> Cancer is not a Disease - > It's a Survival Mechanism > (Book Excerpt) > > NaturalNews > Friday, February 01, 2008 > > by: Andreas Moritz > > What you are about to read may rock or even dismantle the very > foundation of your beliefs about your body, health and healing. The > title, 'Cancer Is Not a Disease' may be unsettling for many, > provocative to some, but encouraging for all. This book will serve as > a revelation for those who are sufficiently open-minded to consider > the possibility that cancer and other debilitating illnesses are not > actual diseases, but desperate and final attempts by the body to stay > alive for as long as circumstances permit. > > It will perhaps astound you to learn that a person who is afflicted > with the main causes of cancer (which constitute the real illness) > would most likely die quickly unless he actually grew cancer cells. In > this work, I provide evidence to this effect. > > I further claim that cancer will only occur after all other defense or > healing mechanisms in the body have failed. In extreme circumstances, > exposure to large amounts of cancer-producing agents (carcinogens) can > bring about a collapse of the body's defenses within several weeks or > months and allow for rapid and aggressive growth of a cancerous tumor. > Usually, though, it takes many years, or even decades, for these > so-called 'malignant' tumors to form. > > Unfortunately, basic misconceptions or complete lack of knowledge > about the reasons behind tumor growth have turned 'malignant' tumors > into vicious monsters that have no other purpose but to kill us in > retaliation for our sins or abusing the body. However, as you are > about to find out, cancer is on our side, not against us. Unless we > change our perception of what cancer really is, it will continue to > resist treatment, particularly the most 'advanced' methods. If you > have cancer, and cancer is indeed part of the body's complex survival > responses and not a disease, as I suggest it is, you must find answers > to the following pressing questions: > > * What reasons coerce your body into developing cancer cells? > > * Once you have identified these reasons, will you be able to change > them? What determines the type and severity of cancer with which you > are afflicted? > > * If cancer is a survival mechanism, what needs to be done to prevent > the body from taking recourse to such drastic defense measures? > > * Since the body's original genetic design always favors the > preservation of life and protection against adversities of any kind, > why would the body permit self-destruction? > > * Why do almost all cancers disappear by themselves, without medical > intervention? > > * Do radiation, chemotherapy and surgery actually cure cancer, or do > cancer survivors heal due to other reasons, despite these radical, > side-effect-loaded treatments? > > * What roles do fear, frustration, low self-worth and repressed anger > play in the origination and outcome of cancer? > > * What is the spiritual growth lesson behind cancer? > > To deal with the root causes of cancer, you must find satisfying and > practical answers to the above questions. If you feel the inner urge > to make sense of this life-changing event, (cancer that is), you most > likely will recover from it. Cancer can be your greatest opportunity > to help restore balance to all aspects of your life, but it can also > be the harbinger of severe trauma and suffering. Either way you are > always in control of your body. > > To live in a human body, you must have access to a certain amount of > life-sustaining energy. You may either use this inherent energy in a > nourishing and self-sustaining or in a destructive and debilitating > way. In case you consciously or unconsciously choose negligence or > self-abuse over loving attention and self-respect, your body will > likely end up having to fight for its life. > > Cancer is but one of the many ways the body tries to change the way > you see and treat yourself, including your body. This inevitably > brings up the subject of spiritual health, which plays at least as > important a role in cancer as physical and emotional reasons do. > > Cancer appears to be a highly confusing and unpredictable disorder. It > seems to strike the very happy and the very sad, the rich and the > poor, the smokers and the non-smokers, the very healthy and the not so > healthy. People from all backgrounds and occupations can have cancer. > However, if you dare look behind the mask of its physical symptoms, > such as the type, appearance and behavior of cancer cells, you will > find that cancer is not as coincidental or unpredictable as it seems > to be. > > What makes 50% of the American population so prone to developing > cancer, when the other half has no risk at all? Blaming the genes for > that is but an excuse to cover up ignorance of the real causes. > Besides, any good genetic researcher would tell you that such a belief > is void of any logic and outright unscientific (as explained in the > book). > > Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in > industrialized nations during the past 40-50 years. Human genes have > not significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they > change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to kill scores of > people? The answer to this question is amazingly simple: Damaged or > faulty genes do not kill anyone. Cancer does not kill a person > afflicted with it! What kills a cancer patient is not the tumor, but > the numerous reasons behind cell mutation and tumor growth. These root > causes should be the focus of every cancer treatment, yet most > oncologists typically ignore them. Constant conflicts, guilt and > shame, for example, can easily paralyze the body's most basic > functions, and lead to the growth of a cancerous tumor. > > After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three > decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing > and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I > have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some > poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional > trauma that still lingers in his/her subconscious. Cancer, the > physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent > of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration. > > Cancer patients typically suffer from lack of self-respect or > worthiness, and often have what I call an 'unfinished business' in > their life. Cancer can actually be a way of revealing the source of > such inner conflict. Furthermore, cancer can help them come to terms > with such a conflict, and even heal it altogether. The way to take out > weeds is to pull them out along with their roots. This is how we must > treat cancer; otherwise, it may recur eventually. > > The following statement is very important in the consideration of > cancer: 'Cancer does not cause a person to be sick; it is the sickness > of the person that causes the cancer.' To treat cancer successfully > requires the patient to become whole again on all levels of his body, > mind and spirit. Once the cancer causes have been properly identified, > it will become apparent what needs to be done to achieve complete > recovery. > > It is a medical fact that every person has cancer cells in the body > all the time. These cancer cells remain undetectable through standard > tests until they have multiplied to several billion. When doctors > announce to their cancer patients that the treatments they prescribed > had successfully eliminated all cancer cells, they merely refer to > tests that are able to identify the detectable number of cancerous > cells. Standard cancer treatments may lower the number of cancer cells > to an undetectable level, but this certainly cannot eradicate all > cancer cells. As long as the causes of tumor growth remain intact, > cancer may redevelop at any time and at any rate. > > Curing cancer has little to do with getting rid of a group of > detectable cancer cells. Treatments like chemotherapy and radiation > are certainly capable of poisoning or burning many cancer cells, but > they also destroy healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal > tract, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs, etc., which often leads to > permanent irreparable damage of entire organs and systems in the body. > A real cure of cancer does not occur at the expense of destroying > other vital parts of the body. > > Each year, hundreds of thousands of people who were once > 'successfully' treated for cancer die from infections, heart attacks, > liver failure, kidney failure and other illnesses because the cancer > treatments generate a massive amount of inflammation and destruction > in the organs and systems of the body. Of course, these causes of > death are not being attributed to cancer. This statistical omission > makes it appear we are making progress in the war against cancer. > However, many more people are dying from the treatment of cancer than > from cancer. A real cure or cancer is achievable only when the causes > of excessive growth of cancer cells have been removed or stopped. > > Power in the Word > > Cancer is the second leading 'cause' of death for Americans. According > to the American Cancer Society, about 1.2 million cases will be > diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. in 2008. More than 552,000 Americans > will die of it. Among men, the top three cancer diagnoses are expected > to be prostate cancer (180,400 cases), lung cancer (89,500 cases), and > colorectal cancer (63,600). The leading types of cancer among women > are breast cancer (182,800 cases), lung cancer (74,600), and > colorectal cancer (66,600 cases). > > Cancer is not just a word, but also a statement that refers to > abnormal or unusual behavior of cells in the body. However, in quite a > different context, cancer is referred to as a star sign. When someone > tells you that you are a 'cancer', are you going to tremble with fear > of dying? It is unlikely, because your interpretation of being of the > cancer sign does not imply that you have cancer, the illness. But if > your doctor called you into his office and told you that you had > cancer, you would most likely feel paralyzed, numb, terrified, > hopeless, or all of the above. > > The word 'cancer' has the potential to play a very disturbing and > precarious role, one that is capable of delivering a death sentence. > Being a cancer patient seems to start with the diagnosis of cancer, > although its causes may have been there for many years prior to > feeling ill. Within a brief moment, the word 'cancer' can turn > someone's entire world upside down. > > Who or what in this world has bestowed this simple word or statement > with such great power that it can preside over life and death? Or does > it really? Could it actually be that our collective, social belief > that cancer is a killer disease, in addition to the aggressive > treatments that follow diagnosis, are largely responsible for the > current dramatic escalation of cancer in the Western hemisphere? Too > far fetched, you might say! In this book, however, I will make the > point that cancer can have no power or control over us, unless we > unconsciously allow it to grow in response to the beliefs, > perceptions, attitudes, thoughts, feelings we have, and the life > choices we make. > > Would we be just as afraid of cancer if we knew what caused it or at > least understood what its underlying purpose is? Unlikely so! If truth > were told, we would most probably do everything to remove the causes > and, thereby, set the preconditions for the body to heal itself. > > A little knowledge (which is what we call ignorance) is, in fact, a > dangerous thing. Almost everyone, at least in the industrialized > world, knows that drinking water from a filthy pond or polluted lake > can cause life-threatening diarrhea, but still only few realize that > holding on to resentment, anger and fear, or eating fast foods, > chemical additives, and artificial sweeteners, is no less dangerous > than drinking polluted water; it may just take a little longer to kill > a person than tiny amoeba can. > > Mistaken Judgment > > We all know that if the foundation of a house is strong, the house can > easily withstand external challenges, such as a violent storm. As we > will see, cancer is merely an indication that there is something > missing in our body and in life as a whole. Cancer shows that life as > a whole (physical, mental and spiritual) stands on shaky grounds and > is quite fragile, to say the least. It would be foolish for a gardener > to water the withering leaves of a tree when he knows so well that the > real problem is not where it appears to be, namely, on the symptomatic > level (of withered leaves). By watering the roots of the plant, he > naturally attends to the causative level, and consequently, the plant > regenerates itself swiftly and automatically. > > To the trained eye of a gardener, the symptom of withering leaves is > not a dreadful disease. He recognizes that the dehydrated state of > these leaves is but a direct consequence of withdrawn nourishment that > they need in order to sustain themselves and the rest of the plant. > > Although this example from nature may appear to be a simplistic > analogy, it offers a profound understanding of very complex disease > processes in the human body. It accurately describes one of the most > powerful and fundamental principles controlling all life forms on the > planet. However skilled we may have become in manipulating the > functions of our body through the tools of allopathic medicine, this > basic, highly evolved principle of evolution cannot be suppressed or > violated without paying the hefty price of side-effect-riddled > suffering and pain - physically, emotionally and spiritually. > > I fervently challenge the statement that cancer is a killer disease. > Furthermore, I will demonstrate that cancer is not a disease at all. > Many people who received a 'terminal' cancer sentence actually defied > the prognosis and experienced total remission. > > The Need for Answers > > There is no cancer that has not been survived by someone, regardless > how far advanced it was. If even one person has succeeded in healing > his cancer, there must be a mechanism for it, just as there is a > mechanism for creating cancer. Every person on the planet has the > capacity for both. If you have been diagnosed with cancer, you may not > be able to change the diagnosis, but it is certainly in your power to > alter the destructive consequences that it (the diagnosis) may have on > you. The way you see the cancer and the steps you take following the > diagnosis are some of the most powerful determinants of your future > wellness, or the lack of it. > > The indiscriminate reference to 'cancer' as being a killer disease by > professionals and lay people alike has turned cancer into a disorder > with tragic consequences for the majority of today's cancer patients > and their families. Cancer has become synonymous to extraordinary > suffering, pain and death. This is true despite the fact that 90-95 > percent of all cancers appear and disappear out of their own accord. > There is not a day that passes without the body making millions of > cancer cells. Some people, under severe temporary stress make more > cancer cells than usual and form clusters of cancerous cells that > disappear again once they feel better. Secretions of the DNA's > anticancer drug, Interleukin II, drop under physical and mental duress > and increase again when relaxed and joyful. Thus, most cancers vanish > without any form of medical intervention and without causing any real > harm. > > Right at this moment, there are millions of people walking around with > cancers in their body without having a clue that they have them. > Likewise, there are millions of people who heal their cancers without > even knowing it. Overall, there are many more spontaneous remissions > of cancer than there are diagnosed and treated cancers. > > The truth is, relatively few cancers actually become 'terminal.' > However, once diagnosed, the vast majority of all cancers are never > even given a chance to disappear on their own. They are promptly > targeted with an arsenal of deadly weapons of cell destruction such as > chemotherapy drugs, radiation and the surgical knife. The problem with > cancer patients is that, terrified by the diagnosis, they submit their > bodies to all these cut/burn/poison procedures that, more likely than > not, lead them to the day of final sentencing, 'We have to tell you > with our deepest regret there is nothing more that can be done to help > you.' > > The most pressing question is not how advanced or dangerous a cancer > is, but what we need to do to not end up dying from it. Why do some > people go through cancer as if it were the flu? Are they just lucky or > is there a mechanism at work that triggers the healing? In other > words, what is that element that prevents the body from healing cancer > naturally, or what is that hidden element that makes cancer so > dangerous, if it is dangerous at all? > > The answers to all these queries lie with the response of the person > who has the cancer, and not with the degree of 'viciousness' or > advanced stage it appears to have progressed to. Do you believe that > cancer is a disease? You will most likely answer with a 'yes,' given > the 'informed' opinion that the medical industry and mass media have > fed to the masses for many decades. Yet, the most pressing yet rarely > asked question remains: 'Why do you think cancer is a disease?' You > may say: 'Because I know cancer kills people every day.' I would > question you further: 'How do you know that it is the cancer that > kills people?' You would probably argue that most people who have > cancer die, so obviously it must be the cancer that kills them. > Besides, you may reason, all the expert doctors tell us so. > > Let me raise another question, a rather strange one: 'How do you know > for sure that you are the daughter/son of your father and not of > another man?' Is it because your mother told you so? What makes you > think that your mother told you the truth? Probably because you > believe her; and you have no reason not to. After all, she is your > mother, and mothers do not lie about these things. Or do they? > Although you will never really know that the person you believe to be > your father is, in fact, your father, you nevertheless have turned > what you subjectively believe into something that you just 'know,' > into an irrefutable truth. > > Although there is no scientific proof whatsoever that cancer is a > disease (versus a survival mechanism), most people will insist that it > is a disease because this is what they were told to believe. Yet their > belief is only hearsay information based on other people's opinions. > These other people heard it from someone else. Eventually, the 'truth' > of cancer being a disease can be traced to some doctors who expressed > their subjective feelings or beliefs about what they observed and > wrote about in some review articles or medical reports. Other doctors > agreed with their opinion, and before long, it became a > 'well-established' fact that cancer is a vicious illness that somehow > gets hold of people in order to kill them. However, the truth of the > matter may be quite different. > > Wisdom of Cancer Cells > > Cancer cells are not part of a malicious disease process. When cancer > cells spread (metastasize) throughout the body, it is not their > purpose or goal to disrupt the body's vitals functions, infect healthy > cells and obliterate their host (the body). Self-destruction is not > the theme of any cell unless, of course, it is old and worn-out and > ready to be turned-over and replaced. Cancer cells, like all other > cells, know that if the body dies, they will die as well. Just because > some people assume that cancer cells are there to destroy the body > does not mean cancer cells have such a purpose or ability. > > A cancerous tumor is neither the cause of progressive destruction nor > does it actually lead to the death of the body. There is nothing in a > cancer cell that has even remotely the ability to kill anything. What > eventually leads to the demise of an organ or the entire body is the > wasting away of cell tissue resulting from continued deprivation of > nutrients and life force. The drastic reduction or shutdown of vital > nutrient supplies to the cells of an organ is not primarily a > consequence of a cancerous tumor, but actually its biggest cause. > > By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has > undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an > anaerobic surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). > In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their > primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will > manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most > ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and > derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular > metabolic waste products. > > It may be easier to understand the cancer cells phenomenon when > comparing it with the behavior of common microorganisms. Bacteria, for > example, are divided into two main groups, aerobic and anaerobic, > meaning, those that need to use oxygen and those that can live without > it. This is important to understand since we have more bacteria in our > body than we have cells. Aerobic bacteria thrive in an oxygenated > environment. They are responsible for helping us with the digestion of > food and manufacturing of important nutrients, such as B-vitamins. > Anaerobic bacteria, on the other hand, can appear and thrive in an > environment where oxygen does not reach. They break down waste > materials, toxic deposits and dead, worn-out cells. > > The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism > that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to guarantee the > much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading > of the cancer cells. It knows that cancer cells do not cause but, > prevent death; at least for a while, until the wasting away of an > organ leads to the demise of the entire organism. If the trigger > mechanisms for cancer (causal factors) are properly taken care of, > such an outcome can be avoided. > > It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against > cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the > immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a > healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover of 30 > billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to > eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a build up of > toxins, congestion and emotional stress. > > Cancers and all other tissues in the body are larded with > cancer-killing white cells, such as T-cells. In the case of kidney > cancer and melanomas, for example, white cells make up 50 per cent of > the mass of the cancers. Since these T-cells easily recognize foreign > or mutated cell tissue such as cancer cells, you would expect these > immune cells to attack cancer cells right away. However, the immune > system allows cancer cells to recruit it to actually increase and > spread the cancer to other parts of the body. Cancer cells produce > specific proteins that tell the immune cells to leave them alone and > help them to grow > > Why would the immune system want to collaborate with cancer cells to > make more or larger tumors? Because cancer is a survival mechanism, > not a disease. The body uses the cancer to keep deadly carcinogenic > substances and caustic metabolic waste matter away from the lymph and > blood and, therefore, from the heart, brain and other vital organs. > Killing off cancer cells would in fact jeopardize its survival. > Cleansing the body of accumulated toxins and waste products through > the various cleansing methods advocated in my book Timeless Secrets of > Health and Rejuvenation (www.ener-chi.com) removes the need for > cancer. > > Cancer is not a disease; it is the final and most desperate survival > mechanism the body has at its disposal. It only takes control of the > body when all other measures of self-preservation have failed. To > truly heal cancer and what it represents in a person's life we must > come to the understanding that the reason the body allows some of its > cells to grow in abnormal ways is in its best interest and not an > indication that it is about to destroy itself. Cancer is a healing > attempt by the body for the body. Blocking this healing attempt can > destroy the body. Supporting the body in its healing efforts can save > it. > > Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival > Mechanism, > explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good. > Available through www.amazon.com or www.ener-chi.com. > > About the author > Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, > iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. > He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless > Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, > Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No > More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No > More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. For more > information, visit the author's website (www.ener-chi.com). Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!
The great butcher has himself been butchered.The timing is auspicious.These symbolic little “victories” in the otherwise bleak occupation of Iraq often seem to be timed for US consumption.If this one was, then it couldn’t have been a coincidence that it comes on the same long holiday weekend as the death of the 3,000th American soldier there.
And three thousand is not just a round number -- it’s just a bit bigger than the official death toll from the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
The 3,000 number itself was already auspicious in the days after September 11th, 2001.It was on another September 11th twenty-eight years before that a US-sponsored neofascist coup in Chile quickly resulted in a similar number of deaths.Thousands of supporters of democracy and egalitarianism who had elected Salvador Allende to power three years earlier were systematically murdered.Like so many other US government interventions in the affairs of other nations, this one led to decades of dictatorship.One more US-sponsored regime kept in power by torture, executions and systematic election theft.
Like Pinochet, Saddam was, for decades, our guy in the Middle East, along with the Shah of Iran and others.Saddam was one of the world’s most enthusiastic torturers and executioners of Islamists.Even GW admits he had nothing to do with 9/11.But now Iraq has lots of radical Islamists and all kinds of other folks attracted to the idea of defending an Arab country from bloodthirsty American invaders.So now the “war on terror” can go on in Iraq, too.
The US had the receipts for the chemical weapons they sold to Saddam in the 1980’s, and they ignored the reliable information they had from both Iraqi defectors and UN inspectors that all the WMD’s were long gone by the early 1990’s.Instead, they knowingly used this phony search for wepaons of mass destruction as an excuse to impose a more compliant regime on yet another country.
In the 1980’s a scientist from Texas was running a &ldquoharmaceutical” plant in western Iraq for Saddam.Meanwhile, thousands of Iranians and Kurds at a time were being killed in the course of dozens of massive-scale human slaughters carried out with chemical weapons.And, as usual when dictators we like were carrying out atrocities of staggering proportions, the military aid and political support from Washington continued unabated.As long as the main victims of Saddam’s regime were his own people and the citizens of the new Islamic government in neighboring Iran, it was all good.
Following a long-standing tradition in US foreign policy, Saddam attacked Iran in a gigantic, unprovoked assault.Over the course of the eight-year war, over a million Iranians were killed, many of them by poison gas.“Saddam’s martyrs,” the hapless young Iraqi draftees and others who died in the course of this senseless slaughter, are thought to number about 700,000.
It’s another interesting number to attempt to comprehend in some way.Since the most recent 2003 invasion, according to Britain’s Lancet Medical Journal, the toll by violent death in Iraq could be as high as 700,000 by now.
The job of torturing the Iraqi people has for years now been done by the US, in the same Abu Ghraib prison that Saddam used as his chief torture facility.And now the job of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis has also been passed on from Saddam to his American executioners.
Among other things the Iraq Study Group has recommended, widely ignored by the so-called “mainstream” media, is the total privatization of the Iraqi economy, starting with it’s oil.So the job of profitting from Iraq’s vast oil wealth has also been passed on violently from Saddam and his cronies to the US and it’s corporations -- although unlike the current government, at least Saddam used part of that wealth to provide most Iraqis with universal health care and education.
And those people in Iraq trying to put an end to this nightmare by once again forcing an English-speaking army out of their land?Terrorists, of course.
Just like the Vietnamese.In some hotel room a year or two ago I was watching a documentary on Fox television.It was about the Battle of Hue in 1968.The Vietnamese partisans had taken the city from the US occupation forces.The US military eventually re-took the city from them.The Fox documentary was full of outrageous claims about the bravery of the US Marines and the spinelessness of the enemy, how every time a Vietnamese came face to face with a US soldier they ran.
There were stories of courageous “house-to-house” fighting, and no efforts were made to try to familiarize the viewer with any information about how guerrilla fighting is generally conducted.Normally, when you are facing a vastly more powerful military force, no sensible guerrilla force engages in combat that might be described as “stand and fight” for very long.At the end of the documentary, the only honest piece of information in the whole thing was mentioned in passing:By the end of the Battle of Hue, 80% of the city lay in ruins.
Facing such a fearful, spineless resistance it was once again necessary to destroy the city in order to win it back?
And as in Vietnam, the ever-growing resistance in Iraq is a shadowy affair, and is supposedly full of people from other countries and “Baathist remnants.”In Vietnam it was the Russians.In Iraq it’s the international terrorists.Reality be damned, that’s our story and by golly we’re sticking to it.And never mind the fact that the terrorists who came from all over the Muslim world to take Afghanistan back from the Russians did so with billions of American dollars, funded through the regimes that are still in power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan – during the very same decade (the 1980’s) that the US was supporting Saddam’s war against other Islamists who we didn’t like!
A woman I know was telling me about her lover.I’ll call him Ghassan.Ghassan was a young man full of vitality, with great hopes for the future.He was educated as an engineer in an ivy league university in the west and spoke fluent English.He despised Saddam as well as Islamic fundamentalism.Like so many others throughout the Middle East, he was a secular, leftwing pan-Arabist.
And like most Arabs – unlike most people in the west – Ghassan knew of the double-standards of the invaders.He knew that despite the rhetoric, the US had always supported dictatorships of all kinds, and opposed movements for self-determination.He knew that the US had overthrown democratically-elected governments that had their people’s welfare in mind, and replaced them with torture-happy dictatorships that looked out for US corporate interests as they slaughtered their people.
Ghassan was a person of conscience.He met a little girl in Basra who had been orphaned by the Americans, and he adopted her as his own.And when his people were being massacred, he came to their defense.
My friend got an anonymous phone call one day.The man on the line said Ghassan had joined the resistance in Falluja.The building he had been in was completely demolished.Fighters were on the second floor.On the first floor was his adopted daughter from Basra, and other women and children.Everyone in the building was killed.The man on the phone said that Ghassan died looking the crusaders in the eye.
If the Ghassans of the world are the terrorists we are trying to wipe out, then, as the bumper sticker goes, we are surely creating enemies far faster than we can kill them.
In the once-beautiful City of Mosques, the resistance had only small arms against the airborne might of the world’s largest military.The US employed helicopters that fired chemical weapons, and helicopters that fired hundreds of rounds of armor-piercing bullets per second.Yet in order to re-take Falluja from the resistance in 2004, the fighting was so fierce that by the time the guerrillas were killed or driven out, about 80% of the city was turned to rubble.
Hundreds of thousands of refugees from Falluja and elsewhere in Iraq continue to flood into Jordan and other countries, wherever they can go.Construction in Amman was certainly booming when I visited there last year.And these are the lucky ones who have managed to survive thus far, and have the means to move somewhere else.If you talk with the survivors you can start to get some idea of how the respected Lancet Medical Journal arrived at the estimates of the numbers of those who have died violent deaths in the past several years of this most recent nightmare for the people of Iraq.
Perhaps I’m being too moralistic.Perhaps we really need the oil that lies beneath their sand.Perhaps all of this is in “our national interest.”Perhaps.As long as it is also in our national interest to support despots, to jail and kill democrats.As long as it is also in our national interest to maintain a state of desperate poverty among the masses of people around the world.As long as it is also in our national interest to be hated or at least mistrusted by 98% of the world’s population.As long as it is in our interest to be in a perpetual state of war, and to be directly responsible for the ceaseless slaughter of millions upon millions of good people on every continent aside from Antarctica.
I wake up in the morning, read the paper and once again I feel like I’m living in a bubble, watching heavily-armed men arm themselves some more, form alliances, make enemies, torture and kill them, then make some more enemies, arming themselves some more in the process, all to determine who gets to drive the car that is spewing it’s exhaust into our little bubble.This is how the world looks when ExxonMobil and Halliburton are determining your foreign and domestic policies.In a word, insane.
But Saddam is dead.One mass murderer is down.How many more to go?
By now, we have all heard the phrase "the culture of death." It is the mindset that sees abortion and euthanasia as not only allowable but as activities manifesting "enlightenment" and "understanding." Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor at National Review, writes of how this culture and perspective have found a home in tangible entities: the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and our courts.
In "The Party of Death" (Regnery Publishing -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company), Ponnuru spells out in lucid and precise language the absolutely erroneous legal reasoning used to create the Roe decision and how its flawed exegesis became a stepping stone for those wishing to expand its purview to include rights for every type of embryonic stem-cell research and even euthanasia itself. In other words, the tragedy of Roe did not stop at the abortion issue, rather it was a beginning for more iconoclastic rulings to come.
The purpose of this book, as I see it, is not to change liberal minds, given that, for most liberals, abortion-on-demand is something they subscribe to not because of its underlying legal reasoning but because, for them, it is what enlightened people believe. It is emotion-based. It also fits into their more hedonistic view that one’s growth should not be stymied by historic moral intuitions or by matters of inconvenience.
Nor is the book written to persuade us of the immorality of abortion-on-demand and Dr. Kevorkian-type assisted suicides. The author rightly assumes the undeniable morality of the pro-life position. The book’s purpose is to provide intellectual equanimity to those who are guided by historic and authentic religious morality yet believe in the efficacy of our Constitution and wish to square our moral beliefs within legitimate legal thinking. Herein lies Ponnuru’s tour de force.
After reading his masterful analysis of the arguments used to create a law out of legal sand, one comes away uplifted knowing that Roe fails not only morally but also scholastically. Roe is a piece of judicial reasoning emblematic of so many predisposed socially liberal decisions and conclusions in search of any supporting straw, no matter how feeble. Roe, Ponnuru proves, is junk scholarship. It is far from constitutional.
The book reveals how the American public has been beguiled into believing that Roe was a middle ground decision limiting abortion to specific trimesters and a few circumstances only. In fact, as the book beyond a doubt proves, Roe gave carte blanche to abortion, for its limitations are so opaque that any time a woman can persuade her doctor that she will suffer emotional pain, she is an honored candidate for abortion. Such persuasion is not hard given that abortionists are doctors of choice, who make their very living from the sale of abortions.
As we all know, emotional suffering is easy to prove. Just look how a terrorist involved in 9/11 was spared capital punishment by a jury due to its belief that Zacharias Moussawi carried within him emotional scars from his upbringing, mitigating, thereby, some of his guilt.
The book begins by showing how the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Hubert Humphrey and what was around when many of us grew up. The party has been taken over by hard core lefties, especially regarding the social issues, of which abortion is the flagship cause. This shift is coincidental with the leadership morphing from what was once middle class and blue collar to what are now wealthy -- very wealthy -- elitists from Hollywood and the East Coast.
Without proper abortion credentials, one cannot rise in the party or have a hearing. The bona fides are abortion anytime for any reason with nothing allowed to slow its pace, not parental consent or pre-abortion awareness sessions or minimal waiting periods. Ponnuru lists the many Democrat superstars who had to change their pro-life position to pro-abortion when deciding to run for President. This portion of the book is short, for the book is focused more on legal and historic rationales behind decisions than on sociology.
Role of the Media
Of course, "The Party of Death" highlights the liberal bias of the media. The media think liberalism is the natural and middle ground, since media people tend to share time exclusively with people who hold very liberal, almost radical positions.
Ramesh Ponnuru is a Princeton graduate, so I took particular delight in his challenges to Peter Singer, an "ethics" professor at Princeton and the high priest of a form of paganism that relishes the collapse of Christian doctrine and supports every form of abortion and euthanasia under the belief that to assign the human being a special status above any other life form is, you guessed it, "speciesism." Next thing, fathers who provide special love for their children above that which they show for strangers will be charged with "offspringism."
The writing is taut, the conclusions correct, the warnings deserving of heed.
In “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters”, PeTA makes a couple of points that appear to be consistent with animal rights. Since PeTA is not an animal rights organisation 1, however, it also makes several suggestions that are anti-animal-rights, and it does all of this within an overall context of legitimising both the exploitation and murder of non-human animals.
First, PeTA correctly implies that most shelters that are labelled “no-kill” do not have adequate resources. Instead, however, they have employees whose actions show a lack respect for the rights of the non-human animals 2. The result for the non-human animals, as PeTA correctly notes, is that the shelters “warehouse them for years on end” 3 and this implies that they die slow miserable deaths.
Second, PeTA correctly observes that when no-kill shelters are full, they are forced to turn away non-human animals, many of whom end up in kill shelters that use painful methods of execution. PeTA proposes the alternative of diverting funds from no-kill shelters to sterilisation programs. That way, new non-human animals are never born and thus are never subjected to suffering and death. 4
The above two policies, taken in isolation and described in the best possible light, are consistent with animal rights. When the above two policies are considered in the context of PeTA’s overall statement, however, it becomes clear that they result in the abhorrent violation of animal rights, murder and grievous assault.
A positive reading of PeTA’s “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters” would conclude that the vast majority of resources intended for cats and dogs should be put into reputable sterilisation programmes, and any remaining resources should be put into creating many more genuine no-kill shelters that have sufficient resources and staff who respect non-human animal rights. This would be consistent with animal rights but, unfortunately, it is not what PeTA says.
Although PeTA does say that more resources should be put into sterilisation programmes because this serves the long-term goal of stopping “unwanted” non-human animals from being born and then killed, PeTA also suggests that no funds should be put towards genuine no-kill shelters. For, argues PeTA, the presence of relatively few no-kill shelters amongst many kill shelters in a society with multiple millions of dogs and cats who fend for themselves on the streets results in those dogs and cats being funnelled into certain sorts of kill shelters that PeTA disapproves of. Instead, argues PeTA, no-kill shelters should be totally scrapped and kill shelters ought to do their murdering by using painless “humane” methods. 5
Mutilation by Any Other Name
PeTA advocates “spaying” and “neutering” desexing programmes. In other words, hysterectomies (removing the uterus and ovaries) 6 and castrations (removing the testes). Hysterectomies and castrations are commonly done so cat and dog owners can more easily control their non-human animal property. These procedures result in acute pain and chronic destructive medical conditions, including very harmful hormonal imbalances 7. That is why humans never undergo hysterectomies or castrations unless they are taking a last resort to stop the spread of cancer. The viable sterilisation alternatives – tubal ligations and vasectomies – have little or no ill effects8. Tubal ligations and vasectomies for cats and dogs are more expensive at present because they are not yet common practice and more veterinarians need to be trained in them 9. Resources should be put into tubal ligation and vasectomy sterilisation programmes for cats and dogs. Hysterectomies and castrations, however, violate the basic rights of cats and dogs: their bodily integrity, mental and physical health, well-being and freedom from pain and suffering. Tubal ligations and vasectomies do not violate their rights. 10
“Unwanted” for What Purpose?
PeTA states that its long-term goal is to “end to the killing” through “a commitment to preventing the births of unwanted animals.” 11 Why has PeTA distinguished between “unwanted” and “wanted” cats and dogs? The answer is that both are property under the law. “Wanted” cats and dogs are the property of individuals. They are commonly bought in &ldquoet” stores and exploited for their companionship. If they turn out to be “bad” companions, they are returned to the store, subjected to harsh disciplinary treatment and control measures or are “euthanised”—i.e. the killing of healthy non-human animals, otherwise known as murder. “Unwanted” cats and dogs, on the other hand, are the property of the state and are viewed as &ldquoests” or “vermin.” Thus, the state looks favourably upon their being killed.
By only expressing concern about preventing the births of “unwanted” cats and dogs, PeTA assumes and thus perpetuates the legitimacy of the institution of “wanted” or exploited cats and dogs. Although PeTA recommends not buying non-human animals from pet stores or breeders, and instead recommends sterilisation 12 , I would not be surprised if these recommendations disappeared when &ldquoet overpopulation” is no longer a reality. In other words, breeding and selling &ldquoets” for our companionship would be acceptable as long as there were no “unwanted” cats and dogs roaming the streets. This would violate the rights of non-human animals not to be bred—that is, imprisoned, raped, kidnapped and used until “defective”.
“There Are ‘rights’ and Then There Are Rights”: 13 PeTA’s Double Standard
Regarding PeTA’s argument that no-kill shelters cause more deaths by indirectly funnelling non-human animals to kill shelters, consider the following quotation from PeTA that I have modified so that it refers to human refugees instead of cats and dogs:
“No-kill” refugee camps should really be called “leave-the-killing-to-someone-else” refugee camps. Even though the Red Cross and Doctors Without Boarders are usually well meaning, they can never put up enough tents to house the millions of human beings who are dispossessed by war and famine each year. When “no-kill” refugee camps turn people away because their facilities are already bursting at the seams—what happens to these people? If they don’t die of starvation or get killed by militants, they go to camps that never turn away a refugee in need, camps that have made the difficult choice to take in every single human refugee brought to them, including those who are diseased, badly injured, aggressive, elderly, or unsocialized after spending their lives at the end of a chain in a sweatshop&mdasheople who have little chance of being adopted by rich Westerners. They take them all in, even if all they can offer the refugees are a meal, kind words, a loving touch, and a painless release [i.e. death by lethal injection] from an uncaring world.
For example, the Director of Refuge In Peace (R.I.P.) in Uganda says “There’s not a ‘no-kill’ refugee camp in this country that does not turn people away every single day. It’s a sham and a scam as far as we’re concerned.” 14
In other words, human refugees should be given a final meal, music should be played on the way to the lethal injection chamber and refugees should be given a “loving touch” of death. Respecting fundamental human rights is “a sham and a scam”.
Of course, PeTA does not make the above claims with respect to human animals. The above parody is a PeTA quotation that has been modified so that non-human animals have been replaced with human animals. But this parody shows PeTA’s double standard: human animals have the fundamental right to life, but non-human animals do not. PeTA’s double standard must be rejected, and with the following understanding:
With respect to human refugee camps that are full to capacity, the unintended side-effect of turning away people who may then die is not caused by the camps. Rather, these deaths are caused by war and starvation, which have root political causes. The causes of war and starvation should be addressed whilst simultaneously creating no-kill refugee camps, and forgetting about the ludicrous idea of having “kill refuges”. This is what we already do because humans have rights. Similarly, with respect to cat and dog shelters that are full to capacity, the unintended side-effect of turning away cats and dogs who may then die is not caused by the shelters. Rather, these deaths are caused by breeding cats and dogs and by those who operate “kill shelters.” These root causes should be addressed whilst simultaneously creating no-kill shelters, and forgetting about the oxymoron of “kill shelters”. This is what we should so because non-human animals have rights.
Last June, two PeTA staff were convicted of cruelty to animals. 15 PeTA staff took dogs from shelters and then personally killed them. 16 “PeTA says it routinely picks up animals at pounds to have them adopted or, if necessary, euthanized. … Among the dead animals, though, authorities found a female cat and her two ‘very adoptable’ kittens taken from Ahoskie Animal Hospital, veterinarian Patrick Proctor said. ‘These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for,’ Proctor said. ‘PeTA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county.’” 17
An anti-animal-rights organisation, the “Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)”, focuses its attention on exposing and condemning animal welfare groups such as PeTA. I strongly reject the basic anti-animal rights assumptions of the CCF. Nevertheless, it has uncovered the officially documented fact that “From July 1998 through the end of 2004, PeTA killed over 12,400 dogs, cats, and other ‘companion animals’ – at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters.” 18
In 1991, PeTA had a non-human animal “sanctuary” called Aspen Hill where it killed healthy19 PeTA said it did this because it wanted to spend the money that would have been required to house the rabbits and turkeys on its other campaigns. At the time, PeTA’s budget was over six million U.S. dollars per year. 20 Imagine if, during the time when humans were slaves, someone giving runaway slaves refuge murdered the slaves in order to spend more resources on other, more effective, anti-slavery advocacy. The right to life of the people in question would have been violated. The essence of a right is that it protects the individual regardless of how others might benefit. Without this principle of right, vivisection conducted upon either human or non-human animals would be justified. PeTA uses the same ends-justifies-the-means mentality that is used to justify vivisection in order to justify the murder of healthy cats and dogs in so called “shelters”. We would never tolerate this if it were applied to human beings. Thus, animal rights activists should reject PeTA’s killing policy, and the organisation itself. 21 rabbits and turkeys.
March 9 - A man in Tasmania's north-west has died from a suspected case of psittacosis, commonly known as parrot fever.
The Director of Public Health, Roscoe Taylor, says the 56 year-old man, who kept birds in an aviary he had recently established, died last week in hospital.
Dr Taylor says the condition is not linked to the bird flu virus sweeping parts of Asia, Africa and France.
The man's partner was treated for a similar illness but has since been discharged from hospital.
Dr Taylor says public health officials and experts from primary industries is assessing the birds in the couple's aviary.
Dr Taylor says it is not a common condition in Tasmania.
"There were cases for example back in the year 2000," Dr Taylor said.
"There was a small cluster again from the north of the state in about three people and it's one that we see sporadically, maybe one or two a year at most, as for deaths that is very unfortunate that this death has occurred because with treatment the death rate is only around about 1 per cent."
Initial symptoms of parrot fever include influenza like illness, typically a fever, chills, muscle aches and a dry cough.
Anyone who owns birds and has had close contact with them and shows these symptoms is advised to seek immediate medical attention.
On Christmas Eve, I dropped in on Brian Haw, whose hunched, pacing figure was just visible through the freezing fog. For four and a half years, Brian has camped in Parliament Square with a graphic display of photographs that show the terror and suffering imposed on Iraqi children by British policies. The effectiveness of his action was demonstrated last April when the Blair government banned any expression of opposition within a kilometre of Parliament. The High Court subsequently ruled that, because his presence preceded the ban, Brian was an exception.
Day after day, night after night, season upon season, he remains a beacon, illuminating the great crime of Iraq and the cowardice of the House of Commons. As we talked, two women brought him a Christmas meal and mulled wine. They thanked him, shook his hand and hurried on. He had never seen them before. "That's typical of the public," he said. A man in a pin-striped suit and tie emerged from the fog, carrying a small wreath. "I intend to place this at the Cenotaph and read out the names of the dead in Iraq," he said to Brian, who cautioned him: "You'll spend the night in cells, mate." We watched him stride off and lay his wreath. His head bowed, he appeared to be whispering. Thirty years ago, I watched dissidents do something similar outside the walls of the Kremlin. As night had covered him, he was lucky. On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life. Freedom is dying.
Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an "offensive" T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the "purpose" of searching him was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic). He is awaiting trial.
Such cases compare with others that remain secret and beyond any form of justice: those of the foreign nationals held at Belmarsh prison, who have never been charged, let alone put on trial. They are held "on suspicion". Some of the "evidence" against them, whatever it is, the Blair government has now admitted, could have been extracted under torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They are political prisoners in all but name. They face the prospect of being spirited out of the country into the arms of a regime which may torture them to death. Their isolated families, including children, are quietly going mad. And for what? From 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005, a total of 895 people were arrested in Britain under the Terrorism Act. Only 23 have been convicted of offences covered by the Act. As for real terrorists, the identity of two of the 7 July bombers, including the suspected mastermind, was known to MI5, and nothing was done. And Blair wants to give them more power. Having helped to devastate Iraq, he is now killing freedom in his own country.
Consider parallel events in the United States. Last October, an American surgeon, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, according to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. The then Attorney-General of the United States, John Ashcroft, called Dr Dhafir, a Muslim, a "terrorist", a description mocked by even the judge in his politically-motivated, travesty of a trial.
The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US Circuit Court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime's "right" to imprison an American citizen "indefinitely" without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Joseph Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate effectively voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantanamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America's most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship.
A related, insidious tyranny is being imposed across the world. For all his troubles in Iraq, Bush has carried out the recommendations of a Messianic conspiracy theory called the "Project for a New American Century". Written by his ideological sponsors shortly before he came to power, it foresaw his administration as a military dictatorship behind a democratic façade: "the cavalry on a new American frontier" guided by a blend of paranoia and megalomania. More than 700 American bases are now placed strategically in compliant countries, notably at the gateways to the sources of fossil fuels and encircling the Middle East and Central Asia. "Pre-emptive" aggression is policy, including the use of nuclear weapons. The chemical warfare industry has been reinvigorated. Missile treaties have been torn up. Space has been militarised. Global warming has been embraced. The powers of the president have never been greater. The judicial system has been subverted, along with civil liberties. The former senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who once prepared the White House daily briefing, told me that the authors of the PNAC and those now occupying positions of executive power used to be known in Washington as "the crazies". He said, "We should now be very worried about fascism". In his epic acceptance of the Nobel Prize in Literature on 7 December, Harold Pinter spoke of "a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed". He asked why "the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought" of Stalinist Russia was well known in the west while American state crimes were merely "superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged".
A silence has reigned. Across the world, the extinction and suffering of countless human beings can be attributed to rampant American power, "but you wouldn't know it," said Pinter. "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest." To its credit, the Guardian in London published every word of Pinter's warning. To its shame, though unsurprising, the state television broadcaster ignored it. All that Newsnight flatulence about the arts, all that recycled preening for the cameras at Booker prize-giving events, yet the BBC could not make room for Britain's greatest living dramatist, so honoured, to tell the truth.
For the BBC, it simply never happened, just as the killing of half a million children by America's medieval siege of Iraq during the 1990s never happened, just as the Dhafir and Padilla trials and the Senate vote, banning freedom, never happened. The political prisoners of Belmarsh barely exist; and a big, brave posse of Metropolitan police never swept away Maya Evans as she publicly grieved for British soldiers killed in the cause of nothing, except rotten power.
Bereft of irony, but with a snigger, the BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce introduced, as news, a Christmas propaganda film about Bush's dogs. That happened. Now imagine Bruce reading the following: "Here is delayed news, just in. From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more." (Thanks to William Blum's Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005).
The icon of horror of Saddam Hussein's rule is a 1988 film of petrified bodies in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killed in a chemical weapons attack. The attack has been referred to a great deal by Bush and Blair and the film shown a great deal by the BBC. At the time, as I know from personal experience, the Foreign Office tried to cover up the crime at Halabja. The Americans tried to blame it on Iran.
Even in an age of images, there are no images of the chemical weapons attack on Fallujah in November 2004. This allowed the Americans to deny it until they were caught out recently by investigators using the internet. For the BBC, American atrocities simply do not happen. In 1999, while filming in Washington and Iraq, I learned the true scale of bombing in what the Americans and British then called Iraq's "no fly zones". During the 18 months to 14 January, 1999, US aircraft flew 24,000 combat missions over Iraq; almost every mission was bombing or strafing. "We're down to the last outhouse," a US official protested. "There are still some things left [to bomb], but not many." That was six years ago. In recent months, the air assault on Iraq has multiplied; the effect on the ground cannot be imagined. For the BBC it has not happened.
The black farce extends to those pseudo-humanitarians in the media and elsewhere, who themselves have never seen the effects of cluster bombs and air-burst shells, yet continue to invoke the crimes of Saddam to justify the the nightmare in Iraq and to protect a quisling prime minister who has sold out his country and made the world more dangerous.
Curiously, some of them insist on describing themselves as "liberals" and "left of centre", even "anti-fascists". They want some respectability, I suppose. This is understandable, given that the league table of carnage of Saddam Hussein was overtaken long ago by that of their hero in Downing Street, who will next support an attack on Iran.
This cannot change until we, in the west, look in the mirror and confront the true aims and narcissism of the power applied in our name: its extremes and terrorism. The traditional double-standard no longer works; there are now millions like Brian Haw, Maya Evans, John Catt and the man in the pin-striped suit, with his wreath. Looking in the mirror means understanding that a violent and undemocratic order is being imposed by those whose actions are little different from the actions of fascists. The difference used to be distance. Now they are bringing it home.
(Italics) John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, will be published in June by Bantam Press
You may remember that a young man named Joseph Maldonado tragically committed suicide at the Chad youth prison on August 31, 2005. The Inspector General just released a report confirming what youth and families have known all along: Joseph Maldonado didn't have to die -- Chad's prison guards failed to save his life.
The official report makes 3 key findings:
Eight weeks of solitary confinement: Joseph was isolated in "lockdown" for 8 weeks, even though he hadn't been accused of any wrongdoing.
Four requests for help: Joseph requested mental health services four times, but Chad failed to provide that help.
Neglect at the vital moment: For nearly 40 minutes after clear warning signs appeared, Chad's prison guards failed to check on Joseph, ignoring CYA policy. Joseph died during those 40 minutes.
The CYA continues to warehouse youth in abusive prisons, even though five youth have died there in the last two years.
As Books Not Bars Field Director Jakada Imani said in the Stockton Record, "They're as responsible as if they tied the sheet around his neck, as if they whispered into his ear every night to go ahead and do it." (Read the news article here: http://www.booksnotbars.org/page.php?pageid=5&contentid=118.)
Major California Paper Again Says: Close Chad Now!
In response to the report, the Sacramento Bee has called on the Governor to close Chad! Last year in July, they declared "It's time to close Chad."
As if once wasn't enough, in their editorial on Tuesday, they insisted: "This incident reveals a system in meltdown. The state needs to close the Chad facility. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation needs to be held accountable for real, not paper reform. Who ends this cycle of delay and tragedy, Governor?"
According to wiki; "A
classic staple of science
fiction and superhero
is matter composed
subatomic particles that
have mostly exactly the
same properties (mass,
intrinsic angular mo...
Beginning in the 1950s,
American and Soviet
scientists engaged in a
dangerous race to see who
could build and detonate
the world's largest bomb.
In the Soviet Union,
Andrei Sakharov was the
architect of this
According to the movie,
According to NIRS;
"Marine life in all
forms, from endangered
manatees and sea turtles
to essential microscopic
organisms, is being
harmed and killed by
systems, used to remove
waste heat at nuclear
3/18/11: "The source term
provided to NARAC was:
(1) 25% of the total fuel
in unit 2 (SFP) released
to the atmosphere, (2)
50% of the total spent
fuel from unit 3 (SFP)
was released to the
atmosphere, and (3) 100%
of the total spent fuel
The world is green where
the trolls dwellThe
forest is deep where the
trolls dwellWhere the
trolls dwell is peace and
calmFar away from human
ill and harmThe trolls'
home is a peaceful placeA
pleasant placeFar from
the grey human worldMany
I had seen some great
beautyBut it hadn’t
been much on my mindMere
beauty didn’t much
move meCute was not
enough to catch my eyeI
could appreciate it but I
itUntil I saw her that
morningIn her long dress
as black as the ...
Every nuclear reactor
is a military industrial
complex stocked up with
1300 weapons of mass
destruction that if
released for ANY reason,
can wipe out all life on
the planet, from just ONE
nuclear reactor. If a
Carrington Event happens,
ect.org A nuclear
workers at Fukushima to
cover their dosimeters
with lead to lower
official levels of
radiation would be
workers to work longer
hours inside the plant.
Event Presented by
the Green Party of Sonoma
An Evening withGreen
Party Candidate for
GovernorLuis J. Rodriguez
will be collected for the
Andy Lopez family)
It took one month after
3 reactors melted down
and multiple spent fuel
pools caught on fire and
dried out to raise the
Fukushima mega disaster
rating to 7, despite the
nuclear plant operators
knowing within hours that
3 reactors had melted