They're Stealing My Constitution a Page at a Time

They're Stealing My Constitution a Page at a Time
Posted by CN Staff on June 24, 2005 at 09:47:57 PT
By Barry Smith
Source: Nevada Appeal 
USA -- I went to grab my copy of the U.S. Constitution, which I keep handy by my desk, but it wasn't there Thursday morning. No surprise. It was probably hiding, for fear the Supreme Court or Congress was going to rip another page out of it.I wouldn't blame it for running for its life. The assault in recent weeks has been fierce.
On Thursday, I found out we have no property rights. Mistakenly believing the government couldn't come along and buy our property and sell it to someone else unless it was for public use, I have been blithely keeping the faith in the Fifth Amendment.It says, in the last clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."Supreme Court justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer decided it was OK for a local government in Connecticut to force residents to sell their homes to the government so it could sell the property to a developer for an office complex.Stevens' opinion said it's not a matter for the court to overrule the city's economic development plans. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.That, in my opinion, is just indefensible. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the dissent, which included Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."It's a little difficult for me to follow the logic of a Supreme Court in upholding a city's authority to override the Constitution, when it recently stripped states of their rights to set their own laws.That was the medical marijuana ruling, which said that federal law can override state law. Even if it's legal to grow and smoke marijuana in your state, it's not - because the feds can arrest you and put you in a federal prison.It's a pretty obvious refutation of the 10th Amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."In that case, it stretched the Commerce Clause - which gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce - to somehow cover medical marijuana, even though state laws don't allow people to sell it from state to state.So in just the last couple of months, we've lost significant portions of the Fifth and 10th Amendments. Can we still save the First Amendment?The U.S. House has voted to amend the constitution to outlaw flag burning. We'll see if the Senate is able to block this move or not.Amend the Constitution? In order to deny people an opportunity to make a political statement? That seems to me to be an absolute contradiction of the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."Why else would someone burn or desecrate a flag, except to make a political statement?Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., put it rather eloquently: "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that flag represents."Here's the fundamental problem:I support redevelopment projects and urban renewal. But I can never justify the government forcing someone to sell his or her home to someone else.I don't like medical marijuana laws, because I think they've been a backhanded way to legalize marijuana. But if the voters of California, Nevada and other states decide to change the laws, which they have, then I don't think the federal government has the authority to override those decisions.I don't think people should burn the American flag. It hurts me to see such a thing. But if people can be fined or thrown in jail for making a statement of protest against the American government, then that flag has lost much of its meaning for me.I've been looking all morning, and I still can't find my pocket-size copy of the Constitution. When I do find it, I'll be afraid to open it and see how many more of our rights are missing.Barry Smith is editor of the Nevada Appeal. Source: Nevada Appeal (Carson City, NV)Author: Barry SmithPublished: June 24, 2005Copyright: 2005 Nevada AppealContact: editor nevadaappeal.comWebsite: Justice Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #72 posted by survivant on July 06, 2005 at 07:18:10 PT
runderwo, alas it's true. Duboc was one of the biggest but that didn't lead to a life sentence. He made the error of irritating the DOJ by 'forgetting' to turn over about 10 million in assets in violation of his plea agreement.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #71 posted by FoM on June 28, 2005 at 10:15:56 PT
American Thinker: The First Right
By Timothy BirdnowJune 28th, 2005Property rights are the fundamental building blocks of Liberty. The freedoms we enjoy in these United States may be our heritage through Natural Law and given to us by the Creator, but the free exercise of those fundamental rights is dependent upon a devout view of the sacred right to property. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which stated, in effect, that the government of the United States has no interest in protecting property rights, and that these rights are at the mercy of state and local jurisdictions. While this may not be the end of private property, it certainly removes another brick from the foundation of liberty, and continues the long assault on private ownership which we have witnessed in this country. We should all be concerned; if we allow our rights to property ownership to be taken from us we will lose all other rights in the process. Tyranny is harvested from government control of land.Our Founding Fathers believed in Natural Law. They believed that God had written His Law in the fabric of the Universe, and that the laws of man should be based upon those higher precepts which evinced themselves. The Founders looked to the great natural philosophers of their day for guidance on setting up a better system of governance, and they appealed to Natural Law: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.``These words did not come out of a vacuum. More precisely, they came from the English philosopher John Locke, who, arguing from Natural Law, claimed all men had a right to Life, Liberty, Health, and Property. Jefferson and company changed the wording slightly (on the urging of Ben Franklin) because they believed that property rights would be self-evident (given the source quote) and because they did not want to exclude non-property owners from the rights enjoyed by all. Still, it is clear that they intended property ownership to be a sacred institution, and considered it important enough that it was addressed in the U.S. Constitution under the Bill of Rights (which many of the Founders did not want to include, since they thought these rights should be self-evident.)Locke believed that government existed by virtue of a compact between peoples, and he saw protection of property rights as the primary purpose of government. He states in his Second Treatise on Government:Sect. 3. Political power, "then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good."Furthermore, Locke stated:"Government has no other end than the preservation of property."Locke`s position on property rights was hardly original; the concept can be traced back into the mists of time. Certainly the Romans had an extensive Real Property law, dating back to their original legal document, the12 Tables, in 450 BC. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian, in his summary of all Roman laws, codified property rights in the Corpus Juris. The Bible deals with the matter in the highest legal writ; 2 of the 10 Commandments address property (thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, or goods) and the Jewish legal books (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) make it clear that man has a right to property ownership. The Founders understood property as a sacred trust. Consider these words:"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
 -John Adams"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."
 -Samuel Adams"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." 
 -Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. It`s interesting to note that only landholders were allowed to vote when the Nation was founded.The fundamental importance of property rights have been reaffirmed countless times by numerous sources. English Commentator William Blackstone believed a right to property "tends to man's real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that . . . it is a part of the law of nature."Daniel Webster stated "No other rights are safe where property is not safe." Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 Encyclical Rerum Novarum made it clear that Catholic doctrine recognizes the sanctity of property. If possession of property is at the pleasure of the state rather than a Divinely ordained right, it means that the ultimate owner is the government, and that the "owner" is merely a tenant who is then subject to whatever rules and qualifications the government sets down. This means that the freedoms we take for granted - speech, press, assembly, etc. - can be circumscribed by this government. Government can seize your property, forbid your use of land or buildings or personal effects if you fail to behave in the required manner. How can you have freedom of the press, say, if the press and the presshouse are controlled by the government? Freedom of Property is the lynchpin of these other freedoms.Unfortunately, property rights have been under a continuous assault for quite some time. We have seen government impose property taxes, which essentially make the owner a tenant since he has to keep paying for the privilege of living on his own property. We have had the Civil Rights Act which, although well intentioned, restricted the rights of business owners to choose their clientele. We had the Fair Housing Act which restricted a property owners' right to sell to whomever he wished, restricted the right of property owners to covenant, and restricted the right of landlords to rent to whomever they choose. We have had Federal forfeiture laws which allow the government to simply seize property if they have reason to suspect criminality. We have recently seen governments ordering landowners to maintain their property in a wilderness state if they have a persistent mudpuddle. We have seen local authorities ordering restaurateurs and bar owners to forcibly ban smoking in their establishments, despite their own wishes. Now we have local governments taking peoples' property, not for the construction of roads or bridges as is permissible in the Constitution, but to sell to developers. And the Supreme Court of the United States claims there is no Federal issue here!On the contrary, this is clearly a matter of Federal jurisdiction. Since the beneficiaries of these Eminent Domain forfeitures will often be out-of-state businesses and organizations, the Interstate Commerce Clause comes into effect. In fact, the Supremes recently ruled that even medical marijuana use of plants grown and consumed within a single state is regulated under this clause, thus affirming their view that virtually every activity falls within their purview. Strangely enough John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in both cases. His respect for Federalism is oddly divided; to Stevens, everything falls under his authority except where property rights are concerned. So, who benefits from this? Obviously, developers and wealthy interests stand to gain by being able to purchase property at market rates rather than being soaked by holdout sellers. Also, the local governments and planning boards will make out quite well from the (ahem) incentives they will surely receive. The big winner here, though, will be environmentalists. Without Federal intervention the Greens will be able to persuade city councils to exercise Eminent Domain not for development but to close vast tracts of land. They will be able to forcibly evict property owners to make way for darter snails and dung beetles, and liberal city councils will find their palms well greased to exercise their Mafioso-like powers. Unless the States themselves act to remedy this, we will see enviromentalist land-grabs everywhere -especially in "blue state" areas like Vermont, Washington State, and New Mexico.Even though this particular issue may well be resolved at the state level, it still points to a dark malady in this country. We have simply lost our zeal for the right to property. Too many people think that democracy should extend to property rights, and that the will of the majority should trump a landholder or property owner's rights. This is at heart a problem which transcends government; this is a moral and philosophical issue. Why, for instance, aren`t we controlling our borders? I would argue that part of the reason is that Americans don`t value property rights enough; many of us don`t want to scratch a line in the Arizona sand and say "You shall not cross!" Many among us don`t believe we have a right to possess this land, and don 't believe that our ownership means we can exclude others. Too many Americans no longer believe in the sanctity of property. This particular case may not, in itself, be a watershed moment; however, the issues it raises are vitally important to the future freedom and security of the United States. Will we remain a land where freedom is jealously guarded, where we enjoy security in our persons and property, or will we follow the ruinous path trod by the socialist and fascist? What separates us from the despot is our right to property. It is our first right, it is a gift from God, and we would do well to remember that.Timothy Birdnow is a property manager in St. Louis, who publishes the website Birdblog.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #70 posted by FoM on June 27, 2005 at 21:58:49 PT
Thank you. Please don't go to any bother. Maybe we will be able to get it online and that would be fine. Sometimes we can't get what you do. I'm glad he is doing Live 8 in Canada. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #69 posted by afterburner on June 27, 2005 at 21:48:17 PT
FoM, RE Live 8
9 am - 11 pm
cable ch. 13 CFTO (Toronto)8 pm - 10 pm
cable ch. 9 WKBW (Buffalo)I have only a DVD player and a VHS recorder at present. I'll see what I can dig up.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #68 posted by jose melendez on June 27, 2005 at 21:17:51 PT
no surprises, just paychecks and pensions
A recent poll of US police commanders reveals that 78 percent of the nation's police chiefs and sheriffs believe the so-called war on drugs is a failure. The poll, conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, appears to be corroborated by a recent independent report.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #67 posted by FoM on June 27, 2005 at 21:09:36 PT
I just found this article and I was wondering if you will be able to get it. I would really like to see his performance but I only have a DVD player-recorder and no VHS. If not let me know if it is good. I'm sure it will be.****Rocker Neil Young Added To Live 8 News StaffFans at Live 8 will be rocking in the free world with music icon Neil Young.Young is the latest act added to the Live 8 concert in Barrie, Ont. which will be held on July 2nd.Known for classics such as "Cinnamon Girl," "Heart of Gold" and "Harvest Moon," Young will bring an electric presence to the concert in Park Place, formerly known as Molson Park.Like many of the artists involved with Live 8, Young was one of original performers in "Live Aid" 20 years ago, and shared the stage with Crosby, Stills and Nash. The last year has been difficult for Young; he lost his father Scott Young, a well-respected journalist and author, earlier this month. Young himself also suffered a brain aneurysm that forced him to cancel his appearance at the Juno awards, held in his hometown in Winnipeg, Manitoba last March. However, the "Godfather of Grunge" has been busy.In early May, Young began recording a follow-up to his 2003 album Greendale in Nashville, Tennessee. This year's Live 8 concerts are taking place in eight major venues around the world, and are orchestrated to put pressure on the G-8 nations' leaders to come up with more aid for Africa. The July 2 concert in Barrie will be held at the city's 35,000-capacity Park Place venue, and will broadcast live on CTV.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #66 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 10:30:15 PT
High Court To Homeowners: Stick 'Em Up!
By Paul Jacob June 26, 2005 It's like a bad dream, or a summer disaster movie. But this is real. We live under a regime that can and often does grab our homes and small businesses to create what politicians call "economic development." The process is simple: the government takes our property, pays us what it thinks the property's worth, and then hands our property — in finely crafted "sweetheart deals" — to developers and big corporations that will produce greater tax revenue. The big government majority on the U.S. Supreme Court — Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg and Kennedy — just gave eminent domain abuse the thumbs up in the case of Kelo et al, v. City of New London et al. The politicians of New London, Connecticut, sought to take Ms. Suzette Kelo's home, along with many others, to facilitate the building of a private retail and residential complex that would house a big research facility for Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company. "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, "including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue." [Emphasis added.] Castle or Revenue Stream?
But what is the implication of the Kelo ruling? What message does it send to the financial wizards running local governments nationwide, slickers who have flocked to such schemes, sacrificing small businesses and the homes of poor and middle-class citizens for more tax revenue? Justice Sandra Day O'Connor makes it very clear in her dissent: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more." This is not an isolated case of politicians winning and the people losing in one small town in Connecticut. This is happening all across the nation. Local officials looking to boost their tax take through eminent domain like a vampire looks for fresh neck arteries. Today, no homeowner is safe anywhere in America, because homes don't produce as many jobs or pay as much in taxes as businesses do. Churches, Beware 
Politicians' lust for money doesn't stop with homeowners and small businesses, though. Sometimes churches get in the way. Churches don't even pay taxes. No revenue stream for politicians at all. Uh-oh. In Cypress, California, the city pushed the Cottonwood Christian Center off its land to make way for a Costco superstore. The church paid no taxes; Costco and its customers would pay plenty. Steve Greenhut, author of Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain (Seven Locks Press, 311 pages, $17.95), highlighted the arrogance of eminent domain power run amok in Cypress: City officials did not dress up what they were doing in legalistic language. They were brazen in their goals. They ridiculed church members at public meetings. They bragged about their ability to use eminent domain for whatever reason they chose, and they made it clear that the government's desires should take precedence over the desires of "a narrow special interest," which is how city officials repeatedly referred to the church. 
Recently, the Washington Post ran a story about growing friction between churches and government in Prince George's County, Maryland. Churches and synagogues, mosques and temples are operating on property that, if taxed, would give local politicians $9 million more dollars to spend each year. Already, the council has been using zoning regulations to block the growth of churches. "We don't oppose churches," Council Chairman Samuel Dean told The Post. "The concern we have is that sometimes churches eat up a lot of land that could be used for other things." Another council member offered, "None of us are against God." But added: "We're losing tax money and retail." What protection do the churches have now? Activism for Me, Restraint for You
To add insult to injury, the ruling junta on the court even went so far as to coyly dress this treachery up as judicial restraint. For the majority, Justice Stevens wrote, "Without exception, our cases have defined that concept [of public use] broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field." [Emphasis added.] Don't be fooled. Deference to legislative bodies may be restraint of judicial power, but no restraint for any other kind of government power is being suggested. In this case judicial restraint means a general increase in government power. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains what has come to be known as the Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." As Justice Thomas argued, "The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power."Eminent domain, an awesome and dangerous power even for truly public uses, was restricted by the Bill of Rights to only truly public purposes. But instead, the Court majority expanded the meaning of "public use" to encompass "politician use." Certainly, the only meaningful public benefit is more tax dollars collected and spent by politicians. The public gets whatever trickle down benefits come of this government spending. Lucky us. The term "public use" ceases to have any real meaning under this tortured logic. "When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property," Thomas writes, "it strains language to say that the public is 'employing' the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use." But the Court interprets all government power as broadly and actively as possible. In the recent medical marijuana case, the federal government's power to intervene was predicated on the Commerce Clause, even though no interstate commerce was affected. Thus, as Thomas dissented in that case, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the Court reads specific statements of protections for the rights of citizens and limitations on government narrowly, restraining itself so that it cannot protect citizens from government power turned tyrannical. Term limits supporters may notice that the court breakdown in Kelo is the same as in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. In the latter case, the Court majority certainly didn't mention any "deference to legislative judgments." The Court struck down the legislative judgments of 23 states that had passed congressional term limits. But of course all these judicial decisions are absolutely consistent. They actively expand government power whenever citizens threaten to exert some control over it. And when governments kick John Q. Public in the teeth, the black robes stand aside, in "judicial restraint." Facing Facts
This decision, even as it mocks us, also reminds us of an important fact. "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power," the majority said. It reminds us of the fact that while our judicial system has been hijacked, so too have our legislatures and city councils become dens of thieves. But citizens are fighting back: * In the high-profile Lakewood, Ohio, eminent domain case, citizens stopped the city through two voter initiatives. Twenty-four states have some form of voter initiative and so do most cities.* Last year, the Michigan Supreme Court declared that "economic development" alone was not justification for taking private property. This reversed the principles of the 1981 Poletown case, when they allowed a neighborhood to be razed to make way for a General Motors plant.* And in March of this year, Utah citizens pressured their legislature to pass the first state law barring the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies.
The Kelo decision tells us how predatory our government has become. The America Dream, cut into and carved up by so many politicians, was this week struck down by the courts. But we're not giving in to them. We must get it back. Paul Jacob is Senior Fellow at Americans for Limited Government, a member group. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web, and on radio stations across America.Copyright: 2005 Paul Jacob
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #65 posted by FoM on June 26, 2005 at 10:05:44 PT
WP: Activism, Ripe for The Takings
By Michael KinsleySunday, June 26, 2005; B07The "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment is for conservatives what the equal protection clause of the 14th is for liberals. It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism -- imposing their agenda through the courts rather than bothering with democracy -- just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism. Liberals have long suspected that this was a decoy and that once conservatives had control of the federal courts they would twist their mustaches, laugh contemptuously and reveal the various policies they planned to impose by judicial fiat. Conservatives and liberals alike have been waiting for this moment for a third of a century. Each Supreme Court appointment by a Republican president seems to be "it." And yet "it" hasn't happened. Roe v. Wade -- the high-water mark of liberal judicial activism -- still stands. And on Thursday the court said a surprising "no thanks" to judicial activism, Republican style.The equal protection clause was a handy tool because just about anything the government does or doesn't do can be framed as treating people unequally. You get pulled over for speeding, and he doesn't; she gets a job, and you don't; the president calls on him at a news conference and not you, and so on. When does unequal treatment become unconstitutional? In the heyday of the Warren Court, almost anything on your wish list was at least worth a try.Almost any government activity can also be seen as taking property "without just compensation." The basic model of an unconstitutional "taking" would be if the government threw you out of your house. But Richard Epstein, a University of Chicago Law School professor and the godfather of the "takings" movement, says: Okay, what if you owned two houses and the government took one of them. Still a taking. So suppose that the government took a half-interest in both houses? What's the difference? Or what if the government enacts zoning or environmental regulations that reduce the value of your house by half? Or gives someone a government benefit that you don't get, but, as a taxpayer, will have to pay for?In law school, this is called "salami slicing" and it has been known to drive people mad, including, in the opinion of some, Professor Epstein. But his logic is compelling. Once you start down the takings road, it's hard to stop before Epsteinville. Possibly for that reason, the Supreme Court has clung pretty tightly to literalism and declined repeated invitations to use the takings clause like a scythe to cut the government down to size.The case decided on Thursday, though, seemed promising to takings fans because it wasn't about compensation. It was about the requirement that any government taking must have a "public purpose." They can't take your house and give it to the mayor's mistress, even if they pay you for it. But they can, apparently, take your house and tear it down to make room for a development of trendy shops and restaurants, a hotel and so on. That was the plan in New London, Conn., until a few working-class spoilsports wouldn't budge.The court ruled, 5 to 4, that yuppification is a valid public purpose. Or at least it was reasonable for the city to promote yuppification. Who wouldn't like a few more Starbuckses in town? The four dissenters (O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and the Chief) said: If this is a "public purpose," what in the world is not?One answer is that the town's elected officials thought that the project served a public purpose and that the various subsidies and favors were worth the price. But they may or may not have thought this. When the local government showers a big development with money and favors, it's usually not about sovereignty but about lack of sovereignty. Private developers play jurisdictions off against one another, extracting concessions from all that none would actually make a sovereign decision to give. A Supreme Court decision that concessions of this sort were unconstitutional would have taken them off the table and actually increased the effective sovereignty of elected officials.A couple of weeks ago, the court ruled that states cannot exempt themselves from federal laws against the medical use of marijuana. Although in a narrow sense this was a victory for a conservative policy, in a wider sense it also closed off an avenue for conservative activism. Like almost all assertions of federal power over the states, this one was based on the Constitution's commerce clause. The logic is often far-fetched -- how does medical marijuana affect interstate commerce? -- and some conservatives would like judges to start throwing out federal laws wholesale on commerce clause grounds. The court once again said no thanks.So the danger of conservative judicial activism has been averted for another year. Stay tuned.The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Company
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #64 posted by runderwo on June 25, 2005 at 22:25:21 PT
life in prison? money/property seized?
Please tell me that guy was doing something besides running a cannabis transport business...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #63 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 13:30:58 PT
One More Thing
My husband gets 5 miles to the gallon in his Semi. The rates haven't gone up and he and many other local drivers have parked their trucks for a while. He is replacing windows and siding on our house and that seems a better investment then running the truck currently. It might take a year or two but society will feel the oil prices in everything they buy. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #62 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 13:15:59 PT
What we feed grazing animals blows my mind. If only I didn't see the pretty big brown eyes of a cow maybe I could raise my own but I'd keep it as a pet and it would die of old age. If I could though it would be fed good pasture, corn, oats and quality Alfalfa hay. That's is what will keep a horse healthy so I'm sure it is good for a cow too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #61 posted by afterburner on June 25, 2005 at 13:05:44 PT
FDA, the People Who Approved Vioxx, Regulate Beef - FDA has yet to close loopholes in mad-cow regulation
"The Food and Drug Administration is under increased pressure to bolster its ban
on the use of cattle remains in animal feed after the discovery last month ..."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #60 posted by jose melendez on June 25, 2005 at 12:51:50 PT
Re: conflict in tax law, just say no.
Am I the only one here who grasps how big that is...?uhh . . . no?; )
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #59 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 12:44:42 PT
This really bothers me. Our food supply is safe? Experts: Mad Cow 'Minor' Health ConcernSaturday, June 25, 2005NEW YORK -- The newly identified case of mad cow disease in an animal from an American herd shouldn't worry consumers, experts said, because the condition appears to be very rare and safeguards are in place to protect the food supply."It certainly is a minor concern" compared to ordinary food-borne diseases like salmonella and E. coli, said Dr. Richard Johnson of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, an authority on mad-cow-like diseases in animals and people.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #58 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 12:31:44 PT
Yes we must act. I always thought there was a tax on luxury items and then Bush gave tax credits for buying an SUV. Where is sense anymore? Everything I learned from the gas shortage of the 70s seems to be lost in this time. We would really like to use fuel to heat our house but wood is so much cheaper so we will keep heating with wood. I can't imagine a heating bill using oil. We thought after all these years we could afford fuel but I don't even need to know what it costs to know it is out of site.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #57 posted by afterburner on June 25, 2005 at 12:18:02 PT
Comment #13 posted by FoM
"I remember waiting in line for gas in the 70s. We had a VW Bug because we wanted to save money on fuel. I also ask what happened."Cheap oil happened: Alaska and the North Sea.North Sea oil is declining
"Since the 1970s North Sea oil has not only been a major source of wealth for ...
At that point North Sea oil was 9% of global production and 22% of OPEC ..."BBC ON THIS DAY [November] | 3 | 1975: North Sea oil begins to flow
"The Queen has formally begun the operation of the UK's first oil pipeline at
a £500000 ceremony in Scotland."Cheap oil only postponed the inevitable. Now, we must act on the insight of the alternative energy movement of the 1970's.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #56 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 10:43:52 PT
Max Flowers 
How can they abolish income tax? I mean how will they take our hard earned money then? They just love money so how will they spin it? If we didn't have to pay so much in tax we could buy so many things and contribute to the growth of the economy. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #55 posted by Max Flowers on June 25, 2005 at 10:31:52 PT
IRS is in deep doo-doo
In case you all missed it, the very latest on income taxes is that two days ago, in a federal case against a former IRS investigator turned tax consultant, the government was UNABLE TO PROVE to a jury that any US law requires individuals to file or (for employers) withhold income taxes.Am I the only one here who grasps how big that is...? Maybe you guys like paying lots of taxes that you don't actually have to pay by law...? Okay then...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #54 posted by whig on June 25, 2005 at 10:13:42 PT
Scientology is more of a commercial enterprise than a religion, you have to pay to play. The truth does not come with a price tag, and you should doubt all who want to sell you salvation. But for all of their mendaciousness as an organization, there are people (like perhaps Tom Cruise) that honestly believe what they say and do not intend harm by their repetition. Do not kill the messenger, even if the message is false.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #53 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 09:05:20 PT
News Article from Tha Associated Press
Agencies Split $11M Taken From Drug DealerBy Brent Kallestad, Associated Press WriterFriday, June 24, 2005 
 Tallahassee, Fla. (AP) -- Several Florida and federal law enforcement agencies split just over $11 million Friday in proceeds confiscated from an imprisoned drug dealer — the second multimillion-dollar distribution of his assets since last year."This is the latest gift that keeps on giving," U.S. Attorney Gregory Miller said. "Crime pays, sometimes, for law enforcement agencies that are involved in complex, long-term investigations."The largest share of Claude Duboc's assets, $5.8 million, went to the IRS, while the Gainesville Police Department received nearly $3.6 million.Last year, $15 million taken from Duboc was distributed.The money distributed came from the sale of roughly $17 million in stock. The drug smuggler also forfeited property worth more than $100 million.Duboc, who was convicted of conspiracy to import hashish and marijuana, is serving a life sentence in federal prison.Defense attorney F. Lee Bailey, who represented Duboc, was jailed and eventually disbarred in Florida for transferring about $6 million worth of Duboc's stock to his own Swiss bank account.Copyright: 2005 Associated Press
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #52 posted by mayan on June 25, 2005 at 07:08:37 PT
Patriot Days of Action
Patriot Days of Action, July 2-8:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #51 posted by jose melendez on June 25, 2005 at 05:33:52 PT
not either or, but all . . .
1.) A routine of diet and exercise, along with meaningful and productive work was always a better alternative to warehousing or drugging the mentally ill into oblivion.2.) Tom cruise is in love and HAPPY! Let him do and say what he wants, he'll eventually modify his arguments. Enough, already. Fight the crooks waging war against you, and let the religious profiteers sink themselves with their own rhetoric. Choose your battles, if you want to win the war.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #50 posted by FoM on June 25, 2005 at 05:20:18 PT
bud patron 
Welcome to CNews. I wanted to mention that you don't need to post your email address unless you want to. It is only necessary for registration.Hope thanks about the lake. They will have to fix it since it was built for flood control. A lot of the low land areas were always being flooded out before the dam was built. We love the lake even though we don't get down to it like we did years ago.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #49 posted by bud patron on June 25, 2005 at 05:13:16 PT:
Thanx Hope
I know that you have been hoping for changes in Texas and it is disappointing to see things like HB658 die so easily, but I know things are changing. My favorite politician, and I think you would agree, has to be Ron Paul. I wish I could vote him into the White House. Unfortuntely he is not even my representative. Funny thing... when he was first running for office, me and a friend jokingly talked about changing some of the signs by blanking the 'n' and the upper half of the 'o' in Ron, so that it would read Ru Paul for Congress. We were stoned and just kidding of course..LOL. OK... pretty stupid. Anyways, I hope more Texans stand up and fight some of these corncob-up-there-butts kind of politicians here. Too much brainwashing has gone on here and it's scary. I was born here and I know that we're about cutting through the BS and getting to the truth, but when it comes to marijuana, alot of people here seem to be backstroking though the BS. Marijuana reform is gaining support quickly, though, and especially in Austin. Outside of Austin and other major Cities in Texas is what concerns me. Anyways... didn't mean emphasize Texas so much as this is a national epidemic. But to all else out there realize that the most effective vote is on a local level...ehem... that is if the Supreme Court doesn't stomp all over it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #48 posted by Hope on June 25, 2005 at 04:40:15 PT
That's a beautiful lake and the woods are beautiful, too. I hope they can fix and maintain it. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #47 posted by Hope on June 25, 2005 at 04:28:53 PT
Excellent, Bud Patron.
Very well written, indeed. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #46 posted by bud patron on June 25, 2005 at 04:22:31 PT:
email to my rep
I just emailed this to my representative in the US House of Representatives (John R. Carter; R-TX) and I thought it insightful. This is my first time posting on this site though I have been reading articles and comments here for several months. What do you guys think of this email? I fear it fell on deaf ears, though I tried schmoozing a little. Oh, and thanks FOM for the site. Here it is...Please do something about the 5th amendment violation decided by the Supreme Court in which private property can be taken by the government for private development. Please introduce or support a bill to uphold our 5th amendment right and stop abuse of eminent domain. Land and home ownership is at the core of what America and freedom stands for. In the last few weeks I have watched as our Bill of Rights as intended by our founding fathers has been stripped away. I am in awe at the recent Supreme Court decisions as well as some made by the US Congress. This article I read sums it up for me for the most part (I disagree with the author about not liking medical marijuana laws). Thank you for lending an ear - begin quotesthe above article by Barry Smith along with reference to the authorend quotesBy the way, I have to say that I am disappointed with your failure to support thus far (at least recently) our 1st and 10th amendments (your vote on flag burning and federal funding to prosecute medical marijuana patients following state laws). Oh, while I'm writing you I would also like to say - please put a complete stop to the Patriot Act, which is a complete and blatant attack on our constitutional rights, and note again my disappointment on your recent vote on this matter. I am a supporter of national security, and at the heart of national security is our constitution and the freedoms that it gives. Those freedoms were fought for and many patriots gave their lives and formed this country for those rights. The Patriot Act disgraces those who have died for our country in the name of freedom. I believe in our Bill of Rights and pray that you do as well. It is your job to represent your voters and I have confidence that you can do that. I fully support our Republican Party and its true values and know that we can make a difference. I hope to support you in the future as well.  Your American Patron,
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #45 posted by AOLBites on June 24, 2005 at 23:59:14 PT
but I do want to obey what the Supreme Court says.
Supervisors nullify medical pot ordinanceFriday, June 24, 2005By Terry Grillo“Sometimes we get our priorities mixed up,” said Richard Vinson (Third District) at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting Tuesday. “We permit alcohol and tobacco sales … but medical cannabis that can relieve pain and suffering has to be outlawed.”“Somehow I think we are terribly confused,” he added.Supervisor Louis Boitano said he agreed with the sentiment of Vinson’s remarks and sees a problem, “but I do want to obey what the Supreme Court says.”“As an elected official, I suppose I have to vote yes,” said Vinson. “But I do so with the understanding that we will come back to this,” said Vinson. He referred to possible Congressional action that may offer a political remedy to pain sufferers who rely on medical marijuana for relief.The U.S. Supreme Court rolled over the medical marijuana movement June 7 when they ruled six to three that Congress’ constitutional authority extends to doctor-recommended marijuana consumed under California’s Compassionate Use Act. The Compassionate Use Act, or Proposition 215, was approved by a majority of state voters in 1996.Following the Supreme Court vote the first week of June, the Amador County Supervisors instructed Planning Department Director Susan Grijalva on June 13 to prepare an emergency ordinance to amend Amador County code and prohibit the operation of medical cannabis dispensaries within the county’s jurisdiction.She returned with an “Interim Urgency Ordinance amending Chapter 19.94 of the Amador County Code” on June 21.Despite Supervisor Vinson’s misgivings, the board voted 4-0 (Supervisor Mario Biagi, Fifth District, remains absent) to approve the county code change. The vote makes the ordinance effective in the unincorporated areas of Amador County.Grijalva told the supervisors that a vote to approve the measure would become “effective immediately.” She added that passage of the interim urgency ordinance begins the process to permanently rescind the possibility of medical marijuana dispensaries being established in areas under the county’s rule.There are no medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating in the county.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #44 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 21:55:21 PT
I read the article you posted but I didn't understand what it meant. I'm glad it happened in open country. Here's a picture of the lake that sprung a leak. It's the largest man made lake in my state I think. They have 1.8 million visitors every year. It is unlimited horse power so some really fancy boats are always out there. We were going to try to put our boat out at least once this summer but we can't since they are letting the water go down to try and fix it.It's a big lake. That's why we built where we did to be as close as we could be to the lake. They have a couple mile restriction on new homes so it won't get polluted.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #43 posted by Hope on June 24, 2005 at 21:34:44 PT
"weak point in the joint"
Don't you just hate it when that happens?:-)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by Hope on June 24, 2005 at 21:26:48 PT
FoM comment 31
"Geologists said Tuesday the crack was a joint in the earth's crust. They believe the opening is the result of a weak point in the joint where one spot slips away from the other."That was in the article. It's a good thing no one had built a house or city over it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #41 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 21:18:07 PT
Hey it's our old buddy Alan Leshner, PhD
From the link I just posted:**************************We know that patients can struggle for years with insomnia, and we know that they use a variety of over-the-counter and prescription drugs to deal with it,” panel chairman Alan Leshner, PhD, says, in a news release. “Unfortunately, we found insufficient evidence to recommend most of these treatments for long-term use. There’s a clear need for more research to fill this gap.”**************************Yes, medical marijuana research, like the kind you said we didn't need, you mendacious moron.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #40 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 21:13:08 PT
Now back to cannabis
Here's an interesting article that relates to cannabis, because one common side effect of using medical marijuana for some physical illness is -- an improvement in sleep quality.Everyone mentions this. It helped my nausea and oh yes, I sleep better. It helps my pain and by the way, I sleep better. You hear that over and over again with medpot patients.So in that context, I post the link below
Insomnia can be cause, not symptom, of depression
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 20:33:20 PT
If a person is mentally ill and there is medicine that will help them then I am for it. I might be against drugs in general because of my experience but I am not against medicine.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 20:31:06 PT
Mentally Ill
Thanks EJ. I always wondered where the people who were in the hospitals went and how they adjusted on the outside of a hospital. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 20:23:01 PT
FoM why they shut down the hospitals
The mental hospitals became outmoded when the psychiatric medications were developed in the sixties. There was no reason to warehouse mentally ill people in locked institutions once medications were available.The intent in the sixties was to have the mentally ill taken care of in their own communities in day treatment or outpatient programs, but unfortunately it took until the nineties for the community care part of the program to be put into effect.Some groups today allege that psychiatric medications are an evil plot to control the mentally ill, but back before the medications, the only alternative was long term hospitalization in a locked facility, which was just a fancy form of incarceration.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 20:07:14 PT
Thank you for posting the article. I hope it is a great success!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 19:59:16 PT
Thanks EJ
 I've heard different people on news channels comment about how Tom Cruise has been acting. I haven't seen anything about Tom Cruise except this Matt Lauer inteview and he was talking about Ritalin and that made me pay attention. I don't pay attention to entertainment news. I don't know what the pop psychology of the 60s was like because I wasn't involved in anything except my family life. I do remember when they decided mental illness was a sin and get saved and you will be better. I remember them shutting down hospitals for the mentally ill but I don't know much more. I never understood why they shut down the hospitals since people can be saved as they said and still have problems. PS: Tom Cruise seems really wired to me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by AOLBites on June 24, 2005 at 19:56:35 PT
PROTEST SUPREME COURT RULING ON MEDICINAL MARIJUANAJune 25th in Los Angeles, CA from 12 noon to 4 pmThe AAMC (American Alliance for Medical Cannabis) and Suburban Noize Recording Artist the Kottonmouth Kings have joined forces for an upcoming demonstration and protest on June 25th in West Los Angeles, CA at the US Federal Building.The protest is a direct reaction to the recent Supreme Court ruling that prohibits doctors from prescribing medicinal marijuana to terminally ill patients. In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled the federal prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a ruling involving two seriously ill California women. 
Protest at the US Federal Building in West Los Angeles, CA
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on June 24, 2005 at 19:27:17 PT
OT: but OH my God this is huge!
Former IRS CID Special Agent Joseph Banister Acquitted of Tax Fraud And ConspiracyGovernment Unable To Prove U.S. Law Requires Income Tax Withholding or FilingSacramento California -- On Thursday June 23, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers. have been following his story and the whole issue of the income tax fraud suffered by The People for a long time. The implcations of this are mind-blowing, staggering...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by stoner spirit on June 24, 2005 at 17:01:11 PT:
I am really getting tired of this government! These people are stomping all over our rights! I sure as hell am not going to take this any more! I hope that many people wake up from their sleep, and start either a revolution, or a riet against the government.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 16:46:06 PT
That's a big crack. What causes something like that to happen I wonder.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 16:40:07 PT
About JWs
I was a JW for two years until I got excommunicated because I wouldn't go door to door. I have the perfect answer for pushy JWs when they come to your house. Just say you were one and were excommunicated and they can't ever talk to you again. They will never come back! LOL!I'm kidding about the lying but I have said that to them and they throw a pamphet in our yard now and then but don't knock on our door anymore.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Hope on June 24, 2005 at 16:24:20 PT
Make that another off topic
Something here in Texas to go with the leaky lake in Ohio. Crack Opens In Earth In Texas
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 16:15:08 PT
One More Off Topic
Nothing exciting every happens where we live but our state park lake reservoir has sprung some leaks. They have to lower it down and low lying areas are on alert to evacuate. We live up very high above the lake so we will be fine. From news article: The state on June 13 began lowering the 2,952-acre reservoir after boils, or soft spots, were found in the earthen dam. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by jose melendez on June 24, 2005 at 16:10:14 PT
Don't Jehova's witnesses knock on your door? Are there not radio preachers in your neck of the woods? Not to belabor the other point, but the side effects of those drugs that helped your brother stole years from my childhood, and in my opinion, all because Jennie was told marijuana bad, poison pills, good.The constitution states we have freedoms, of the press, to speak, to choose our faith, or choose not to believe, and I choose to pull, not push. Those against me will fall of their own weight, and fail by their own corrupted actions. - - -Others will see, andchoose to be, or do decide . . . to fall to the floor. "Social Darwinism Theory" - a haiku by Jose MelendezNon-commercial reprinting and distribution expressly permitted, must include full attribution and copyright statement (e.g., “Copyright (c) 2005 Jose Melendez. All rights reserved”) and the url that the work was found.( )  - - -I have faith that this is the way of humanity, because I see it every day. Perhaps in time I may believe there is another way. In truth, I recognize there always must be some variety. And there again is where, my friend, we need society. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by billos on June 24, 2005 at 15:42:53 PT
...............Justice? Stevens..................
may as well wear a swastika on his forhead.
What a scary, oh so too powerful dweeb.......
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 15:34:31 PT
FoM most religions
don't bombard my home with pamphlets whose main purpose is to convince my brother to go off his medication.The Methodists, the Baptists, the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Jews, the Muslims -- all of them stay out of my family's business.The Scientologists are way more aggressive. The Christian belief is that if you're saved, good, if not, then too bad for you.But basically it's a matter for eternity, for God.The Scientologists act like they have to get everyone off their medication TODAY or their mission in life can't be fulfilled.They don't really have a God so they can't let Him handle anything, they don't leave anything to eternity, it all has to be right here and right now, under their control, immediately.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by jose melendez on June 24, 2005 at 15:28:22 PT
wage peace
"One guy was so mad at the system, he threw a temper tantrum and overturned the money changer tables at his dad's church. Would you believe that it was once illegal to heal someone on a Saturday? No wonder the guy felt burned, with all them bankers ripping the flock off . . ." - jmYes, all these religions are easily corrupted into businesses. Still I'm willing to stand for everyone's right to speak their mind, not least of all because suppressed unpopular speech too easily becomes popular repression.As for Tom Cruise, the word on my street is he bucked his movie handlers and learned to skydive at my home drop zone, and was a real person, not some stuffed shirt.Granted, he's an actor, but I used to have a business partner that got laid three nights a week by hanging out at gay bars and enjoying the women that would attempt to convert him from his pretended sexual preference.Just as those with guns and badges are about to find out about the legality of their war on us, things are not always as they seem.But then, as often in history, "sometimes that happens.One has to weigh the side effects against the alternatives."Flock them if they can't take a joke. They are lucky I chose a pen as my weapon. (grin)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 15:16:34 PT
Off Topic: One More Time
I follow health issues and I've known for awhile that we might have another cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. They waited to tell us on the news just a few minutes before the stock market closed and on a Friday. The stock market dropped a good deal after the announcement. They must plan the announcements so the stock market doesn't drop.USDA Confirms Second Case of Mad CowFriday, June 24, 2005; 5:15 PMWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tests confirmed a second case of mad cow disease in the United States, this time in an 8-year-old beef cow, the U.S. Agriculture Department said on Friday.The USDA said it was investigating where the animal with the brain-wasting disease originally came from and was still doing DNA testing to confirm its herd. There was no evidence it was an imported animal, the USDA said.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 14:46:26 PT
Thanks EJ
I don't like the actor John Travolta. Ever since I saw Saturday Night Fever I felt that was the beginning of the end of peace, love and hippieness for lack of a better way of calling it. He is into Scientology. I believe all religions have good points but they twist something somewhere along the line and try to make people think they should follow them because they finally have ALL the answers. Then people follow them, feel superior to others, and give them lots of money and that's how it goes.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 14:34:03 PT
FoM about Scientology
The have some pseudo-scientific pseudo-religion that espouses a theory that people are like clams with their shells shut tight from trauma and the way to be a real person is to open up your clam shell, something like that.They use a lot of pop psychology from the sixties, with some science fiction elements thrown in.I've heard that one of the reasons people go into it is because they wanted to be cured of being gay.The rumor about Tom cruise is that in high school, he was actually openly gay. He came into Scientology to be cured and that's why everyone in Hollywood is always claiming that his relationships with women are all fake.Scientologists are the ones who came up with that Narconon anti-drug program that claimed drugs pour out of your skin in a colored ooze when you detox.They are against all psychoactive drugs, including cannabis.They have a lot of power in Hollywood because they are very supportive of each other and very ruthless against people they view as enemies. They call anyone who dares to criticize them a "suppressor" and they can be very aggressive when they place you in this category.All of their "religious" beliefs are copyrighted so you can be sued just for talking about them.They really don't allow criticism of any kind. In fact I'm a little worried that they might try to sue you or me just for having this discussion.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 14:23:55 PT
Jose yes there are side effects
Drooling and itchy face yes, sometimes that happens.One has to weigh the side effects against the alternatives.The alternative for my brother was living a life of constant uncontrollable fear, unable to communicate effectively with other human beings, engaging in behavior that frightened other people.He tried Scientology for years, and it never worked.The Scientologists foist a lot of pamphlets on homeless mentally ill people, but you can't eat pamphlets, and you can't sleep under them with it rains and you have nowhere else to go because your behavior is too extreme and your fear level is too high for anyone to deal with.When the Scientologists are running a homless shelter where the products of their treatment plan are functional enough to stand up in public and say, yes, this program worked, I am no longer in fear, I can communicate with the world and contribute to my own survival, then I will give them some credibility.Right now all they do is hand out pamphlets and flap their lips and act like they know it all.Well, everyone who REALLY treats the mentally ill knows better.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Richard Zuckerman on June 24, 2005 at 14:18:54 PT:
It is my understanding that one particular prominent case involving taking private property by the government for private coporation involved Detroit, Michigan, back around 1980, blocks of ghetto taken to build an automobile manufactoring plant, either General Motors or Ford Motor Company. It is also my understanding that around last year, the Supreme Court of Michigan overruled their previous decision and held that they were wrong. Perhaps other State Courts should follow the reasoning expressed by the Michigan Supreme Court some time around last year??!! We must assert our State Constitution in every possible way! While we have it, that is! The Council on Foreign Relations has put together a non-elected group to plan out the elimination of the Canadian border with the U.S. and the Mexican border with the U.S. by the year 2010, which would end States and State Constitutions and leave the comparatively flimsy federal constitutional Bill of Rights as our only salvation for individual freedoms! Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., who owns thousands of dollars in Pfizer pharmaceutical corporation stocks, joined in a House Resolution for the Repeal of the 22nd Amendment, between January and February of 2005. Congressman Pallone votes to make us criminals for burning a flag, too. Yet, surprisingly, he apparently voted in support of the recent States' Rights To Medical Marijuana Act! Nevertheless, he votes for United Nations, which means International Narcotics Treaties and International Small Arms Treaty, which means no pot and slowly BUT SURELY registration then confiscation of your firearms!We get what we vote for. I enjoyed seeing Ralph Nader in Princeton, N.J., towards the end of last month. I mailed him $15 to recoup his loss in last election's U.S. Presidential Campaign. I am curious, though, why an organization connected with Ralph Nader would support Codex Alimentarius, which, by the way, WILL be coming to this country, to render herbs, vitamins, and minerals, on prescription-only, to require us to lick the boots of Physicians with the "you get enough vitamins and minerals in your diet" explanation. I only vote for Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party, and Green Party candidates, NO Democrats or Republicans unless they are members of the U.S. House of Representatives "Liberty Caucus." If people were as interested in obtaining freedom from the pharmaceutical cartel as the Blacks enjoy their basketball games and boxing matches, we would be in a far better situation against Big Brother! Zbiegnew Brzezinski has stated in his essay entitled to the effect "The Technotronic Era" and his 1997 book entitled The Grand Chessboard that AMERICANS ARE PREOCCUPIED WITH SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT AND OUGHT TO BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT POLITICS!! Doesn't it seem to be a bit of a hypocrisy that an American is arrested every 40 seconds for small amounts of Cannabis while the United States Central Intelligence Agency launders $600 billion per year of drug money thru Wall Street, with impunity,;!!! WHO ARE THE REAL CRIMINALS, PEOPLE???!!!I am appealing dismissal of my lawsuit against the Highland Park Public Library,, for their public library "policy" of a 3 minute time limit use of the public pay telephone, even when nobody is waiting to use the phone. This "policy" is not written in the formal written library rules, which do not provide a procedure to appeal. 3 Highland Park policemen arrested me for refusal to produce identification [even though one of the 3 arresting officers already knew my identity] and completely fabricated a "disorderly conduct" charge, which I was convicted in the municipal court, which does not allow for a jury trial. In my lawsuit, which alleges unlawful Retaliatory Prosecution in violation of the New Jersey Constitution [NOT FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!! STATE CONSTITUTIONS ARE MORE PROTECTIVE THAN FEDERAL CONSTITUTION! THIS IS WHY OUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE LISTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS, WHILE THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS ARE LISTED AT THE END OF THE CONSTITUTION!! DOESN'T THAT GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THEIR PRIORITY???!!! FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION RESTRICTS OUR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES! ONE LAWYER TOLD ME HE RUNS TO FEDERAL COURT TO FILE CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY FEES STATUTE, 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1988!!!!]. The trial court dismissed my lawsuit with the ratio decidendi that the municipal court conviction has a collateral estoppel effect, bar relitigation of the underlying facts, unless or until post-conviction relief is obtained. This motion to dismiss was over my objection that municipal court convictions are inadmissible and do not prevent relitigation of the underlying facts, under Kohrherr v. Ferreira, 215 N.J.Super. 123, 128-130, 521 A.2d 377 (App. Div. 1987), Trisuzzi v. Tabatchnik, 285 N.J.Super. 15, 25, 666 A.2d 543 (App. Div. 1995) and N.J.S.A. 2C:1-4.b. The original legislative internt of repealing the Right to a trial by jury trial of a petty offense "...was that of replensihing the Exchequer by the terror of arbitrary and vexatious prosecutions." State v. Maier, 99 A.2d 21, 50-51, 13 N.J. 235 (1952)(Dissenting opinion); Schriro v. Summerlin, 159 L.Ed.2d 442, 450-451 (2004)(Reasons why juries are more accurate factfinders). Today, I visited the New York Public Library, pulled an article about one an unpublished landmark case of the New Jersey court case holding a law unconstitutional because a jury trial of 12 is not permitted, entitled "Holmes v. Walton: The New Jersey Precedent," by Austin Scott, from volume 4 of the American Historical Review, pages 456-469 (1899), cited from the book I recently purchased from, entitled Toward A Usable Past: Liberty Under State Constitutions, at page 179, in a footnote, Edited by Paul Finkelman and Stephen E. Gottlieb, c. 1991, by the University of Georgia Press. The government should not be permitted to deny us a jury trial of petty charges and subsequently deny a trial by jury in the connecting civil rights lawsuit using the vehicle of a motion to dismiss on the grounds of collateral estoppel. It renders our private remedy dependent upon a successful public remedy! I have until July 17, 2005, to submit my Appellant's Brief.Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, New Jersey, 08840-0159, richardzuckerman2002
Affilate member of the Middlesex County Bar Association [New Brunswick, New Jersey];
Member of: [The annual ACLU picnic is this Sunday, in Somerset, N.J.!];;;;;;;; Enthusiastic listener of:;; The Howard Stern Radio Show.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by jose melendez on June 24, 2005 at 13:53:31 PT
That's really great those poisons worked for your family. Not that it's anyone's business, but that crap turned my mother into a drooling freak, with slurred speech and an itchy face.Fortunately for your brother, whatever in his genetic code and "FDA approved" diet that triggered his illness in the first place did not kill him, and he is exempt from arrest for taking what works to make him feel better.Love ya babe, but it's not all about you, OK? Tom has the right to speak his mind, and in my mind he's right that these antidepressants are more hype than hope. Pharmaceuticals kill 110,000 Americans every year.Please consider also that these treatments and beliefs are not mutually exclusive. Some people refuse to eat pork. As long as they are not denying their children alternative sources of proteins and essential fatty acids, there should be nothing wrong with that. Sigh . . . I'm tempted to erase all this, but I really care about you and what you have to say, so I'm asking you for a bit of tolerance. OK?And PaulPeterson, please check your answering machine and call me. This is my community, right here at C-News. I don't toke anymore, but I still vote! - Jose
Prohibition: Legal? NOT!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 13:44:58 PT
EJ Thanks For Sharing
I only heard a little of the interview and when he mentioned the use of drugs on children that's what I was listening to more then anything. I don't know what Scientology is actually. What is it?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by E_Johnson on June 24, 2005 at 13:37:29 PT
I'm ready to go off on Tom Cruise
FoM, my brother has schizoaffective disorder, which is like bipolar mania with paranoid delusions thrown in. He was living on the street until i took him in. Those Scientology people get use the paranoia of mentally ill people to get them to fear treatment. I had a hell of a time (and it really truly did feel like hell) dealing with my brother's behavior until he (thank heavens) was rude and threatening to a police officer and was tossed in the pscyh ward and medicated.The crucial key to his recovery was getting him on the RIGHT medication. Usually with indigent loonies they shoot them up with haloperidol, which can cause severe convulsions, and the convulsions make people stop taking it once they're released.I told the police to tell the doctors he was allergic to haloperidol and the doctors spent a little more time because of that finding a more expensive alternative, thorzine plus lithium, which worked pretty well.He was able to start using a computer, learn email, he took some online classes, and he goes to the gym. His behavior is civilized enough now so that he can take into account the feelings of others and he's not constantly scared by his own imagination. He is okay to live with now and I don't think he will end up homeless again.It's true that in the beginning of psychiatry there were a lot of wrong theories and bad treatment plans for the mentally ill.But I don't see Tom Cruise opening up his home to all the homeless mentally ill people lining the streets of LA.Scientologists are all talk and no action. Show me the homeless mentally ill people they've gotten off the streets. There aren't any.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by paulpeterson on June 24, 2005 at 13:18:07 PT
I just invented a new "drug"-totally legal!
Yes, I have invented a new way of inducing a "phase shift" in consciousness, which includes:increased spirituality, increased sense of purpose, increased calm and it even makes you weak in the knees and wobbly!. I have been dosing on this for the past three months big time and it gets me toasted each time. This is produced by taking expensive commodity crops and feeding them to livestock in the proper ratios. Then, when you eat the meat it hits! The EFA balance is totally changed and your brain loves this stuff-that is why there is an immediate phase shift (left hemisphere to right) and then when you eat typical fast food get this: you experience another buzz as the "phase shift" hits again and you return to your regular dos programming (already in session).Remember, people, I am the guy that has decriminalized 8 towns in Northern Illinois, so the first thing I did was to go to my friends at the Police department and they just gave me some parameters and told me to do voluntary trade restrictions (age 16 minimum to purchase, limits on dose allowed to age 21.) I am now, therefore, CLEARED TO START TO SELL THIS PRODUCT. I have a store at 1100 Central Ave. in Wilmette, Il. 60091 847-853-4200. I have a large yoga studio if anyone wants to come and visit and camp out whist you try the beef and pork for the buzz. I am broke and desperately need funds to continue my business and to publicize my remarkable discovery. HELP ME TO SPREAD THE WORD OF THIS WONDERFUL PROCESS. If I get enough people helping me to get this cash flow process done, I will certainly share the specific recipe for this "drug". It could help Autism, ADD, Alzheimer's, etc. It cuts down inflammation and drops your LDL's to HDL's. Sorry, I won't ship it out frozen. Come to Chicago's North Shore and visit my store and you'll get buzzed (I'm sure glad McDonald's started hawking their own "fruit buzz" which actually kills brain cells. Not mine, though. No headache, no vacant feeling the morning after, just balanced EFA's until the next time! Have you omega'd today?Look forward to seeing youall soon enough. And by the way, when this discovery hits the press, if I can continue to produce this livestock, didn't I just knock a big wide hole right in the middle of prohibition? I mean, really, if you can't trust beef to be "straight" ie: if regular meat can get you high, how do they stop the floodgates from opening up?I will try to get state funds to test whether this "buzz" might discourage marijuana usage in kids. (Remember, you always have to frame any research in the negative aspect, etc.) I call this HIGH DOSE, ANIMAL BASE, RAPID INFUSION "PHASE SHIFT" BALANCING of EFA's and it works, really it does. Sorry, I haven't convinced the police to try it yet-they don't want to get too closly identified with me yet. I have suggested, however, that this might be an excellent modality for the police (good anxiety abatement, etc.). Bye for now, hope to see you guys soon? I'll keep the grill hot and ready. What do you want on yours? PAUL PETERSON, drug war on the run in Illinois-got something better than that.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 12:50:37 PT
Off Topic
Did anyone see Tom Cruise telling Matt Lauer off? Tom Cruise "goes off" on Matt Lauer
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 12:35:38 PT
I remember waiting in line for gas in the 70s. We had a VW Bug because we wanted to save money on fuel. I also ask what happened.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 24, 2005 at 12:15:00 PT
Too late in the game
I remember as a child waiting on gasoline lines for hours. There was talk then of reducing our dependence on foriegn oil. WHAT HAPPENED???
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by ekim on June 24, 2005 at 11:40:29 PT
NPR 3:00 est talk of becoming energy independent
Tom Friedman discusses need for America becoming energy independent. National Public Radio
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 24, 2005 at 11:22:48 PT
keep your eyes open for a movement
People are really anoyed about Iraq, then comes this issue. Americans have been in a state of sleep about their freedoms, instead relying on the other guy to fix it. This type of issue will surely raise their blood pressures, then when the pressure gets too much, the sleeping tiger America can be will wake up, and look out.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 11:14:23 PT
I can't answer your question but I'd sign anything to stop this madness!PS: My home and land was what we invested in not the stock market. I don't want them to threaten people who believe that a home is worth more then Wall Street.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 24, 2005 at 11:10:52 PT
Big Question
Does anyone know of a movement to appeal the recent court ruling? I know a lot of people who don't want their homes taken away for a Walmart. Of all the issues lately, this one really hits home, and people are waking up.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 11:09:11 PT
What is happening to our country with this administration and Supreme Court literally blows my mind. When we bought our land back in the late 70s we knew about how they could take our land. We are next to a state park and we knew we were safe but people in cities or heavy development areas should really be concerned. Real Estate values in those areas will fall. Our land and property value is rising rapidly and we've recently had real estate agents and developers wanting to buy our land and we didn't say any of it was for sale. We bought the land because we loved it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 24, 2005 at 11:07:09 PT
It's only a piece of cloth, it only symbolizes what you believe in your mind. These ideas are separate from from the fabric and colors. I'd rather see the ideas of freedom saved, not cloth. It's another wedge issue by the republicons. Like the WMD's, it's another weapon of mass distraction.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on June 24, 2005 at 11:00:01 PT
You're right, there are a bunch of rules that proper patriots are supposed to follow with the sacred flag. I think they include no flying it during rain, taking it down at night, replacing at the first sign of wear or fraying, always folding it properly when stored, etc.I'm sure the future Americans living in shanties will really appreciate how the feds took the time to protect the flag, in the midst of taxing and spending and borrowing our economy right into the dumpster. Will it be illegal to burn money, once our chronically overvalued US dollar becomes worthless? Just look at the Soviets and their ruble for a preview of what's going to happen here, from many of the same causes. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 10:35:57 PT
Flag Burning
I learned on the Daily Show last night how we should get rid of a tattered old flag. It should be burned! Well gosh if a person burned a flag in protest they would just say it was an old flag and they were following the proper way of getting rid of it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 10:30:11 PT
I agree with you. He is wrong about his medical marijuana statement but the rest of the article says alot. I don't know why smart people don't stop using the term backhanded or backdoor legalization. We want to proudly walk thru the front door and we should have that right.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by legalizeit on June 24, 2005 at 10:06:53 PT
I'm confused...
...he says he's against legalized marijuana, but at the same time decries the trampling of the Constitution.Aren't all federal drug laws technically unconstitutional? It took an amendment of the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, and another amendment to legalize it again. Yet since Anslinger and "Reefer Madness," the slackjaws in Congress have seen fit to outlaw any drug that they want to at their whim, without even as much as a passing glance at the Constitution.I really fear for the future of this country. The Supreme Court is supposed to objectively interpret laws and keep the other branches of the government in check. In recent years, however, the majority just seem to be puppets of tyrants and big business. And whatever justices Shrubbie gets to nominate are going to be just as bad if not worse.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 24, 2005 at 10:00:20 PT
Just a Comment
I hope everyone that reads this article appreciates it like I did.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment