Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Music Moves Mankind

by Robert L. Gisel

Music communicates well for Human Rights. Here is Bob Marley's video at the UN. The point is that in challenging man's inhumanity to man the first necessity is the recognition of humanity as as a brotherhood of individuals whatever the face. This video of Stand By Me taken around the world expresses this very well.

In so very many ways this message is alive on Earth as we enter the tradition of the holidays that promote peace on earth and goodwill towards men. Music is so clearly a freedom of expression that it has the capability of tremendous uplift. One of music's great was quoted as saying:

"Sometimes you've got to let everything go - purge yourself. If you are unhappy with anything - whatever is bringing you down, get rid of it. Because you'll find that when you're free, your true creativity, your true self comes out."
Tina Turner -- Entertainer

All comes full circle when one embraces the Universal Human Rights, recognizing these as one's own and extending these measures to all, as trust, tolerance and goodwill outs in the embodiment of rights for mankind. Isn't this the essence of the "peace on earth and goodwill towards men" of the Holidays upon us?


Get Paid helping to protect Human Rights. This opportunity produces large returns and is a very needed service. A short video explains it all. Go here.


Thursday, October 16, 2008

A Too-candid Letter to Obama

by Robert L. Gisel

Really, I do try to stay out of politics. That's hard to do when the consequence of political action denies freedoms and rights. Being required by law to the enslavement of addicting highly narcotic psychiatric drugs sends up red flags on the encroachment of life.

Psychiatric diagnosis means labeling means prescription to addictive psychiatric drugs. I have been prompted to blog after the recent news I have heard for which I must protest. I searched but found no way to email Obama from his website but I was able to email McCain. They looked like friends the way they shook hands after the debate so I ask McCain to pass on my letter thus:

Senator McCain:

I was unable to find any "contact us" or email link to Barack Obama on his official site, but you see him around at debates etc. Would you forward this to him for me?

Dear Senator Obama,

Some news was just passed to me that greatly concerns me. No, it actually alarms me.

It was told to me you are stoutly pro-psychiatry, that you have more pro votes for those cronies and even bills you co-sponsored than any other Senator. Like the Mother's Act that you co-sponsored (thank God that one was defeated) to require psychiatric examination and evaluation after and before pregnancy for post partum or pre-post partum depression.

Is this true? Or even partly true? Just wait until the hockey mom hears about this, that she was that close to being prescribed black box labeled psychiatric drugs at her last delivery.

These drugs are addictive narcotics that rank on the drug classifications tables as more severe than cocaine. Make no mistake about it, the goal is not evaluation: it is addiction to their drugs that the psychiatrists want.

It was even told to me that on two score psychiatric related bills favoring psychiatric misdeeds Senator McCain voted No and you voted Yes.

You are possibly too young to remember Segregation brought to us by psychiatry. What a mess that was for decades!

The entire rationale for that era came from a vote with no scientific evidence by the American Psychiatric Association. This "mental health disease" had no basis in fact, yet it was put on the list of all mental heath diseases, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM), to justify the Segregation Movement.

Brace yourself for burning truth. I'm going to tell you what they named it. "Negroitis". This is NOT A JOKE - it is on the list! This is the rationale that the Segregation laws and support were all based on.

Here is what psychiatrists said "Negroitis" is: it is a "Mental Health Disease" that turns your skin black and you are not cured of it until your skin turns white. Furthermore it could be contagious so blacks must be segregated from whites and not use the same water spigots and public facilities.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

This is not, repeat not, a prank, what I write to you here is documented. The best full documentation of this was an expose some years ago by Freedom Magazine revealing the voting methodology that is the only authority behind the declaration of "mental health diseases". It has nothing to do with scientific clinical testing, which hasn't been done.

It was plainly a huge joke by the American Psychiatric Association and by it Segregation was put into law. Do you think it stopped there, this charade?

Today we have "ADHD" with no clinical test or scientific support. How about "Mathematics Syndrome"? Check your figures - you might have it! Here's your meds prescription.

If you want a good laugh, get the DSM yourself and read it.

Today the APA has proclaimed the intention to put every school kid in America on their psych-drugs. Where do you think the new onslaught of school shootings comes from? This is a published side effect of the now-black-box-labeled narcotic drugs Ritalin, Prosac (the leaders) and others. There is now a whole string of derivatives under different names and all are still as lethal.

Why would the FDA require posting of these warning labels? It 's because the side effects are tendency to violence and increased propensity to suicide. Violence and suicide.

One for one school shootings have been linked to these drugs and psychiatric evaluation. It is a true statistic: the more school kids on these "meds" the more school aged suicides. It is an embracive graph!

Maybe you have been, pardon me for bluntness, ignorant of these facts. Now you know them, if you have read this far in the letter. Really, you're off your rocker to be a friend of psychiatry. I'm sorry, I have to say it like it is.

I had (slightly) considered the idea of voting for you. I have friends who (mistakenly?) want to vote for you. Can you deny these searing rumors, say it isn't so, or denounce psychiatry now?

I must speak out loud and clear against anyone for President who believes any good can come from psychiatry who, by their own admission, has cured no one. Check your facts! And vote the other way.

This pains me. I am so nonpolitical that to now feel compelled to get politically involved and go national with this news is outside my preferences. Act fast I do, however, so I look forward to a rapid response.

Robert L. Gisel

P.S. Senator McCain, thanks for passing this to Obama. If you won't see him soon just read it to the press, he'll get the message. It's okay to publish this. In fact please, please do.

P.P.S. Don't let Sarah see this as she will pit-bull him for real!

So, I publish another outspoken blog post. No doubt the APA would like to label me crazy to shut me up. I will continue to have the courage to say what I observe. If you cherish your life keep it out of the hands of the psychs.

If you agree, or disagree, let me know in your comments here.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Ballad to the Ode of a President

This chilling music video from Pink recalls the tumultuous protest times of the 70's. While songs have historically always been a venue for political activists that we see more and more of this indicates how far off the mark our nation's leaders have gone.

Remember Jimmy Hendricks, Simon and Garfield, The BeeGees, the Doors and so many others? There were the marches in the street, the war protests and the unforgettable Woodstock. And earlier when John Kennedy came and was shot for refusing to step in line to the swift boat politic of his time.

In today's meltdown economy the President wants to sign a $700 billion check to bail out criminally irresponsible banking institutions, not for the people evidently, but for sure at the cost of the taxpayer. This from the same President who through deception and lies committed the nation to 2 preemptive wars, neither of which we can we win nor walk away from, shades of Vietnam.

Who is served by this? Or this more burning question, who profits from this?

One wonders if this shattered nation will soon recover from the debacle or is this the fall of the Roman Empire? God help us if McCain (Bush in practice) gets in as President as the next 4 years could push the crippled nation beyond the point of no return and destroy the country forever.

It isn't even Bush or McCain or Obama, whatever Administration follows next, it's the super rich above them who feel they are who is really running the world on their hidden agendas and obscene wealth. So try as we will at the polls it will not be enough to stem the cancer.

Music, however, leads a culture, in fact, the works of all artists herald the dreams of a culture. It is a way to speak up in an effective voice without getting put on the President's terrorist watch list. Music is heard. Perhaps others will follow suit with song like Pink's Dear Mr. President and add support to the message: enough already. It is sorely needed.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

It's a Public Service Not a Porn Store

by Robert L Gisel

The issue of offering WiFi service on Airlines and whether to filter off porn is an interesting one and has elicited many diverse comments in a lively discussion. It's good to see the lively debate as this is after all a democracy. The matter of rights is also forwarded in the comments following the article but this actually is not an issue.

Common decency and fair play alone will find the airlines observing the rights of others as they regularly would extend politeness and courtesies to their fares. After all they want your business. Don't be surprised though if they later refuse your business after you have done something unthinkably distasteful like deliberately urinate in the aisle way.

Doing business with someone is a matter of mutual agreements and accord not divine right.

In the article the matter is brought up whether the Airlines offering in flight WiFi should filter porn sites so that passengers next to the porn user are not violated by the openly public porn. This is my response to this article and the ensuing comments.

"As Pat says:

'All good comments. The airlines, like all businesses, have the right to limit activities on their premises.'

"While I am an ardent advocate of human rights I also recognize that property is property, it is owned. The airplane belongs to the Airline and you are their guest, albeit a paying guest.

"It is really a question of proprietorship on the part of the airlines and manners on the part of the customers. The Airline transports people but also assumes responsibility for their safety as well as customer satisfaction. If you don't like what happens on the flight say so to the Airline or fly with a different carrier. Or take the train. The Airline doesn't have to sell you a ticket to travel on their airplanes if they feel you put their business at risk. Passengers sharing the space with others must be considerate of others as they would be in any public spaces.

"That said, the Airline would have to use a filter delicately limited to porn and nudity and not one that blocks out U-Tube and other non-offensive sites by overlarded blocking. Also the light and noise may invade others sleep besides the open porn that flaunts one's sensibilities. So why not block off a separate area for those who want to use cell phones and laptops. But bring back the smoking section while you are at it."

The issue should be very simple if you see it as in this example: you loaned your laptop to a friend you would be of rights to ask your friend not to log on to any porn sites. If he fails to heed your reasonable request you can refuse in the future to lend him your laptop. Furthermore if you want to have porn blocks on your laptop prior to lending the computer you are completely of rights to do so. This is even true if you rent it to your friend for a month or so.

Your friend's 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment Rights have nothing to do with this. The disposition of your property is totally up to you. In this same light a restaurant owner has control over the customers of his restaurant, a cabbie of his fares and of course the airline of what happens inside the plane.

In this wise a proper perspective can be maintained and rights not trammeled on or forced into a situation where inapplicable.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What Goes Around Comes Around

by Robert L. Gisel

It is a truism in this universe that one is fought by those one is fighting. One mourns with condolences those who died in the conflict at the US Embassy in Yemen. Then one points the finger at Bush.

Why Bush? It's his turf and he started the fight. Whether you agree with that impartial analysis or not he is undeniably fighting since. The preemptive strikes on Afghanistan and on Iraq, going it alone despite the contrary advices of our allies and in defiance of international law, these things did not win the US friends on the world scene.

Furthermore he is the President and the realm of his responsibility includes how the world considers this country and what happens regards this sovereignty even on the world scene. In other words if it's good it's his, if it's bad it's his. I simply expect him to be competent and make the right decisions and take affirmative action to the benefit of the greatest good of the greatest number.

Now we are told he is simply going after the terrorists, the al-Quaida, that attacked us in the Sept 11 Twin Towers destruction. This is a clever Machiavellan misdirection that the Skull and Bones crowd is no doubt proud of. If we can't irrevocably prove that the Towers One and Two were an inside job one can definately see that the Tower 7 was a controlled demolition, thus the work of pre-preparation.

This leaves the question open of what role, if any, did the al-Quaida actually play in that event. The actual facilitation of the event was most probably more than the al-Quaida could have put in motion. They would have to have had super-secret access to Tower 7, for instance, for a week or two prior to set the controlled demolition explosives that dropped the 48 stories of a building which contained the civil defense posts for the emergency reponse units and US intelligence offices, CIA, FBI etc. That would be a cute trick for a "terrorist group", so someone else did it.

Theorizing this all the way out one can imagine the Taliban of Afghanistan hearing that they solely responsible for the whole act on Sept 11th and they are reason we are invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. They just might object to being made the scapegoats and even be militantly hostile about it. This would account for the very low opinion of the US that is seen in those other countries and is the subject of massive marches against Bush in places like London.

To be a President you'd perhaps have to have the memory of an elephant, goodwill of a Gandhi, the analytical logic of Grand Master chess player and the observance of a god like compassion towards mankind to appreciate this viewpoint. In other words, like mankind, realize that all men have inalienable human rights, be exemplary in justice and fairness, use rational thinking to embrace the greatest good for the most mankind, be able to envision consequences across the span of time from the deep past to the far reaching future and have the benevolence and generosity of a saint.

In other words you'd have to have the magnanimously competant leadership you'd expect of the President of the most influential country in the world. Taking actions that could be ascribed to a lieing, deceiving bully would not gain favoritisms except among the James Gang.

Here is another sweeping datum that sets the mind to wondering: a criminal anti-social personality will always accuse others of what himself has been doing. This is demonstratable, observable truth. Applied to the circumstances of this administration one is left wondering what have they really been up to.

It is understood that being President of the United States is a tough job. It just takes a very skillful individual at the helm. Reagon was able to do it and is no doubt the best President we have had in recent times. He was exceptional in this respect: he was a high toned individual, had a good sense of values and was very candid.

This is an important comparison. Reagon had the graciousness of the hero in one of the old cowboy movies, only it wasn't an act, that was his personality. He was someone you could trust. Seeing that in a President was refreshing. America needs again his open honesty.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Palin for VP

by Robert L. Gisel

Governor Palin of Alaska has taken the spotlight as the new kid in town Vice Presidential running mate for John McCain. There is a ton of press on it today but this article summarizes it well, linked below followed by the comment I posted.

This was a clever move by McCain as without this his campaign was destined for the low road. With Palin's reputation this definitely stirs the pot.

The issues aren't the issue, Paris Hilton's politics notwithstanding, as much as is the idea that someone with some moxy could gain position in the White House that would put in ethics on the government crowd. That's so sorely needed as to outweigh everything else, if she only accomplished that.

Her experience isn't the issue either as she has shown she has the learning curve ability to rise to the responsibilities. The plan to enact an ethics bill is a good move that will tend to amnesty the tempest of the widespread corruption she will find in Washington, an otherwise overwhelming prospect, albeit Braveheart that she is.

The question is how will she handle the holdover from the Bush and Cheny corruption of our government as veep. McCain himself has yet to denounce Bush and his high crimes and war crimes listed in the Impeachment Resolution HR 1258 still in the House Judiciary Committee as we speak, not to mention the more confrontable destruction of our country of rights, constitution and fiduciary responsibility. It's a mess and it will take some high confront and on-your-feet clever handling to turn the ship away from the shoals.

For sure it will take all she's got to maintain her integrity, independence and willingness to take on the corrupt and shake up "politics as usual" without herself being compromised. That McCain now comes out with his version of "I have a dream" and claims to have intentions to clean up politics in Washington stretches the credulity. Feasibly Palin could shake him up as well, not too far fetched an idea.

Personally I wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama. Maybe I'll just vote for VP.

As a postscript to this comment, any judgement within the nation or on the world scene is barren without the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered as a moderating principle. While Diplomacy and State Security are full bodied subjects on their own the guiding path can never negate the existence of inalienable rights.

Where Palin stated that Ron Paul "is cool, he's very independent" one wonders if she understands it's his adherence to rights that mold that "coolness". All the rest is brilliant application to the existing scene to arrive at pragmatic application of the guiding principle.

Palin displays a lot of potentiality in that regard but has yet to take it all the way home. One can only hope that she will go the distance.

These Public Service Announcements illustrate each of the 30 rights:

Friday, June 27, 2008

Can a President Be Impeached?

by Robert L. Gisel

House Resolution 1258 "Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors" was passed in the House mid July, 2008, with a vote of 251 to 166. It is currently in the House Judiciary Committee for action.

H.Res. 333 "impeaching Richard B. Cheny, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors" was earlier by a year or so. Probably it didn't go anywhere as the bill to impeach Bush had not yet been entered.

Conference Report on HR 1: Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; at this time the House Resolution 1258 was introduced.

As the mainstream press is no longer covering these current events I am posting these on my blog lest someone forget that HR 1258 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee which has been issuing subpoenas and gathering data so this can be passed to the Senate for impeachment proceedings. It is not old news, it is a current event, which would think the press would all over this with coverage. The House Resolution 1258 cites evidence for war crimes and high crimes so I fail to see how this is a light matter.

The truth is when criminal action is committed the person always has the choice the come clean and get straight. When that doesn't occur justice actions must be taken. How many times have we heard that someone indicted for a new crime has a history of past crimes so that the new crime could have been predicted and stopped before it happened.

The House Judiciary Committee will, I trust, keep putting forth its ethics presence and stem the tide of further heinous acts. We can only hope. The public presence is very much needed and this is where the press has come a cropper: not making it known.

We're looking at falsely propagandizing a war, just for one of the 35 charges, that has taken a lot of lives in Iraq, about a million counting the Iraqis who have died. Not a good statistic for the US President.

This has been a great country. I for one would like to keep it so. Speak up and say your part: your voice will heard somewhere and to that degree it will make a difference. This so that America can truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Re Article "Bush Should Get A Life"

An article belaboring the petty quibbling between Obama and McCain demanded a comment and it is an important enough point that I reprint it here:

Have you examined why the Bush popularity has dropped to 29% domestically (if not even less by now), even lower overseas? The American people are intelligent enough to know when an operation is being run on them. The administration's black propaganda campaign based on lies and deceipt is something honest American people want nothing to do with.

Bear in mind the potentially biggest event of the year is evidently being swept under the carpet by the Bush-domineered press: the Bush Impeachment Resolution that passed in the House last week 166 nay to 251 in favor, HR 1258. Some of the 35 charges are token but the main ones are enough to indict him on criminal charges for war crimes and international crimes against the Geneva Convention. You'd think this would be major headlines daily.

The broadly known public data is enough to impeach them let alone what would be found by undercovering a bit more evidence. Plus there is a whole set of accessory (minimally) to crimes against humanity if not outright commissions more closely surrounding the events of Sept 11, 2001 that readily could be charged. That these are not even addressed on the impeachment bill but could easily be is an oversight. It appears the resolution may be allowed to stand as no more than a warning shot. Nixon was successfully impeached on 1/10th of the issues Bush needs to account for.

Like the American Gangster Bush and Cheny and their lieutenants stand there with a smoking gun confident there isn't anyone around with enough guts to call a crime a crime and enforce it. Bush and Cheny are just blatantly over the top in malfeasance.

If we ever needed the Minute Men who didn't hesitate to drop their dinner forks and run out the door with their muskets to face the Britsh without fear for their lives we need them now. Those brave Freedom Fighters whose courage and integrity gave us what freedom we have today. As individuals we need to speak out for action, right now.

Instead we have a cocaine snorting rich kid now in the White House who knows he can get away with murder because his wealthy family is well connected and the people he swore to serve are so complacent he can get away with war crimes because no one will face him and say "Punk, you may be wondering if I fired 6 bullets or 5... do you feel lucky?"

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Democracy: Dead or Dieing

Here's an interesting viewpoint being debated, the consideration that democracy has been overridden by status quo of the two party system:

It is a voice I have heard a lot of lately, and indeed throughout the presidential primaries. Whether one believes it or not this signals a big red alert for our nation. When a majority of the peoples of a sovereignty lack the voice, or are too complacent, to any longer bring a necessary positive change to that nation it can be understood that that nation is headed down the same route of so many great civilizations now vanished.

To put it another way from a child's viewpoint:

As ours is a democracy the sound functioning of our governing system requires two forgone conclusions:

1) That the voice be heard and acted on when a majority and

2) That people are vocal so the voice can be heard.

Where the debate was lively and spirited at the outset days of our nation one does not see that so much so today. Certainly the Ron Paul followers were this spirited, while the stuffed shirts of the GOP chose to stifle their participation as evidently way too lively for them. If you only looked at this as a study in tolerance of motion you could have a lot of fun with it.

Having a democracy mandates that you have freedom and rights, including the right to be heard.

Having followed the Ron Paul campaign in the press alerts one definitely saw a pattern of media focus on the two main party candidates to the exclusion of other candidates. The press pre-set an outcome and then propagandized that as if it is the people talking. For instance, Ron Paul would be shunted in, or entirely left out of, televised debates. If you hadn't been following all the Ron Paul news alerts you would have missed that he was even still running. Thus the voice of democracy all too much has become the voice of the press, or more basically who is in the ear of the press who is then their mouthpiece.

Sometimes we're not permitted our own life by reason of government interference though supposedly protected as an inalienable human right. This has been highlighted by the permissive wording of the Patriots Act which does tend to stifle democracy. Speak out against the war loud enough and you could find yourself, in the worst case scenario, under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, seized and incarcerated for years with no representation or trial or without charges even. If someone suspects you have the wrong friends and reports this you then could be put on the watch list, perhaps grabbed and secreted away in the name of the Patriots Act, it is subject to such abuse. Seems remote, but it appears now this was the case in at least a few hundred of the detainees who were held for years without representation, so don't say it can't happen.

Evidently if you have nothing to say you could be "persuaded" until you do. We now know about waterboarding but what else went on? It is not known at what point you are believed, if you have no connection, or when the military junta would finally accept that and let you go carry on with your right to life. It's the government's call. This is a reversal of the historical precedents of our nation, innocent until proven guilty.

Now that a pretense of trials is occurring in Guantanamo to determine the guilt of the detainees a majority have been released. There was at one point about 800 detainees and now there is around 200 so one can suspect those released were not guilty of anything or nothing that would stand up to a trial. Can you imagine being incarcerated 3 to 5 years while never being charged and with no recourse, all the while not being guilty but having to endure abusive and humiliating treatment, assumed to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent? With no counsel provided that you could prove your innocence. Even in the climate of fear promulgated by the righteous war on terrorism this is an insult to a nation founded on human rights.

In the surreal 007 world of cover ops these things go on. Where this has crossed the line in the undeclared war against Iraq and the proclaimed "war" against terrorism the attempts to legitimize the actions taken don't hold up against the burden of proof.

There's nothing democratic about the unjust treatment of others. While Bush's popularity is at an all time low here in the US it would appear he is rated even worse across other nations of the world. During Bush's recent overseas tour over 100,000 people turned out to protest Bush at one Iraqi war demonstration in England, our closest ally.

This is not good, yet our democracy is a hope factor for the world. Brits evidently count on on us to lead the way and hold the line for freedom per reports from abroad. One columnist advocate has said:

" George Bush is on his way out. He as an individual is not that significant but it's what he represents.

Whoever replaces him in the US is going to carry on with the same policy. They're preparing to install themselves in Iraq semi-permanently. It's turning Iraq into a colony while thousands of people continue to die.'"

Concurring or not with that sentiment there is more than a few overseas voices with similar sentiments.

To be the aggressor in the Iraqi war has been a betrayal not only in the US, where this was in no way a democratic choice, but now has put our president and our country's presence in the world in ill regard. The 100,000 to 200,000 protesters in London indicates a considerable dissenting voice. That is just in one city, in one country.

On the other hand it came to my attention when I observed a British editor friend of mine avidly following the Ron Paul campaign. John Mappin, owner of The Independent chain of papers wrote a song in support of Dr. Paul's campaign efforts. For some time this event monopolized the Google searches with numerous mostly foreign press feeds. Fascinated by this I did some looking around and discovered that the campaign of Ron Paul was indeed being watched by the world in hopes that he would win and some of the freedom would return to their shores.

Holding high the torch for freedom is not just an American phenomena. It is the hope and trust for the world. I surely hope we don't let them down.

A Weak Rout of Cheney and Bush

by Robert L. Gisel

Ordinarily I have an inordinate abundance of patience and tolerance in expressions of the viewpoints of others. However I couldn't help but leave a comment on the blog of Two Crabs who evidently didn't realize that "intelligent" is a good quality that holds merit. To quote the blog:

"I'm all for the publics' right to protest, but what strikes me is the odd folks that turn out for political rallies. The majority are rather mainstream folks, but you always get the handful of loonies. And none are loonier than the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Even stranger to me is that most of these conspiracy theorists are high-educated people. Twice in the past month, I've been verbally attacked by these so-called conspiracy theorists in London. One was a British tech guy; the other was an American high school teacher. It's no point even debating these people because they are completely absent of reason, logic and facts. Go figure. Anyway that's my rant for the day."

I am recapitulating my comments to the Two Crabs post here as the point needs to be said as repeatedly as needed until the meaning gets through the drunken stupor.

The Impeachment Resolution that passed the House of Representatives last week is an almost brave gesture. One gets the impression it is merely a warning salvo to keep Bush and Cheny from committing their next insane act, a preemptive air strike on Iran. Once you're on a roll what have you got to lose by going all the way. Yet this is what the resolution fails to do. It parks in committee.

On publicly known evidence alone Bush and Cheny can easily be charged with crimes against humanity as regards the events surrounding The World Trade Towers massacre. This would include Malfeasance of Office, Obstruction of Justice, Accessory to Murder and Mayhem, Aiding and Abetting a Crime Against Humanity and Conspiracy to Defraud. I'd like to add a few charges like First Degree Murder but it would be more than my prima fasci evidence readily allows, though it wouldn't take too much investigation I'm sure.

Here is what I said to their blog post:

"Me thinks you should raise your confront of evil, or trade in your rose colored glasses for some Foster Grants. Or at least cut back on the meds. Shock politics has been in vogue for several millenia that we know of.

"When the brains fall out the back of the skull you know the gunshot wasn't from behind and you don't have to be a forensic expert to see that; even an awake person of moderate intelligence can realize the lone gunman theory of the JKF assassination is completely and utterly bogus. And a cover up.

"Likewise it can be seen by any person, even of lesser intelligence, on casual viewing of well known evidence that the idea that the twin trade towers AND building 7 were each taken down by the singular action of a jet crash is as impossible as the lone gun theory. It's no "loonie" to conclude there's a skunk in the woodpile.

"Ever since September 12th, 2001 I have wondered how our intelligence (not 'intelligent' - different definition) agencies, FBI, CIA, NSA, could be so stupid as to watch it go down and fail to stop it from happening. The intelligence reports were in, down to the date of the happening. No one is that incompetent.

"You say you get this "theory" from intelligent people but that they are loonies, what does that make you? Unintelligent?

"The Bush Impeachment Resolution just passed the House 251 to 166 and while I sometimes wonder how intelligent our Representatives are these are at least honored gentlemen. The 35 charges cover everything but aiding and abetting the 9/11 crime against humanity. The charges do cover Bush's deliberate deception regards the Iraqi war among other purgeries. Thank God someone besides me can see that they have been lying.

"Friendly advice: less beer and your vision will get a little clearer."

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Church and State

by Robert L. Gisel

As Freedom of Religion can never be divorced from the umbrella of human rights a Church/State can never be included in that arena, which is to say a theology goes against the grain of human rights and politics does not mix with religion. This point was aptly made by BellaOnline for the Independent Parties Site here:

The essential issue needs to be taken a step further lest the deepest truth be missed.

Cynthia Phillips argues that a Church/State inevitably falls into bias of it's own and therefore the intolerance of others. These are my own words but should catch the essence of what Cynthia says. Historically this proves out and goes without saying.

Huckabee's statement of the intention of "taking this nation back for Christ" indeed seems a departure from our First Amendment. If in giving the benefit of the doubt of possible misunderstanding that this was intended figuratively by Mr. Huckabee, meaning that we need to revive spirituality in our nation and restore humanity to man, I totally concur. Huckabee's statement however smacks of separatism from and intolerance for others' beliefs, starting presumably with the Islamic Muslims.

Religion and human rights go hand in hand as both require at their pinnacle omniscience and omnipotence, the allness of all. Rarely ever, or never, have we seen a sovereign government exhibit such magnificence.

To put this all in contrastive perspective one need only trace the deviate train of thought back to it's ominous and unseen source: psychiatry. Lest one think this non-sequitur to the issue of Church and State realize we are talking about basic values intrinsic to humankind and on the other hand a dastardly group that has vowed to destroy those values.

In 1945 psychiatrist G. Brock Chisholm to the assembly of psychiatrists emulated J.R Rees' 1940 master plan as the guiding principle for psychiatry, their paramount aim as "reinterpretation and eventually [the] eradication of right and wrong". This arrogant agenda laid out in detail includes the dissolution of family values and religious belief as essential to accomplishment of their goals. That's the downside of this issue.

Psychiatric mainline activities, addictive narcotic psychiatric drugs, prefrontal lobotomy, insulin shock and electroshock therapy each one inflicts pain and unconsciousness. These are highly destructive activities to the body, mind and spirit of the patient. It is not healthy - mentally or physically. Besides that, these violate human rights, considering that the practices are fraudulent and have never cured anyone by psychiatry's own admission. Without rehashing the volumes of documentation behind the above statements make a note of this: where there is a keenly unfavorable activity to advance militant ethnicity, separatism and otherness particularly in religious intolerance there is, if one looks deeply enough, a psychiatrist in the woodpile.

Ethnic cleansing, that heinous fabrication of psychiatry, also could said to be, by association, religious cleansing. Advancement of humanity to humankind does not admit to another religious crusade so let's don't go there.

That the Roman Catholic Church's heavy involvement in psychiatric therapy is found in parallel with its group's moral difficulties of sexual abuse among it's priests as a present crisis issue is no wonder. I trust the Pope will work it out, if he recognizes that the undermining of values is coming from the psychiatric false data rampant in our society and the reliance of the Catholic Church on psychiatry.

Following through on Rees's master plan psychiatry has no good will towards religions. Even to this day as we witness the Child Protection racket in Texas under psychiatric rule engage in human rights violations in mass against the families of that Mormon sect.

That said my main point can be made. Central to human concourse is the recognition of human rights inclusive of the inalienable right to one's own religious practices and their performance. Our country's First Amendment groups the freedom of religion with other specific rights such as the freedom of speech while the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists these each separately in the 30 specifically stated rights. Unstated here but a necessary corollary is that the souls of men have the rights of men.

You can't get more basic than embracing life as that of spiritual beings, that each and every one of us is basically good and is a spiritual being, a soul or spirit, call it what you will. Psychiatrists notwithstanding (joke). Spiritual being to spiritual being it matters naught to me whether the individuals before me prefer Mohammad or Christ or Buddha or L. Ron Hubbard. I see these groupings of man pursuing the same goals: desires to advance spirituality, basic truth and the study of knowledge. This would naturally embrace the highest point from which one could view, the omniscience and omnipotence associated with God and pan determinism in the allness of all. This is the quintessential what goes around comes around.

The State, in the activities of any of its agencies, is a sovereignty that must hold its own by its might and symbology with some agreement of principles. We don't however need an army of a particular color to tell us how we can worship.

Thus anyone should be free to pursue their religious beliefs. The delineation of the inalienable human rights defines the boundaries against which the the path is directed for the furtherance of humanity to mankind.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

One Who Would Serve

by Robert L. Gisel

Being in a position of service only gives one the right to serve. As a poilitician is a civil servant it would stand to reason he is one who serves the people who elected him. Herein lies the failure of American statesmanship and our world diplomatic personality.

If the point of Lions for Lambs was too cryptic it was not missed by outspoken people like Naomi Kline, Brian Michels and Charley Sheen. The Republican niche group of neoconservatives would turn all political action into a super-capitalism money making proposition. The implementation of this into reality in our government translates into yet another form of fascism.

Only one candidate today has the courage to stand apart from the self-serving aims of the neoconservatives. Ron Paul has consistently held his ground in stating his views of how the people would best be served without the hackneyed spin of the money mongers.

The way the press slant colors the presidential campaign it would seem that McCain is the chosen one to carry the banner for the neocons agenda launched by the first Bush administration of which the current president is just carrying the ball of the father's legacy.

When you are attacked and you have to go to war you get in and get it over with quickly. You don't drag it out for 6 years. Making the maximum amount of profits for the longest possible time - that's what corporations do. It is not what armies do. Restore freedom and let the people get on with it.

Unless profits is what you had in mind in the first place.

Is there anything worse in store for our great country than money-grubbing civil servants? Money motivation for an elected politician is not only highly immoral it can be downright illegal.

The hallmark of the neoconservative is an extreme favoritism of the "haves and have-mores" as the President put it. This while he struts his pearls in defense of war to prove he has the cajoles macho enough to be a president. My appologies to Clinton for the male analogy but then isn't she putting this forth as well as the American woman who would ignore her husband's blatant infidelities that were even the subject of impeachment hearings. She would have to, it would seem, have some condoning agreement with the "men will be men" or some sort of psyche-based false datums justifying Mr. Clinton's out-ethics.

Clinton has stated some views as if she would strike out on her own politic but her overall campaign has changed regularly with the sway of the polls. One gets the idea she would sadly only be party to the temptations of compromising neoconservative special interest groups.

Obama comes across on a cursory view as one who would take up the call of serving the people. However when an attack was launched against him questioning if he was a Muslim and whether he was in the wrong camp he broke into a tirade in defense of America with a voice that smacked of strained justification and weak relinquishment of his own integrity in support of the neoconservatives. One doesn't get reassurance Obama would be steadfast in serving the people and the constitutional oath of the presidency when faced with pressures brought to bear by greedy politicians.

You can definitely follow a consistency by Ron Paul who is openly outspoken in his platform and steadfastly stands by the constitution, rights and freedoms. Even when he took a hit where a racist article had in the past been erroneously posted in his name he took responsibility for that, simply re-stated that he is not a racist and did not get pulled down into the petty game of low blow politics.

This truely exhibits a Jeffersonian beingness that this country would do well by during these times that try men's souls with daily assaults on the foundation that made this country great.

It is not my intention to throw my hand into the political counter plays of the presidential campaign. On the contrary it is a broader view when one reads the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, steps back, views the problems of our sovereign country and sees how this Declaration pronounces a common thread of all mankind.

If this were understood and fully embraced in our diplomatic stance in the world we would not now be embroiled in a war in Iraq that appears we cannot walk away from, shades of Vietnam, that compromises us in the world community and illustrates our country as the new world bully.

The trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq is evidence enough this is about money. That Saddam Husain was a tyrannical psychotic totalitarian dictator is undeniable. Bringing him to justice for his crimes against humanity did not require a trillion dollar bill and the lives of non-combatant men, women and children. It is too painfully obvious that the best interests of the humanity in Iraq was no consideration in the decision to take up arms against that nation.

If we really were out to rid the world of a mad dictator who truely deserved to be hanged for his crimes against humanity the feat of bringing Saddam Husain to justice could have been accomplished in diplomatic policing choices available on probably less than 1/100,000 the trillion dollar bill for the Iraq war. No, it is about money and using the body politic to grab for oneself as much as possible.

There are always choices in diplomacy and statesmanship. It is the intention that makes the difference - is it for the greatest good of all or is it an evil and secretive desire to line one's own pockets.

While the neoconservatives are out glorifying this war it has gone unnoticed that the the guiding principle of inalienable rights held by all mankind does offer up viable solutions and highlight those would be politicians who chose to ignore these principles to serve themselves, the neoconservatives, and who would blatantly ignore the truth that the presidential oath of office is really about serving the people.

One man would genuinely and honestly serve the people. Ron Paul deserves a lot more attention and support in the ongoing presidential election.

Here is a link containing Public Service Announcements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: