $4 million oftaxpayersdollars (as reported by the BBC and all over Europe)in order that 60,000 voters should be taken off the voter roles for being identified as felons. The error ratewas 95%?



The people so disenfranchised Democrats and Blacks.
Why isn't John Sweeney of NY being prosecuted for
shouting, "shut it down" and intimidating the people
counting the votes in Dade county?





Why are the men and women who were aides to
Tom DeLay, who were flown to FL on a paid vacation
to pose as grass roots citizens and behave a thugs
not being prosecuted?




The SCOTUS and the Republicans overthrew our
Democracy and to get it back they must be impeached:



This must not be covered up. Nor can it be
in the long run. Bush must be thrown out of office.

And this is a major argument for that end.
The corruption of the electoral process;
his indifference to it and his shamelessly benefiting
from it. And allowing his friends to benefit from it.

I believe the Justices of the SC were acting
cynically and consciously to do whatever it took
to ensure Bush's election. To imagine anything
else stretches my credulity. Scalia was "unconsciously"
making sure he's to become Chief Justice? That's funny.



He based his career on "State's rights"
and "Judicial restraint" What a joke!




What fools people are now to take them seriously.




I believe that the Press is intimidated
by the Far Right Repubs who jump up and down
and scream "Law" and meanwhile subvert it.
Where does the Law reside? Not in the pronouncements of a corrupt judiciary.

Not in the actions of pompous Justices who
impose their own will by technical and arbitrary rules.

Justice Scalia argued that the court
was acting to protect the legitimacy
of a Bush victory. But the Court's
decision damaged Bush's legitimacy
(not to mention to its own) much more than
anything else they could possibly have done.

It's obvious that the action of Scalia
was to make sure Bush had a Presidency.
He mentioned "legitimacy of his election,"
- - as if such an election existed,
which it did not under FL law at that time.

Scalia lies.

By backing up Bush's claim: that Bush
had been "elected," he repeated a lie.
He gave substance to a lie. He just
made up Law. The "legitimacy" smokescreen
was just a "claim." Scalia knew damn well
there would never be any "legitimacy" to
what Scalia did except as he writes the
Law and therefore Bush's claim is bona
fide if Scalia pronounces it so, by definition.

He didn't care. He's taken his gloves off.
That's why people are rightly frightened.



Supposedly Chief Justice Rehnquist and
his colleagues had hoped that history
would remember them well. They would have liked that.

But not as much as they liked to make
sure Bush got into power. Power is more important.
That's the name of the game.

If they honestly cared more about how
they'd be remembered, they wouldn't have
done this. Ruling the country is a more
important to them than what anyone thinks.



The SCOTUS deliberately setup a no win
situation for Gore. And they naturally
tried in the hearing of the oral arguments
to pretend to be fair. And they had the boldness
to have demanded of Boies that he tell them
what is a fair standard for the re-count.




But neither he, nor us, nor they, could go back in time.
And they knew that. And they had the boldness
to claim it was an issue of "equal protection."
Straight out of the book _Animal Farm_ it is:





"Your vote is not being thrown out like
those of other unfortunates; We must remedy that.




We are not protecting you adequately.
We must throw out your vote so all can be
equally protected"

It's not "equal protection" but "pretend
protection and equally arbitrary disenfranchisement."
They can't give you your vote back because
that is not fair to the people who's vote
were suppressed or who's votes got lost?
But they are naming it "Protection?"
Who exactly are they protecting? Only Bush was named.




How can anyone believe their goodwill after
what they did? The 5 "SCOTUS" had the brazenness to
demand Boies tell them how to repair it? After
it was a fait accompli!

They would've liked to have gotten themselves
off the hook. But after all, it was too late for that.
That's why Scalia was all smiles.



Our institutions are the sum of the people who
inhabit them. If the standard goes down, I see now,
the body politic gets weak. The weakness doesn't
erupt into sickness necessarily right away.
But December 12th we crossed that line into sickness.


If the sanctity of the governmental Institutionsare not upheld - - And I don't mean because of something
as minor as a blowjob; If the Institutions are notprotected, the country is prone then to increasing violations.




Then the ultimate value of those Institutions
will become zero or less.



An article on the Supremes I read recently
detailed that it was the respect of the Supreme Court
Institution and the delicacy with which that
respect was held that kept the two swing Justices
from overturning Roe vs. Wade. Maybe that is part of
Scalia's motive in destroying the reputation
of the court at home and in the rest of the world.
He is a Roman Catholic and his loyalties are
obviously with overturning Roe v. Wade for
his G-d and for his Church.

He is an operative for the Republican
Religious Right, not a jurist. He has proved that.
The Court is sullied now, so there is no
reason for anyone to uphold its reputation anymore.
The masks are off. The green curtain is pulled
back from the racist wizard from AZ
and pulled back from the smug and faux fancy cohorts
who voted with him. And now Scalia can get his way.
No one will persuade O 'Connor and Kennedy to
hold back from the decision of Roe vs. Wade
because of fear to harm the Institution of the court.
There is no more reputation.

The Supreme Court respectability is now a pretentious
charade. Every one of Nino Scalia's opinions
is now rendered questionable. His judgment is
proven by this to be worse than poor. It's proven
to be completely arbitrary. In fact, the ruling
is probably illegal because Thomas didn't recuse
himself (it broke the law that his wife will
benefit from the decision because of her job
"headhunting" for the Enterprise Institute.
Rehnquist's involvement was illegal because two
of his sons work for a law firm that work for Bush.
And Scalia broke the Law because his son works for Ted "Theodore" Olson)


(Ted Olsen, argued Bush vs. Gore for the Bush cabal
and so mourned his wife Barbara, who disappeared, by Ted's own contradictory word, on Ted's birthday Sept. 11th..that he remarried in 6 months.)


Why are no investigations being done of this fraud?
These three broke an actual law. It's not some
trumped up insinuation.

They do not care about the law.

They are seriously dangerous.

They only care about power.

What the Supreme Court have done is worse than the simple breaking of
some rule in a bid for a Faustian freedom,
since Faust, at least, made a barter,

since in the bargain we all were betrayed.




 
They threw away our Democracy so they could,
in what they pretend to be their superior
wisdom, but is in fact their job as operatives
for the Radical Republican Party, to decide on
what would be our government. The "Supreme Court 5"betrayed those values upon which our Country was founded.

Our tradition here was that of the Enlightenment.
The Tradition is that the settlers came here
to escape and avoid the arbitrary rule of those
in power. Our Government was constructed in particular to avoid the arbitrary rule of power.

The remedy in order for us to return to
our original form of government, determined
by the rules of that form of government,
is to Impeach and remove Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

I call for this here and now.

If this is not done our Democracy is in peril.

The betrayal of the American people
and the American tradition by this Supreme Court
and by the ultra-right factions of the
Republican party, I am afraid can never
breed happiness nor anything good. It is based
upon hubris. George Bush's highhanded
actions and disregard for the people
of this Country is based upon the disenfranchisement
of elderly Jews and Blacks and millions who
voted for the better, the more qualified, and the
smarter man. No good can ever come from that.

I shiver for our beautiful Lady Democracy;
224 years old. But way too young anyhow to
face murder.

She is supposed to be immortal.
In our lifetimes, we will never know her immortality
for she died for us December 12th. I never knew how muchI truly and keenly loved her. In case you didn't guess I curse "Nino" Scalia.
And will do so each day of my life. 

-Peggy Carter

~Jan 2001

Mad cows (and livid lambs)

Mad cows (and livid lambs)
Marauding elephants, aggressive sea lions, snap-happy crocodiles... As animal attacks on humans reach frightening levels, scientists are beginning to understand exactly what the beasts are thinking. And it's not good. Will Storr reports

In a tiny village in rural Assam, two terrified children will tonight sleep in a tree house. It doesn't matter how much their mother scolds them; there's no way they're going to bed down there. Not after what happened. They can still remember that night, of course - being picked up by their mother, and how hard she covered their mouths with her hands to stop them screaming. They can remember the other sounds, too.



The elephants had come in from the forest again. Then they saw one, a vast dark hulk looming out of the black towards their door. Their Dad tried to push it away. That's when the elephant carried him round the side of the house and killed him.

Elephants haven't always behaved like this. But in recent years, in India and all over Africa, too, some menacing change has come over them. And not just elephants - it's almost any species. This disquieting pattern has only recently been detected, in part because it is so disparate and weird. But it's now widely accepted that the relationship between humans and animals is changing. One of the world's leading ethologists (specialists in animal behaviour) believes that a critical point has been crossed and animals are beginning to snap back. After centuries of being eaten, evicted, subjected to vivisection, killed for fun, worn as hats and made to ride bicycles in circuses, something is causing them to turn on us. And it is being taken seriously enough by scientists that it has earned its own acronym: HAC - 'human-animal conflict'.

It's happening everywhere. Authorities in America and Canada are alarmed at the increase in attacks on humans by mountain lions, cougars, foxes and wolves. Romania and Colombia have seen a rise in bear maulings. In Mexico, in just the past few months, there's been a spate of deadly shark attacks with The LA Times reporting that, 'the worldwide rate in recent years is double the average of the previous 50'. America and Sierra Leone have witnessed assaults and killings by chimps who, according to New Scientist, 'almost never attack people'. In Uganda, they have started killing children by biting off their limbs then disembowelling them.

There has been a surge in wolf attacks in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia and France. In Australia, there has been a run of dingo killings, and crocodile violence is up. In Beijing, injuries from cats and dogs have swelled by 34 per cent, year-on-year. In America, the number of humans killed by pet dogs has increased sharply since 2000. In Australia, dog attacks are up 20 per cent. In Britain, nearly 4,000 people needed hospital treatment for dog bites in 2007, a figure that has doubled in the past four years. In Bombay, petrified residents are being slaughtered in ever-increasing numbers by leopards, leading J. C. Daniel, a leopard specialist, to comment, 'We have to study why the animal is coming out. It never came out before.' In Edinburgh, in June, there was a string of bizarre fox attacks - a pensioner was among the victims. In Singapore, residents have been being terrorised by packs of macaques. Sharon Chan, a national parks official, told reporters, 'It's a very weird situation.'



The numbers are disturbing enough, but the menacing changes in behaviour are especially worrying to scientists. In Australia, the biologist Dr Scoresby Shepherd - who pointed out that in areas where shark attacks used to happen every three or four decades, they are now taking place at least once a year - has suggested that sharks are switching their prey to humans. In Los Angeles, Prof Lee Fitzhugh has come to the same conclusion about mountain lions. In San Francisco, a spate of sea lion assaults lead one local to comment, 'I've been swimming here for 70 years and nothing like this has happened before.' In Cameroon, for the first time, gorillas have been throwing bits of tree at humans. They're using weapons against us.

It's easy to see why some suspect revenge. The theory that the animals of the three elements are conspiring against us gained popularity in 2006, when the Australian television presenter Steve Irwin was speared through the heart by a stingray off the north Queensland coast. In the aftermath, the phrase 'freak accident' was used in news reports. When, just six weeks later, the same thing happened to James Bertakis, of Miami (he lived only because, unlike Irwin, he didn't pull the barbed sting out), people started wondering. Then, in March this year, Judy Kay Zagorski was boating on the Florida Keys when a stingray leapt from the water and fatally struck her in the face.

Any sane person might decide that his theory, which posits that beasts are working in concert to take revenge on humans, is insane. But in the regions where the most research into HAC is being carried out, scientists have concluded that revenge for our myriad barbarities could indeed be a motive.

All over Africa, India and parts of south-east Asia, elephants have started attacking humans in unprecedented numbers. Not just killing - they're rampaging through villages and stomping crops, terrorising local populations in any way they can. 'What's happening today is extraordinary,' Dr Gay Bradshaw, a world authority on elephants, told reporters in 2006. 'Where for centuries humans and elephants lived in relatively peaceful co-existence, there is now hostility and violence.' Bradshaw is the director of the Kerulos Centre for Animal Psychology and Trauma Recovery, in Oregon. 'When you see reports of elephants running into crops or attacking people, they're highly stressed,' she tells me. 'And there are multiple stressors - violence, lack of food, lack of water; their families are being broken up; their society is collapsing. All of these things are human-derived.'




Bradshaw describes the elephants as being 'under siege' from the locals. But the violence against humans has increased so suddenly, and reached such levels, that these traditional factors aren't thought to be sufficient to explain it. Bradshaw and her colleagues now think that there's been a massive, pan-species psychological collapse throughout the world's pachyderms. In essence, we're witnessing the dysfunctional shenanigans of a generation of depraved elephants. These are individuals who have become psychologically fractured after being orphaned at a developmentally delicate age or are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder after watching their families being slaughtered.

'You could make a parallel between elephants and people who are undergoing genocide and war,' Bradshaw says. 'They've gone through massive killings and many have sustained culls or severe poaching, so they've witnessed the violence and they're traumatised. It's critical to understand that when you have an experience at a young age, or through adolescence or even as an adult, it enters into the brain. In other cases, the normal rearing process is disrupted or conducted by distressed parents, so you're creating individuals who are mentally challenged.'

Such claims might be dismissed as so much Disneyfied anthropomorphism if Bradshaw did not have the observational, psychological and neuroscientific evidence to back them up. And, she says, it might not be just in elephants that this critical point has been breached. 'I think we're well past the critical point,' she says. 'Well past. People are starting to notice these atypical behaviours in an array of species.'

Of the question of elephant revenge, though, she is more cautious. 'Put yourself in an elephant's shoes. What's it like living in Africa or Asia when you're surrounded by an active threat, not just to you but to your family? Let's take, for example, one of the things that's happening in Africa. Females are starting to charge lorries. Why? It's hard to understand the motive. Perhaps she's traumatised. Perhaps it's pre-emptive - they may have a gun. It may be self?defence. And other times it may well be revenge. It's not that I don't think elephants have the capacity.' Dr Marc Bekoff, a leading ethologist, agrees. 'We need to be careful when using that sort of language,' he says. 'But I don't think there's any doubt that, in certain situations, animals show revenge.'


At first he thought it was a dream; that shuffling, that banging that bulged out of the darkness around him. By the time Michael Fitzgerald had roused himself and put on his slippers, he decided it was burglars. They were in the garage. He crept forward, readying himself for what awaited behind the electric door that was slowly, noisily rising. He peered in. It was a badger. Just a badger! He'd never seen one so close before. The badger looked up, then slowly, calmly walked up to him. 'Pam!' he called to his wife. 'Get a camera!' Two minutes later, blood from his arm was spattered over his front door.

'It was some kind of hell,' Fitzgerald, from Evesham, told the BBC, in 2003. 'His razor-blade teeth were around my arm.' Even after he had shaken if off, it gave chase, biting his legs and arms. 'I never envisaged I would be seeing my own insides,' he said. The badger then embarked on an 18-hour rampage around the town.


Stories like these remind us that there are millions of beasts armed with teeth and stingers, who can out-sniff, out-run, out-fly, out-fight and out-bite every one of us. The eerie truth is that, right now, we're surrounded. As a species, we've been at the top of the food chain for so long, we've forgotten that 'humans' are mere anthropoid apes and, in distant millennia, we had to fight the feral armies to get here. In our hubris, we imagine we're an animal apart. For centuries, we've been told by priests and scientists that animals are not much more than unfeeling, unthinking, unselfconscious automatons. They're a gift from God, and their purpose is to have paracetamol rubbed into their eyes, to be turned into fancy trousers to be stuffed with nuts on His birthday. Many mainstream scientists still warn against anthropomorphism. But it doesn't stop the many people who are secretly wondering what's really going on behind those inscrutable black eyes? Are the birds talking about us? Do lobsters sulk? Can one moose love another? The more scientists have discovered about the inner lives of animals, the more troubling and strange things have become. 'Things are really changing,' acknowledges Bekoff. 'There's a lot of new behavioural research, a lot of new neuroscience research that demonstrates they are far more complex than was thought. We're not inserting into animals something they don't have.'


Bekoff describes the sound Darwinian logic beneath this gigantic paradigm shift. Simply, if our brains have developed the capacity for a rich emotional inner-life over the millions of years they've been evolving, then why not theirs? 'If you believe in biological continuity then, if we have emotions, they have emotions. If we have a heart, they have a heart.'

Nailea Norvind at NY Screening of "Born Without"

Documentary on Mexican, Jose Flores.



"Born Without" by Eva Norvind

Flores was featured in the movie, "The Magic Mountain," by Allesandro Jodorowski.

The Pharmacratic Inquisition

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited, excerpt

An excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World Revisited
Body: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free," said Jefferson, "it expects what never was and never will be. . . . The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." Across the Atlantic another passionate be­liever in reason was thinking about the same time, in almost precisely similar terms. Here is what John Stuart Mill wrote of his father, the utilitarian philoso­pher, James Mill: "So complete was his reliance upon the influence of reason over the minds of mankind, whenever it is allowed to reach them, that he felt as if all would be gained, if the whole population were able to read, and if all sorts of opinions were allowed to be addressed to them by word or in writing, and if by the suffrage they could nominate a legislature to give effect to the opinions they had adopted." All is safe, all would be gained! Once more we hear the note of eight­eenth-century optimism. Jefferson, it is true, was a realist as well as an optimist. He knew by bitter expe­rience that the freedom of the press can be shamefully abused. "Nothing," he declared, "can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper." And yet, he insisted (and we can only agree with him), "within the pale of truth, the press is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and civil liberty." Mass commu­nication, in a word, is neither good nor bad; it is simply a force and, like any other force, it can be used either well or ill. Used in one way, the press, the radio and the cinema are indispensable to the survival of democracy. Used in another way, they are among the most powerful weapons in the dictator's armory. In the field of mass communications as in almost every other field of enterprise, technological progress has hurt the Little Man and helped the Big Man. As lately as fifty years ago, every democratic country could boast of a great number of small journals and local newspapers. Thousands of country editors expressed thousands of independent opinions. Somewhere or other almost anybody could get almost anything printed. Today the press is still legally free; but most of the little papers have disappeared. The cost of wood-pulp, of modern printing machinery and of syndicated news is too high for the Little Man. In the totalitarian East there is political censorship, and the media of mass communication are controlled by the State. In the democratic West there is economic censorship and the media of mass communication are controlled by members of the Power Elite. Censorship by rising costs and the concentration of communication power in the hands of a few big concerns is less objectionable than State ownership and government propaganda; but certainly it is not something of which a Jeffersonian democrat could possibly approve.



In regard to propaganda the early advocates of uni­versal literacy and a free press envisaged only two possibilities: the propaganda might be true, or it might be false. They did not foresee what in fact has happened, above all in our Western capitalist democra­cies -- the development of a vast mass communications industry, concerned in the main neither with the true nor the false, but with the unreal, the more or less totally irrelevant. In a word, they failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.



In the past most people never got a chance of fully satisfying this appetite. They might long for distrac­tions, but the distractions were not provided. Christmas came but once a year, feasts were "solemn and rare," there were few readers and very little to read, and the nearest approach to a neighborhood movie theater was the parish church, where the per­formances, though frequent, were somewhat monoto­nous. For conditions even remotely comparable to those now prevailing we must return to imperial Rome, where the populace was kept in good humor by frequent, gratuitous doses of many kinds of entertain­ment -- from poetical dramas to gladiatorial fights, from recitations of Virgil to all-out boxing, from con­certs to military reviews and public executions. But even in Rome there was nothing like the non-stop dis­traction now provided by newspapers and magazines, by radio, television and the cinema. In Brave New World non-stop distractions of the most fascinating nature (the feelies, orgy-porgy, centrifugal bumble-puppy) are deliberately used as instruments of policy, for the purpose of preventing people from paying too much attention to the realities of the social and polit­ical situation. The other world of religion is different from the other world of entertainment; but they resem­ble one another in being most decidedly "not of this world." Both are distractions and, if lived in too con­tinuously, both can become, in Marx's phrase, "the opium of the people" and so a threat to freedom. Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by demo­cratic procedures. A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in the calculable future, but some­where else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it.



In their propaganda today's dictators rely for the most part on repetition, suppression and rationaliza­tion -- the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the suppression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationaliza­tion of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State. As the art and science of manip­ulation come to be better understood, the dictators of the future will doubtless learn to combine these tech­niques with the non-stop distractions which, in the West, are now threatening to drown in a sea of irrele­vance the rational propaganda essential to the mainten­ance of individual liberty and the survival of demo­cratic institutions.



- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, 1958

Full text online:



From Wikipedia:

Brave New World Revisited (Harper & Row, 1958), written by Huxley almost thirty years after Brave New World, was a non-fiction work in which Huxley considered whether the world had moved toward or away from his vision of the future from the 1930's.

He believed when he wrote the original novel that it was a reasonable guess as to where the world might go in the future but in Brave New World Revisited he concluded that the world was becoming much more like Brave New World much faster than he thought.



Huxley analyzed the causes of this, such as overpopulation as well as all the means by which populations can be controlled. He was particularly interested in the effects of drugs and subliminal suggestion. Brave New World Revisited is different in tone due to Huxley's evolving thought, as well as his conversion to Vedanta in the interim between the two books.



This bulletin may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for informational and/or educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, philosophical and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'FAIR USE' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17, U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Ultra-Right Nuts Still Hate Lincoln!?

Lincoln bust missing
Quote:
On Independence Day in 1909, the centennial year of Abraham Lincoln's birth, an ornate monument was dedicated to him in Scranton.

But sometime in the early decades of the 20th century, the 16-foot-tall structure simply vanished. No one still living seems to know where it went. ...

Local historians recently confirmed the memorial's existence in newspaper archives. Now they're trying to figure out what happened to it.

The monument was situated along the shore of man-made Lake Lincoln. One theory holds that when Lake Lincoln was renovated and expanded in the '20s, officials realized the monument was in the way and took it down. If that's true, there's little hope that the memorial's intricately carved stone base has survived. But the bronze bust may still be out there.


Trojan statue at Lincoln High defaced (in Leon County) [url]
Quote:
[/url]
Michael Turner stated he and a juvenile went to Lincoln High School with the intent to spray paint the statue. Turner stated that he used yellow and blue spray paint, painting the letters "GHH" on the stone base of the statue and spray painting the Lincoln High School sign at the front of the school with "Seniors 08".


Lincoln Statue Decapitated
Quote:
The Abe Lincoln statue in Lithia Park is headless again.

Ashland police park patrol officer Nathan Twiss found Lincoln's head and hand missing Sunday morning. He said the vandalism took place sometime between 9 p.m. Saturday and 10:30 a.m. Sunday.

Don Robertson, director of Parks and Recreation, said this was the fourth time Lincoln has been decapitated since 1915, when Gwin S. Butler donated the statue to the city to memorialize his stepfather, pioneer Jacob Thompson, who moved to Ashland in 1847. The six-foot-tall piece was originally sculpted in Florence, Italy, by A. Frilli.

One incident occurred in 1967. Hamid Ghavam, a Southern Oregon University student, repaired the head and removed blue paint from the statue in 1968.

Another beheading occurred more than 27 years ago and parks officials relegated Lincoln's likeness to a storage facility for more than a decade.

The statue was restored in 1990 and reintroduced to the public with a new head on its shoulders.

Robertson said the latest decapitation appeared deliberate. He said there had to be more than one person involved and that the vandals chiseled away at the head and then sawed off the metal rod used to secure the head.


Confederate group offers Jefferson Davis statue for Lincoln site
Quote:
A Southern heritage group that opposed a statue of President Abraham Lincoln at the American Civil War Center is offering to donate a $100,000 statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis for the same site.

Brag Bowling, a spokesman for the Virginia division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the gift is intended to celebrate Davis's birth 200 years ago this month in Kentucky.

It is not, he said, payback for the Lincoln statue unveiled in 2003.


Newspaper cover photo shows "noose" around neck of Lincoln statue Read about the uproar here:
The actual story is also interesting: Ken Kahn, director of the arts council, talks about the impact of a new Lincoln-themed sculpture garden. http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sculpturegarden.artjun10,0,6009056.story
Quote:
The theme is Abraham Lincoln — 11 of the statues are abstract interpretations of highlights from Lincoln's life, including the creation of the transcontinental railway and the emancipation of the slaves. Only two are actual depictions of the 16th president, whose 200th birthday next February is expected to draw even bigger crowds.

The turkey and the horse have their own stories — Lincoln was the first president to pardon a turkey on Thanksgiving and he rode horses in his youth. ...

Minor setbacks delayed the opening by several months. ... "A Welcome Conversation" — a larger than life statue of a young Lincoln valued at about $30,000 — was stolen from storage before it could be installed. It has since been reconstructed.

Plan for Food Control Genocide

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Joy (*LL)
Date: Jul 5, 2008 9:53 AM


from: Gaelle


Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide


This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, and was circuclated extensively by the Schiller Insitute Food for Peace Movement.



It is reprinted here as part of the package: "Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage?"

Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

by Joseph Brewda
Dec 08, 1995


On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, "National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.



The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 "to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population." The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since "a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production." The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, "might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West," especially effecting "military strength and security.

"

NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 "key countries" in which the United States had a "special political and strategic interest": India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.



For example, Nigeria: "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa." Or Brazil: "Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically." The study warned of a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.

"


Food as a weapon

There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that "population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline," even if such measures were adopted.



A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: "There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.

"

"Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now," the document continued, adding, "Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S.



prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?"

Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. "Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond," he reported.



The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: "Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.

"

"It is questionable," Kissinger gloated, "whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis." Consequently, "large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished," was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.



To read the entire NSSM 200 document, click here.




To read the full report from EIR Magazine, follow the link below:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage?

http://web.
archive. org/web/20050306091656/www. africa2000. com/SNDX/nssm200all.

html
http://web.
archive. org/web/20050120090655/www. larouchepub. com/other/1995/2249_food_intro.

html

Canola Oil, GE?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Toll Road and a Pay Toilet - Blonderburg Meeting
Date: Jul 3, 2008 7:39 PM


Canola Oil? YUK!

use virgin unrefined coconut oil as butter, for frying, baking, or just eat it... best thing in the world for you
e*


ThISForbiddenMedia
Tony ॐ
Date: Jul 3, 2008 3:12 PM


Thanks ~
No Idols
TimeBomb
Third Estate, Second Estate. No, United... States
RC




The Truth About Canola Oil

Dear Editors:

Recently I bought a cooking oil that's new to our supermarkets, Canola Oil. I tried it because the label assured me it was lowest in "bad" fats. However, when I had used half the bottle, I concluded that the label told me surprisingly little else and I started to wonder: where does canola oil come from? Olive oil comes from olives, peanut oil from peanuts, sunflower oil from sunflowers; but what is a canola? There was nothing on the label to enlighten me, which I thought odd. So, I did some investigating on the Internet. There are plenty of official Canola sites lauding this new "wonder" oil with all its Lowfat health benefits. It takes a little longer to find sites that tell the less palatable details. Here are just a few facts everyone should know before buying anything containing canola. Canola is not the name of a natural plant but a made-up word, from the words "Canada" and "oil". Canola is a genetically engineered plant developed in Canada from the Rapeseed Plant, which is part of the mustard family of plants. According to AgriAlternatives, The Online Innovation, and Technology Magazine for Farmers, "By nature, these rapeseed oils, which have long been used to produce oils for industrial purposes, are toxic to humans and other animals." (This, by the way, is one of the websites singing the praises of the new canola industry..)

Rapeseed oil is poisonous to living things and is an excellent insect repellent. I have been using it (in very diluted form, as per instructions) to kill the aphids on my roses for the last two years. It works very well; it suffocates them. Ask for it at your nursery. Rape is an oil that isused as a lubricant, fuel, soap and synthetic rubber base and as an illuminate for color pages in magazines. It is an industrial oil. It is not a food. Rape oil, it seems, causes emphysema, respiratory distress, anemia, constipation, irritability, and blindness in animals and humans. Rape oil was widely used in animal feeds in England and Europe between 1986 and 1991, when it was thrown out. Remember the "Mad Cow disease" scare, when millions of cattle in the UK were slaughtered in case of infecting humans? Cattle were being fed on a mixture containing material from dead sheep, and sheep suffer from a disease called "scrapie". It was thought this was how "Mad Cow" began and started to infiltrate the human chain. What is interesting is that when rape oil was removed from animal feed, 'scrapie' disappeared. We also haven't seen any further reports of "Mad Cow" since rape oil was removed from the feed. Perhaps not scientifically proven, but interesting all the same. US and Canadian farmers grow genetically engineered rapeseed and manufacturers use its oil (canola) in thousands of processed foods, with the blessings of Canadian and US government watchdog agencies. The canola supporting websites say that canola is safe to use.They admit it was developed from the rapeseed, but insist that through genetic engineering it is no longer rapeseed, but "canola" instead..

Except canola means "Canadian oil"; and the plant is still a rape plant, albeit genetically modified. The new name provides perfect cover for commercial interests wanting to make millions. Look at the ingredients list on labels. Apparently peanut oil is being replaced with rape oil. You'll find it in an alarming number of processed foods. There's more, but to conclude: rape oil was the source of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas, which was banned after blistering the lungs and skins of hundred of thousands of soldiers and civilians during W.W.I. Recent French reports indicate that it was again in use during the Gulf War..

Check products for ingredients. If the label says, "May contain the following" and lists canola oil, you know it contains canola oil because it is the cheapest oil and the Canadian government subsidizes it to industries involved in food processing. I don't know what you'll be cooking with tonight, but I'll be using olive oil and old-fashioned butter, from a genetically unmodified cow..

Here is more information..........

Canola oil from the rape seed, referred to as the Canadian oil because Canada is mainly responsible for it being marketed in the USA. The Canadian government and industry paid our Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) $50 million dollars to have canola oil placed on the (GRAS) List, "Generally Recognized As Safe". Thus a new industry was created. Laws were enacted affecting international trade, commerce, and traditional diets. Studies with lab. animals were disastrous. Rats developed fatty degeneration of heart, kidney, adrenals, and thyroid gland. When canola oil was withdrawn from their diets, the deposits dissolved but scar tissue remained on all vital organs. No studies on humans were made before money was spent to promote Canola oil in the USA. Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) is a rare fatal degenerative disease caused by a build up long-chain fatty acids (c22 to c28) which destroys the myelin (protective sheath) of the nerves. Canola oil is a very long chain fatty acid oil (c22). Those who will defend canola oil say that the Chinese and Indians have used it for centuries with no effect, however it was in an unrefined form (taken from FATS THAT HEAL AND FATS THAT KILL by Udo Erasmus). My cholesterol level was 150. After a year using Canola oil I tested 260. I switched back to pure olive oil and it has taken 5 years to get it down to 160. Thus began this project to find answers since most Doctors will say that Canola oil is O.K. My sister spilled Canola oil on a piece of fabric, after 5 pre-treatings and harsh washings, the oil spot still showed. She stopped using Canola oil, wondering what it did to our insides if it could not be removed from cloth easily..

Our Father bred birds, always checking labels to insure there was no rape seed in their food. He said, "The birds will eat it, but they do not live very long". A friend, who worked for only 9 mo. as a quality control taster at an apple-chip factory where Canola oil was used exclusively for frying, developed numerous health problems. These included loose teeth & gum disease; numb hands and feet; swollen arms and legs upon rising in the morning; extreme joint pain especially in hands, cloudy vision, constipation with stools like black marbles, hearing loss; skin tears from being bumped; lack of energy; hair loss and heart pains. It has been five years since she has worked there and still has some joint pain, gum disease, and numbness. A fellow worker, about 30 years old, who ate very little product, had a routine check up and found that his blood vessels were like those of an 80 year old man. Two employees fed the waste product to baby calves and their hair fell out. After removing the fried apple chips from the diet their hair grew back in. My daughter and her girls were telling jokes. Stephanie hit her mom's arm with the back of a butter knife in a gesture, not hard enough to hurt. My daughters arm split open like it was rotten. She called me to ask what could have caused it. I said, "I'll bet anything that you are using Canola oil". Sure enough, there was a big gallon jug in the pantry. Rape seed oil is a penetrating oil, to be used in light industry, not for human consumption. It contains a toxic substance. Even after the processing to reduce the erucic acid content, it is still a penetrating oil. We have found that it turns rancid very fast. Also it leaves a residual rancid odor on clothing. Rape seed oil used for stir-frying in China found to emit cancer causing chemicals. (Rapeseed oil smoke causes lung cancer) Amal Kumar Maj. The Wall Street Journal June 7, 1995, pB6(W) pB6 (E) col 1(11 col in)..

Compiled by Darleen Bradley..

Canola oil is a health hazard to use as a cooking oil or salad oil. It is not the healthy oil we thought it was. It is not fit for human consumption, do not eat canola oil, it can hurt you. Polyunsaturated or not, this is a bad oil..

External Link to Source:
http://www. tetrahedron. org/articles/health_risks/canola_oil. html

Learn More:
http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Canola_oil

Two Towers Sherry Netherland and Pierre