A Mississippi Congressman opposed state control of the militia? So much for states' rights.

45 percent of rural Americans said that the United States should "stay the course" in Iraq
+
And 60 percent of respondents said they knew someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
=
5% of rural americans hate their families.

What the? this is a non-event. Our congress passed an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that prevented governors from withholding units from federal training in the future, challenged in the so called "Supreme Court" and upheld-end of story.

The various states will surely need their troops to protect the people from corporate infested Washington. If at first we don't secede...

When central authority pushes for too much, it is a tyranny.

This could be the start of something good . . .

Our military is being used to protect and enforce "deals" made by Oil companies and corporations who have bribed and corrupted Iraqi government officials in order to have unrestricted access to Iraq's oil. The line separating our National interests from the corporate interests has been deliberately blurred to the point where we don't know which is which. In effect, what's transpiring is that the U.S. tax payer is subsidising the oil companies by providing them with what amounts to a private army. We need to wake-up to the fact that the corporate bottom line is being written with the blood sacrificed by our sons and daughters. It's high time that we nationalize all resourses vital to the survival of our society instead of nationalizing the liabilities but privatizing the profits.

"...instead of nationalizing the liabilities but privatizing the profits."

Well said, Grousefeather.

Bad law, Sonny and the Congress that passed it. Pity we continue to pile bad laws on top of bad laws, at least as regards the runaway power of the president in all matters military, as we drift ever more toward a divine right of monarchs mentality, with the short-term winners being the oil giants, and the long term winners being no one.

Grousefeather February 2nd, 2008 8:42 pm
Our military is being used in order to have unrestricted access to Iraq's oil. We need to wake-up to the fact that the corporate bottom line is being written with the blood sacrificed by our sons and daughters.

What a shame it took seven years for the ignorant americans to figure this out. Maybe there is more to life than reality tv shows, ya think? Even Borat made reference to the Jews being responsible for 911. It was supposed to be a joke - right!!!

Bush is a war criminal and belongs in prison for life. He bears responsibility for a million counts of murder for every Iraqi killed in the war of aggression he ordered.

The corporatocracy has made yet another blatant power grab. All the more reason for you to vote "least worst" corporate puppet. You want to be on the "winning team". You want your vote to "count".

sandyk77: you state it correctly when you write that it took 7 years for the ignorant Americans to figure this out. What's amazing is not only the time it took, but the fact that there is still a significant number of people who continue to believe the initial lies about mushroom clouds and Al Queda having an alliance with Iraq.

Grousefeather has written what so many others have written quite concisely, "It's high time that we nationalize all recourses vital to the survival of our society instead of nationalizing the liabilities but privatizing the profits." That, in my eyes, is precisely what needs to happen, but I know that I'm repeating what so many others have posted here.

In another string of posts regarding a statement made by Obama, one person said that the way to change our country wasn't from the bottom up, but by electing a president who would do that - make all the changes necessary in order to improve the "tarnished" image of the USA. Tarnished image is much too nice of a word to use here. An appropriate word doesn't come to mind at the moment, but the image of the USA around the world hasn't been simply tarnished, it has been destroyed.

I believe that change is going to begin at the local level - if there is going to be any change at all. This article is one example of the States exercising their constitutional rights, or at the very least, exploring the limits the States have over those of the Federal.

And I think it is a great thing that these various States are trying to see how much control they have of their own National Guard. But, in my view, change is only going to occur at the local level – City Councils and Mayors. And step by step up the ladder of power.

Those who are treasonous and want to destroy this great experiment begun over two hundred years ago have been hard at work continually. They may have dropped out of public sight or power, but they have maintained a constant battle since the earliest years of our Nation. Those who wrote the Federalist Papers to let the people of New York – and beyond – hear some reasoned debate about the issues of the Constitutional Convention - had amazing foresight, and despite the advances of technology, they understood power and its ability to corrupt. We were warned long ago.

So my hope is that not only the States, but also the neighborhoods and small groups of people trying to help those in need, and the City Councils elected, will have a bottom up influence and begin the restoration of our Constitution and our actions around the world toward the good of everyone.

As I wrote earlier, we were warned long ago. Constant vigilance is what is needed to prevent the people from slowly sliding down the slope to fear, hatred, insecurity, and ignorance. That is where we are today.

Earthian, I am not holding my breath........

What took them so long? They should have never allowed them to go: they're national guard not international gendarmes.

Good try, but it's useless. Bush will just add a signing statement the court decision proclaiming the decision bringing the troops home. The decision can't apply because it interferes with his constitutional duty to protect Halliburton and MobilOil.

Who is there to challenge a signing statement? Not Congress. Not the US public.

- acomfort

Grousefeather... Right on the mark. Great post!

Erosion of state's rights is nothing new. The idea that states have a right to defend themselves was a big part of the Civil War. No matter where states stood, slave or free, they were told they would do as the federal government saw best for them. Now when it was the immorality of slavery, federalism is a justifiable. But when it's an immoral war that is causing states to lose their right to control their National Guards, then the federal mandate is no benefit but rather oppression. This is what we call statism--the rise of a central federal government over all other governments. Subordinate to the state is everything which could potentially rival the state, independently controlled military forces in particular. War is the most powerful tool of statism--it takes the freedom of citizens involuntarily in the form of a draft. Like Orwell's 1984, statism lacks respect for human dignity. Wars are the ultimate sign of disrespect for human life and dignity, so it's no surprise wars build the power of the state and allow it to control more of people's lives. Looking at the War on Terror, the National Security State claims its right to violate American privacy, to torture, to violate any law or element of the Constitution that it sees necessary to protect the people, or win a war. The State loves wars without end, like that against drugs or terror. Endless wars mean an uninterrupted growth of the State, at the expense of individual rights and those of lower levels of government. State-level control means that the power of the State is challenged, and perhaps the threat is not just political. Military forces could be used to protect the people of a state against disaster and other threats, but the State will tolerate no rivals--it sees itself as the controller of every detail in the little people's lives. This happened in Katrina when non-federal resources were denied access to the city; although I guess Bush didn't nationalize the La. N.G., though he could have under Presidential Directives, the Military Commissions Act, and Disaster Response protocols.

I don't like the sound of this, if we pull our National Guard troops out of Iraq, it will leave our regulars short of troops. They will have to go back over there more often. That isn't fair.

Then if things get bad in Iraq, just when the surge is working as planned, and we pull all of our troops out, who's going to stop the Iraqi's from coming right over here and attacking us. Remember 9-11? Who did that? You have to look at the big picture folks. Another thing is, if we stop fighting the Arabs, the price of gasoline will go way up and a lot of people are going to lose their jobs, our economy is already a little shaky.

We should leave well enough alone, the National Guard troops are getting a lot of excellent training and they are drawing full time pay and they can use the mlitary medical services, dental and eye care, the BX and commissary too. Think about that, a little flag waving is needed here on this site.

The bottom line is we need that oil more every day. Texas and the south are fading rapidly. Prudhoe Bay is declining. For the Brits, the North Sea oil will soon be history. We import more oil and pay more per barrel every year. There will come a time when middle east oil (and maybe Venezuela) is the only inexpensive crude left on the planet, and the cheap oil party will be over.

That is why we invaded Iraq and why McCain says we will be there 100 years. It would be essentially domestic oil. With US forces present, no one else could take it. Big oil profits aside, it would keep our cars running and clean home heating going for maybe another 20 years. Longer if we continue to buy oil elswhere.

So the decision is to stay the course until we have total control and availability of Iraq's oil, or do what Clinton and Obama promise - draw down the forces over less than two years and let Iraq go its own way. That puts the oil on the free market, makes it susceptible to OPEC type extortion, Islamist control, or takeover/carving up by its neighbors.

The ends don't justify the means, and this is probably the worst example of that in American history. Secondly, the means were beyond stupid. We would have had better luck lifting the sanctions and allowing Iraq to gradually liberalize. Instead we blew the lid off hundreds of years of sectarian and tribal hatred.

Sandykk: Pleae don't generalize things to "the Jews". That's anti semitic and shameful. AIPAC doesn't represent the great majority of Jews. Its a radical lobbying organization joined at the hip with the neocons.

10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

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.

Well, this is an interesting development. Revolutions begin this way. The National Guard has other important missions to perform and it seems to me that states are perfectly justified in pressing for a return of their Guardsmen. They are being used as though they were part of the national military establishment, which they are not, and expecting any part-time, volunteer service man or woman to do an endless rotation of tours in a war zone is abusive and inhumane.

Kem,

Please tell me you're being facetious.

Mr.Patrick: Having some fun are we? I like it.

Bush is a war criminal and deserves to go to prison for life.

Wrong. This is the US, a country with capital punishment, the only developed country with such a barbaric custom. The law says the punishment is death, not life in prison. If the law actually mattered, Bush and Cheney would be executed. But the US is a lawless country so nothing will happen. The law is for the poor only.

The Wikipedia has a brief legislative overview of the Guard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard.

Looks like there are competing claims, and changes in emphasis over the decades, to guard management -- but ultimately the President may mobilize them and usurp control. The question is under what very specific conditions and for how long. If the laws aren't clear, it's time to write some clarity into them.

Goin' over Bush's head! I love it!

Ask Black Kettle about waving the flag… Perhaps Covington had too much sand in his eyes top see the colors…

Chivington was an avowed racist and Black Kettle and his people paid the price at the massacre of Sand Creek. On balance, anything we can do today to lessen the influence and financial burden of the military on American soil should be strongly supported.

Paul Bramscher Good idea, but this Congress won't be clarifying any laws. Hopefully it's a lame duck Congress, but maybe that's hoping for too much.

It's interesting how the Republicans howl "state's rights" but only when it's convenient for their agenda. Hypocrites. Something Ron Paul is not, like him or not.

kathyodat

Hey Kem, Are you a reader of James Thurber? You sound like him.

kathyodat

State legislators in Vermont- KUDOS! I love it when people stand up to the worlds leading exporter of terrorism and WMD; the good old US of A.
Notice it was a Bend-over-crat (G. V. "Sonny" Montgomery) who sided with Reagan's use of guard units in Central America. That's why I won't vote for Bend-over-crats. They are the handmaidens of Republicans. Together they comprise the Democratic-Republican party of big business and war.

KEM PATRICK February 3rd, 2008 2:48 am
"...it will leave our regulars short of troops. They will have to go back over there more often. That isn't fair."

About as immoral an argument coming from a "liberal" as I've heard in awhile. The war is illegal, immoral and has already cost all told perhaps 1,000,000 lives if not more (going back to Clinton). You sound like an apologist for the Bush administration.

There simply is no justification for keeping any troops in Iraq one more day for any reason. PERIOD! If your logic is followed we will be there forever. We went in based on lies and for the oil profits. Now this has been thoroughly documented. Please!

Hey tailcap, you need to know Kem a little better. he talketh with tongue in cheek.

kathyodat

It will be interesting to see what sort of verbal gymnastics the righties go through to justify Dubya, Cheney, & Co.'s position. After all, here is another example of their opponents using one of their scared cows, "States Rights," to blunt their policies (the same has done in connection with marijuana). Will the Supreme Court ride to their rescue again?

oops! Thanks kathyodat.

I'd like to see President Obama deploy 10's of thousands of National Guardsmen in a "War against Climate Change", installing solar panels across South America, Africa and Asia, with a budget of $100 billion/year.

Let's see how much Republicans like the 'Unitary President' then :-)

The continued misappropriation of Guard troops for occupation duty in Iraq has many advantages for the present administration. They don't have to rely upon a politically unpopular draft to to make up losses, they can bleed off the states' military support equipment and supplies rather than pay for it out of their own funds and, in the event of unrest requiring the declaration of martial law in the fall election, more dependable Blackwater troops that are now in place could be used to maintain order now that the Guard and Regular Army forces have been stretched so thin and committed elsewhere. I would sleep better knowing that my own state's Guard were at home, thank you very much!

Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul, (yes a republican) this YouTube video about the problem with the Iraq war should resonant very well with your views. Regardless of who you vote for this November, I think the message in this video is something most of us reading this article will agree ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZX9CMgRJEI _ the video does play despite the few frames in the beginning about the video being removed

Iraq was about oil/energy/military corporations using the military to achieve their ends. What does Ron Paul have to say about run amok corporations?

Hi ~Kathyodat~. James Thurber? When I was in fourth grade, I didn't read comic books, I read novels, Lloyd C. Douglass and James Thurber were two of my favorites. I memorized the 1945 Thurber Carnival. (It was mostly pictures.)

As to our troops in Iraq? If I were the president, they would be out of there within two weeks, Blackwater would be dissolved and a Nuerenburg tpye of trial initiated for the entire outfit, top to bottom. I would turn the Green Zone over to the Iraqis and give them a hundred billion dollars to turn that embassy we built, into a university hospital and health care center. (After they stopped killing one another.)

I would have a Congressional investigation for Halliburton, Cheney and Bush and all of their subs. I would end lobbying in Washington DC and initiate the John Edwards health care plan, revising any items that were not deemed to be fair in any manner. I would have John Edwards as our Attorney General and he and the Vice president would both have a desk in the Oval office and in the workng office and they would have apartments in the White Hoese. The tourist visits would cease, we'd be working ten hours a day six days a weeek. The bullshit would end.

There would be two or three presidential aircraft and one fishing boat, no friggin helicoptors. I'd go see Fidel Castro and attempt to make ammends and do the same with a dozen or so other world leaders. I'd shut down almost every military base outside the confines of the Unite States territories.

I'd have a massive program to have clean energy, geo-thermal, wind, tidal and solar initiated and within five years there wouldn't be a coal or uranium fired electric plant in the United States. We'd use American labor forces and American steel and the economy would pick up. I'd fine any corpration that out-sourced jobs to a foreign country and tax the pants off of those who already are doing that. I'd dissolve the Federalreserve banking system.

Everyone who earned over $50,000 a year would pay a ten percent income tax, no deductions for anything for anybody. The tax manual would be a one page document and the IRS would have no more than 20 employees, each with a good computer. The income tax form would be a post card. Any who earned more than $100,000 would pay 15% income tax and any over $200,000, 20%. Any over a million, 25%. Any over a billion, 40%. No school or college student, or retiree living on social security would pay any income tax.

I'd outlaw cloned foods and altered seeds and give small farmers tax exempt status and tax churches instead. I'd have our mlitary patrol our borders, ports and sealanes. I'd have a drug war that would be harsh and productive. I'd end the death penalty and insure prisons were run in a fair,, humane and sane manner. That's just some of the things I'd do if I were the president. My vice president would be a woman, __ a pretty one, with a lot of brains and good common sense. It wouldn't hurt if she was a Tennessee farm gal who had a nice pear.

" Barn Burner February 2nd, 2008 7:46 pm

What the? this is a non-event. ..."

What BB says is [technically] true, but I don't think it renders this present call for the withdrawal of NG units a non-event, for it helps to remind that states too much are denied reasonable authority over their NG units. 'N' means 'national' and serving in foreign wars is not a national matter, except when it's really in defence of the USA after it has been directly attacked; imo.

And the NG have been said to be badly treated by regular Army, etc., sh*t-for-brains-heads so ...! With that hellbent bs treatment, sure, put me in the NG and send me to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Haiti or ...) so that I can carry out my duty, which would be to do what I could to try to help to defend the aggressed nation, which would then be the one I'm serving in; certainly not to "defend" the West, i.e., northern (part of) West. After all, U.S. NG are giving up a lot and aren't presently serving any of the best interests of the USA or anyone else by wrongfully following the criminal orders of the hellbent rogue U.S. govt and its ruling elites. And there is no way to credibly argue that the war is not [totally] criminal and maintained, enforced, ... aggression. As a law-abiding NG, I'd have to either dissent, or accept to be sent to supposedly serve in the U.S. war-of-aggression "effort" or project, while silently switching sides once there. After all, that'd be ethical defence of these aggressed countries and peoples, as well as against the 'enemies from within' in the USA. Hence, I'd be defending in quite universally applicable terms.

We can choose to work on seeing reality for what it really is, or to deny it, and I won't go with the denial charlatanry.

Otoh, I don't know if the NG are paid and funded by their respective states, or the federal govt; if the latter, then I suppose it makes the NG all the more a federal matter, instead of one of state(s). If that's the case, then maybe the states technically should not have authority over the federal govt with respect to the then federally employed and trained NG. However, if it's the states that pay for and fund their NG units, then the federal govt should mind its own business and be made to do so, if it refuses to reasonably comply.

Oh well, so it seems these states are doomed to be overridden; but then that's not necessarily the end of the story. After all, the NG members can still DISSENT and thereby make up for their states being denied authority that, in this case anyway, would be both sane and in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and intl laws, etc. that the U.S. is co-signatory of.

If soldiers wait for everyone else to do what's needed to save the lives of U.S. troops, then this is going to be a very, very long wait; and that's if it ever ends. They may wait forever, if depending on the citizens or electorate of the USA to finally and sufficiently act in the very best interests of the troops, their families, the whole USA, and the whole world; iow, everyone. And that's literally [everyone], including the hidden and real ruling elites, who clearly don't know what it means to act in their and everyone else's best interests. After all, being hellbent gluttons (and liars, ...) is unhealthy for even these pigs.

The so-called non-event is not wholly of this category. It can be thought of like an alarm clock that we set to make sure to wake us up should we still be asleep when the alarm goes off. That's an event, and even if it may seem to be very insignificant in terms of importance to most people, it might be very important or useful (so important) to the persons benefiting from the alarm. If it meant not losing one's job, then the alarm event would be considerable as important; even if not to outsiders (who wouldn't be affected by the job loss). In the case of the latter, it's not the event that's unimportant, but the selfish and callous outsiders who are ... (significantly) malicious.

Word "games"; f.e., being thorough instead of negligent in our evaluations of issues, or "how many times can we split a hair?". I'm "splitting a hair", but still think that the article by Glantz is of value in terms of reminding readers that the NG should not be kept in service of these GWoT wars. By providing such reminders, maybe it can help to stir citizens to add some real energy to calls for withdrawal of NG units from these wars; and although the article only speaks of the war on Iraq, I mean also the one on Afghanistan, ..., whereever NG have been required to serve.

Long before using the NG for foreign wars of U.S. aggression, the elites need to make sure to get their children to enlist in the regular forces, Army, MC, etc., and accept sacrificing their own families. And the reader who said this as well as the members of Congress (and I assume surely also Senate, if the reader didn't mention the Senate) need to enlist and get their damn treasonous asses over to the war zone, for full "service" in it, is wholly right about both.

The best traitors are the dead ones, so MOST of the members of the Congress and the Senate need to get their coward and traitor asses out to the war front; and they could add placing themselves as "human" shields for the poverty citizens who've been lied into this war with strong assistance from a very complictly criminal Congress (and Senate).

If they did that, and they were captured by Iraqi Resistance and tortured, then they'd whine their souls away upon return about this torture; while strongly or fully supporting torture when it's the USA doing this to others. Like John McCain is full example of; the damn demented psycho. that he clearly is.

Maybe the 'non-event' could be made a significant event; if only U.S. citizens, particularly the electorate, got off their asses and applied real energy against these damn wars of criminal aggression and the totally hellbent rogue Cheney-Bush administration; Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Kem Patrick-- please don't do that again! You gave me a freakin heart attack. Aren't you afraid thatsomeone will read that stuff and take you seriously?

Which one? ~Your 2 cents~ Gotta know, don't want anyone keeling over here. Ya know, when you read one of my posts, it's a good idea to close your eyes.

Mr.Patrick: A harsh and productive drug war? That doesn't fit with the rest. You were sounding good there!

May I beg you Mr President Patrick, as an M.D., to please legalize drugs? Heroin addicts, in particular, are nice people caught in a nightmare that wouldn't be so, were it not for the law. I know it is hard to sympathize from outside, but believe me, they have a special problem that has led them to seek this kind of relief. They also happen to become criminals to support their habit and that is bad for everybody. This problem is very old and cannot be controlled except by extreme totalitarian measures if that.

Legalization of drugs is the best way to take the money away from criminals and put it to product use instead of criminal use. Begin by buying the entire opium crop of Afghanistan to produce pain killers and supply heroin addicts. Presto, a million problems disappear. None are produced.

That's my opinion ~Mr. Lizard~. I have seen many lives ruined by drug use. Just one for example, the so called "safe" cocaine. I have listened to several once very decent and productive people tell me, that they didn't want anythng else, nothing on this planet mattered to them, NOTHING except the "White Lady". When they came down from their high, they were utterly miserable, uncaring about ANYTHING at all, and a total change of personality. I would give life terms in a federal prison, on an isolted island for convicted drug dealers. I won't go any further, as it is changing the subject.

~LIZARD~ Since this thread is already halfway buried, I'll add this before I leave to watch the Super bowl ads.

If drug use, heroin, cocaine, etc is legal, we have told our children, mind altering drug use is acceptable behaviour. At what age would it be legal? Do I tell my son or daughter she can't use any until she is 21, or is it 18? Less??? If it is legal, who would be prohibitied from using it, anyone? How about bus drivers and airline pilots, personnel in the air traffic control centers, the people who manintain nuclear power plants, police and firemen, doctors and eye surgeons, teachers and cab drivers, etc, ___ who? Or is it legal for any of the acceptable age?

If the mind altering drugs are legal, do you honestly believe, there won't be illegal drug dealers, selling it to children for less than the taxed drugs at a drug store? __ Don't believe it. Hell, we have a big problem with the so named legal drugs. For medicinal purposes, I'd accept hemp for that. For heroin addicts, allow them to live in a heroin colony and dream away. I'm done, __ Bye. I'm sorry I brought it up here on this thread.

Think about what happened on the Gulf coast with Katrina. The states were short about 7,000 of their best-trained National Guardsmen and their best equipment. Now look at potential and actual scenarios that have transpired or to come. Ice storms such as hit Maine and New Hampshire. Powerful hurricanes sweeping up the Atlantic coast. Massive fires in drought-striken areas and flooding, tornadoes and earthquakes. And don't forget the possiblity of a terrorist attack or coordinated attacks. Where are states to turn for help when National Guards are depleted and most of their equipment in ill-repair or gone? This is not just about states' rights. It's about local and national security. The governors have responsibilities to their citizens.

American Personnel in Iraq need to come home from Iraq as well as all Iraqi's who helped us, and every elected official who does not work for that needs to lose their "job" in November.

" KEM PATRICK February 3rd, 2008 2:48 am

I don't like the sound of this, if we pull our National Guard troops out of Iraq, it will leave our regulars short of troops. They will have to go back over there more often. That isn't fair."

SO WHAT; THE WHOLE DAMN WAR IS OF CRIMINAL AGGRESSION AND IS MAINTAINED THAT WAY. Backing up the regular U.S. forces in Iraq is not an ethical issue, except in terms of needing them to be wholly withdrawn. Since that's not about to happen, the least people can do is to refuse to provide back-up forces from or using non-regular military forces.

A consequentially increased death, KIA toll among regular U.S. military forces there would be sad, but it also and importantly would help to get U.S. citizens finally and actively off their damn asses about ending this war; instead of only a relatively very few putting on demonstrations, etc., and all weakly so.

The greatest issue is that these GWoT wars are totally criminal and based on flooding us with LIES and distortions that are so distorted that they're really lies. The only present issue in terms of the NG is the federal govt blocking the withdrawal of these soldiers.

KP continues:

"Then if things get bad in Iraq, just when the surge is working as planned, and we pull all of our troops out, who's going to stop the Iraqi's from coming right over here and attacking us. Remember 9-11? Who did that? You have to look at the big picture folks. ..."

I don't think that I'd try to stop Iraqis from coming to attack to the USA; it's more than deserved. But it's not going to happen; except, and remotely maybe, with a very few retaliators. The enemies from within are who the USA needs to be worried about.

And the surge is NOT working at all, except in terms of putting more U.S. troops in the war zone and wholly based on lies (while some soldiers simply love opportunities for murdering, ... foreigners, particularly those of colour (far more-so than the blanched or bleached, "colourless" among humanity)).

If the plan was only for the surge putting more soldiers in Iraq, then the implementation of this plan obviously worked; but if the idea or intended goal consisted of more, particularly for providing Iraqis with security, or for trying to make the totally criminal war less criminal, then this definitely hasn't worked at all, not to any sufficiently significant extent anyway.

There's more security in Baghdad, say, but I believe that the improvements probably are far more related to Iraqis who formerly were active resistance fighters now (and for a little while longer anyway) being in the employ of the USA. It's a potentially (hypothetically anyway) a strategically good move on the part of these former Iraqi resistance members; only, not while they are hellbent towards other Iraqis, which is the present and sickening reality.

(They should instead use the opportunity that could be made of this and for gaining and accumulating resistance funds, and equipping, militarising themselves more than before; while fully respecting other Iraqis. But it's not what the fools or goons (they've made of themselves) have been doing. They have been making traitors and "Western" imperialist goons of themselves; too much anyway.) And it might all be part of the secret Cheney-Bush attempt to try to drive Iraqis to kill ever more of each other, that is, to drive civil warring there; aimed at trying to ever more diminish the Iraqi population and their abilities to resist imperialist aggression, for conquest and domination.

But my intent was to mainly refer to what KP says with respect to 9-11.

"The Military Drills of September 11th
Why a New Investigation is Needed",
by Elizabeth Woodworth, Sep 27 2007,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6906

Given the quality of that article, I did a Web search and found the following review of her related book.

"The Hidden History of 9-11-2001
Edited by P. Zarembka
Volume 23 of Research in Political Economy
Hardbound, 384 pages, published May 2006, Elsevier",

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/woodworth.htm

I recommend paying careful attention to what she says. She very clearly does strongly know what she's talking about.

When we carefully consider all relevant matters, then it's easy to understand that demanding that the N.G. be withdrawn from Iraq is a just call, that it's not to be opposed; except by criminally complicit GWoT jerks. We don't even need to consider [all] relevant matters, but if we do, then it's all the easier to prove that the NG should not be serving in any of the GWoT wars at all; as well as in Haiti, etc., if any NG have also been sent there.

Asking any U.S. citizen to serve the U.S. (its hidden and real ruling elites) in totally hellbent wars of aggression and/or any other U.S. crimes against humanity is something to never do, so to never support. Requiring them to do that is condemnably hellbent, for sure.

LET ALL U.S. CITIZENS WHO SUPPORT THIS WARRING SHED THEIR [COWARDICE] AND [TREASONOUS] NATURES, AND ENLIST; get their asses out to the front lines of war (of aggression), and then to serve as "human shields" for the soldiers who were only lied into serving in this hell being reined in upon Humanity. Don't only let them, but make them do this!

With respect to Kem Patrick's bla bla on drug use, he's only speaking of his own, personal encounters, which are definitely representative of a tiny minority of consumers. I was a consumer over several decades, so far, and have encountered consumers like those KP speaks of, but also many others who weren't at all like he describes.

Natural cocaine is NOT addictive; except psychologically, and then only for heavy-enough consumers of it. I had friends who could afford this rich man's drug and who definitely did not overdo their consumption; and NO ONE could tell that these people consumed [natural] (so definitely not crack) cocaine. Marijuana and hash or hashish is not addictive and is very beneficial; although that's not to say that when a serious consumer runs out, then the person doesn't go through some withdrawal effects, for I've personally experienced this. But it's mild and easy to get over; it's the body being drained of any remaining traces of THC, I assume.

Etc. Criminalisation is definitely NOT the solution; it's hellbent stupid, hypocritical, etc.

For KP's words to have any meaningful value, he'd need to equally, if not more strongly, condemn liquor being legal, but I suppose he wouldn't do this; he may very likely be another of these druggies. And like cocaine consumers who supported pot being kept despotically and stupidly illegal, while pretending that cocaine was okay, well, I suppose most liquor consumers can be expected to do the same.

NO REAL M.D. who's honest and seriously aware of reality can side with criminalisation of drugs; and that goes for also the cultivation and sale of drugs.

If we're to do that, then we have a whole lot that is much worse that needs to be first banned, but all the comfy elitists out there refuse to clean up their acts, etc.

As for marijuana (and therefore hashish), this is an excellent (when the variety is excellent anyway) plant of Nature, very medicinal, etc.; and people wanting to cease consuming the (if consumed in enough quantity) psychologically addictive drug known as cocaine (again, not the same thing as crack, at all) or the physically addictive heroin, morphine, ..., then consuming marijuana and in a social context, socialising with one or more people while consuming, so talking, exchanging, etc., this can work wonders. There's a combination of things going on in those cases; f.e., get a high that is relaxing and socialising while getting and enjoying this high.

There's absolutely nothing sinful about consuming drugs; the only problem being when people act wrongfully towards others.

The USA would be extremely far better off if their ruling elites were real pot consumers, instead of hellbent money- and power-addicted. And puritanism; we're far better toking and relaxing, cutting out all forms of human evils!

Nonetheless, it's a topic that is totally unrelated to this CD page's main content. But one person I found to speak out correctly enough on marijuana was at Counterpunch.org, which I haven't checked for roughly a couple of years now (for I really do not appreciate the narrow-widthed text there and get good information and views elsewhere)

KP's not credible; he even supports either Billary or Obama, which discredits his so-called opinions very quickly. In this page alone he illustrates being just another, differently stated but still only other warmongering sh*t. ANYONE who sides at all with any of these GWoT wars, the war on Haiti, and so on, is just another warmongering ass; regardless of how they try to pretend otherwise. Screw those pretenses, just realise that these people really are being supportive of hell being reined in upon millions of innocent people on this planet, as well as against the planet's environment.

It doesn't matter how you're tricked to follow paths to hell. What matters is that you're tricked and follow.

DO NOT LOOK to but very few Americans to learn of much that's intellectually, spiritually, and morally significant; you'll [usually] be wasting your time and thereby lose, instead of gain. Or if you don't lose, then nonetheless not progressing, either.

The only problem with heroin addicts is unrelated to others: a) making it illegal makes it often difficult for these physical addicts to get their dosages, which if provided as was and/or is done in the U.K., then crime rates dont' rise; and b), the addicts' families. The latter can also be resolved by doing like the U.K. did or does too.

First, KP and ilk need to get liquor to be made totally illegal and to make not abiding by this ban punishable by minimally equal prison sentences.

The marijuana and real, so natural cocaine cultivaters and sellers, they're just businessmen and farmers.

Drink too much water and you'll wind yourself up at the hospital, due to 'water intoxication'; consuming too much water and not enough nutrients, for what the human body needs and can deal with. NO JOKE; I know a guy whose mother had to be urgently hospitalised because she consumed too much water too quickly. (Maybe it had diminished or diluted her electrolytes too much, for as we start losing sufficiency in this, we lose ability to concentrate, etc.)

Too much of anything is unhealthy; the trick is dosage, and making sure that what we do consume is fit for human health. Marijuana, cocaine, and even heroin are more fitting for human health than many Big Pharma products are, but there's no way to patent Nature, so it's deemed to be more fascistically capitalistically profitable to find ways to make "medicines" that can be legally patented.

KP must be working for the ruling elites, for condemning natural drugs and supporting either Obama or Billary as he does clearly indicates that he's definitely NOT someone U.S. voters should look to for authentic learning and direction.

Cocaine consumers I knew were more sane, although without saying that they wouldn't today be siding blindly with wars of criminal aggression, and the rest of the hell reined in upon humanity. They were and are human, and many support evils, sooner or later. The trick is to never do that, and evidently many people can't muster the strength and intelligence to remain integrally against evils.

I would not rely on what KP says on consumers of natural drugs if I were any of you, among those of you naive enough to grant him complete credibility; he might be indeed right in terms of the relatively very few consumers he's known, but there's a whole lot more to the whole picture.

The drug war is full of hellbent lies and bs, and he's really siding with it; even if he pretends to be doing otherwise. After all, he's buttressing their hellbent hypocritical claim that natural drugs need to be made illegal and even possession a crime.

Anyone who even remotely sides with that hellbent hypocrisy is immediately suspect and must have his or her words thoroughly verified against [reality]. KP doesn't stand up to real reality; only speaking of the very limited reality the purports to know of.

As a long-term consumer, and living in various locations in North America, I've known many consumers. Some were bums, but it's not due to their consumption. Some were violent, but they were that long before becoming consumers. Etc. Meanwhile, liquor has apparently caused some people who weren't previously violent to be violent, but liquor's supposedly okay.

Want real information? Usually do not rely on Americans' opinions of their so-called knowledge and experiences!