Awake

-Are you a God?
- they asked the Buddha.
- No.
- Are you an angel, then?
- No.
- A saint?
- No.
- Then what are you?
-
I am AWAKE.



Einstein

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure of
the universe"-Albert Einstein-


Om Mani Padme Hum

Matthew 25:40

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 7 1-6


1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Missouri Cop Murders Restained Dog Because He Was "Afraid"

By BRENT ENGEL

Hannibal Courier-Post


LaGrange, MO — A LaGrange man who drew national attention after video showing police killing one of his dogs surfaced on the Internet vowed Thursday to seek changes in the law.

Judge Fred Westhoff fined Marcus Mays $50 for failure to register a dog with the city and $100 for failure to have a leash or muzzle on a vicious animal. Mays also must pay court costs of $29.

“We can’t have dogs taking after young children or even adults,” Westhoff said. “It’s just not safe.”

Mays requested the bench trial and represented himself. Afterward, he said he will ask the city to revise its animal ordinances.

“I think if I get enough people together and raise a big enough complaint, maybe they’ll change it,” Mays said.

City Attorney Jeff Curl said he had hoped for a stiffer fine because it would have “sent a message” to dog owners to “follow the ordinance.”

Mays described the animal as an American bulldog, but authorities termed it a pit bull.

The dog, named Cammie, was shot to death on March 31 by Officer Doug Howell.

Video from part of the incident later was posted on YouTube, but it shows fewer than 10 minutes of the 68 minutes that Howell and Officer Jason Powell were on the scene.

The video which was not shown at Thursday’s hearing, was from a police car camera. Mays said a friend of his put it on the Internet.

The officers were responding to a call from LaGrange resident Mary Coleman that the dog had acted threateningly toward her and her daughter as they walked to a school bus stop.

“It was growling at my six-year-old,” Coleman testified. “I wanted my kid to be safe and myself to be safe.”

Mays pointed out that the dog could not have been too angry because Coleman chained it at her home while Howell and Powell went to get special equipment used in handling animals.

The video shows that at one point, the dog laid down on the street and remained motionless for a time.

Howell testified that the dog growled as he tried to load it into a truck, that it later broke free from a chain tied to the vehicle and eventually charged as he tried to capture it with a six-foot catchpole.

Powell described the dog as “aggressive” and “vicious.” Both officers had electroshock weapons, but did not use them because they said the effectiveness would have lasted only five second.

Howell said that he felt the only option to protect the safety of neighbors was to shoot the dog.

Howell fired one shot to the chest, which felled the animal. On the video, the dog can then be seen wagging its tail. Howell said he fired a shot to the head “because I didn’t want the dog to suffer.”

“I didn’t feel it was right how they handled that,” Mays said.

A neighbor of Mays, Frances Hamilton, testified that the animal had previously chased her husband.

Curl pointed out that Mays had pleaded guilty to animal abuse in 2007 and had been ordered not to own pets for two years. Mays argued that the circumstances did not warrant the punishment and that he had pleaded guilty only to avoid a court fight.

Cammie was just a pup when Mays got the female 18 months ago. He said the dog had never been aggressive.

Mays said he has four other dogs – three pit bulls and a mastiff. He said he did not register Cammie because doing so “slipped my mind.” The other four are registered, he said.

Howell and Powell have not been disciplined. Police Chief Dale McNelly said his department is working with the Humane Society of Missouri on additional training in dealing with unruly dogs. The city already has budgeted money for a new animal shelter.

City code defines vicious canines as “any dog(s) that has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly aggressive” and any “dog(s) not in law enforcement service that has bitten a human being previously or attached another human being previously, whether such occurred within or without” the LaGrange city limits.

Even if his campaign to change the law in unsuccessful, Mays said the fight will be worth it.

“I don’t feel (Cammie) was vicious,” he said. “I feel I stood up for her.”

Friday, December 30, 2011

The Existing Administration And Their Lapdog Media Are Terrified of Ron Paul

This was on my email from Newsmax as "Christian Group: Ron Paul Dangerous." First of all if you read through it, nowhere will you find a Christian group. The letter is written by a group that is clearly a supporter of the status quo. Why are they terrified? Because if Ron Paul does what he says, he's going to hit them right where it hurts the most, in their pocketbooks and bank accounts. These people only care about what's in it for them. They take the oath of office all the time with their fingers crossed behind their backs, knowing their words are lies. Telling us, the citizens, us what we want, or expect, to hear, all the time knowing they're going to bleed the taxpayer and citizens for every dollar they can. Ron Paul says he's going to bring that to a screetching halt. He's suggesting that we should get rid of many of the agencies of the government. They delight in comparing Mr Paul to the somewhat addled uncle that's apparently found in some famlies. Since that may be me in my family, I see no comparison. But even if there were, so what? Even addled uncles can have good ideas, right? It's just another degredation of Mr. Paul they throw on the wall to see what sticks. He wants to cut expenses, he wants to increase jobs by bringing industry back to this country, he wants to stop this country from being the bully of the world, there are other goals but just therse are enough reasons why he should be elected President. What do the others offer? More of the same old same old, the status quo, spending money until we're broke, or should I say broker? This country is on a fast slide down the tubes, and the only one that has any realistic ways to stop before hitting bottom, is Ron Paul.


Link to Anti-Ron Paul Article

Liberty Counsel Action: Ron Paul Is Dangerous


Monday, 26 Dec 2011 11:06 AM
By Matt Barber


The following is a column by Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.


After the most recent GOP presidential debate, reasonable people can disagree as to who came out on top. It was abundantly clear, however, who was smothered beneath the pile.
As Ron Paul waxed naive from his perch in Sioux City, Iowa, on issues ranging from foreign policy to judicial activism, one could almost hear his campaign bus tires deflate. Although some polls indicate that Mr. Paul has surged in Iowa, most national polls suggest that, beyond a relatively fixed throng of blindly devoted “Paulbots,” support for the eccentric Texas lawmaker has a concrete ceiling.
Mr. Paul did himself no favors during the debate. Afterward, former Iowa House Speaker Christopher C. Rants blogged, “Ron Paul finally lit a match after dousing himself with gasoline.”
Putting aside for a moment Mr. Paul’s leftist policies on a variety of social issues ranging from his unwavering support for newfangled “gay rights” – to include open homosexuality in the military – to advocacy for across-the-board legalization of illicit drugs, Mr. Paul demonstrated that he has a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of the threat posed to every American citizen by radical Islam. This alone disqualifies him for serious consideration as our future Commander in Chief.
During the debate, moderator Bret Baier asked Mr. Paul: “Many Middle East experts now say Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. … Even if you had solid intelligence that Iran was in fact going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran - including those added by the Obama administration. So, to be clear, GOP nominee Paul would be running left of President Obama on Iran?”
Mr. Paul responded: “But I’d be running with the American people because it would be a much better policy.” (The only American people running with this policy risk running the rest of us off a cliff.)
He went on to reject a U.N. agency report that indicates Iran is within months of developing nuclear weaponry, calling it “war propaganda.” He then spouted the same anti-American talking points we’ve come to expect from the hard-left “progressive” establishment, blaming America for Iran’s efforts to go nuclear.
In defense of Islamic terrorists, not unlike those responsible for Sept. 11, Mr. Paul said, “Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don’t come here to kill us because we’re free and prosperous. … They come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them.
“I don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he continued, all the while demonstrating to everyone watching that a President Paul would be unwilling to lift a finger to prevent it.
His pacifist ruminations prompted fellow presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to respond: “With all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. … I’ll tell you the reason why, the reason why I would say that is because we know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally Israel off the face of the map, and they stated they will use it against the United States of America. Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools to ignore their purpose and their plan.”
Mr. Paul evidently is one of those fools. Iran is today’s version of Nazi Germany, and Mr. Paul’s obtuse strategy of reckless inaction affords him the dubious title of this generation’s Neville Chamberlain. Like Chamberlain’s fruitless appeasement, Mr. Paul’s similar strategy simply feeds the insatiable beast.
Don’t get me wrong. I personally like Ron Paul. He’s that affable - if not a little “zany” - uncle who has the whole family on edge at Thanksgiving. “Oh boy; what’s Uncle Ronny gonna say next?”
Still, you wouldn’t give Uncle Ronny the carving knife for the turkey, much less the keys to the Oval Office.
Mr. Paul is many things, but conservative is not one of them. He’s a died-in-the-wool libertarian. That’s one part
conservative, two parts anarchist.
Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds true conservatism. The legs are represented by strong free-market economic principles, a strong national defense and strong social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.
Mr. Paul is relatively conservative from an economic standpoint, but in true libertarian form, has snapped off the legs of national defense and social values.
The libertarian is a strange and rare little animal – a bit like the woolly flying squirrel. It spends its days erratically darting to-and-fro atop this teetering, one-legged stool in a futile effort to keep it from toppling. America witnessed Ron Paul doing this squirrelly libertarian tango Thursday night. Cute but unstable.
Ron Paul never had a chance; but now, with the possible exception of his most committed devotees, I suspect most people will finally admit it. Regardless of what happens in Iowa, the Paul engine has run out of steam. During the debate it pulled into the station and released its final wheeze right alongside the Cain Train.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action

Monday, December 26, 2011

Did God Create a DEVIL? By Herbert W. Armstrong 1958

I found this interesting article at the The Pre-Adamic Flood & Resources Supporting the Gap Theory site.

Link to the Site


Herbert W Armstrong
 Is THERE a devil? Many people talk about the devil and Satan. Others scoff and say it's just superstition and imagination.
But is there a devil? According to most Christians the Bible is supposed to each that the devil is the god of this world. Indeed it does teach that!
The Bible pictures the whole world under the sway of an invisible devil. Where did he come from? Did God create a devil to tempt us and to try to lead us astray? And then to punish us if we follow the devil?
God Is CREATOR of ALL!
So, let's look back to the very beginning. Open your Bible to Genesis 1:1. "In the
beginning God." God was before all. The next word is "created." "God created." He created the heaven and the earth.
But the very next verse says this: "The earth was without form and void." The Hebrew words for "without form and void" are tohu and bohu. Translated into English theymean chaotic, in confusion, waste, and empty. When God created the heaven and the earth, did He create this earth originally in a state of confusion? Did He create it all topsy-turvy and chaotic?
World NOT Created in Chaos. We read in I Corinthians 14:33 that God is NOT the author of confusion. God is the author of peace. God is the author of order and of law.
Notice Job 38:4-9. God says there that the angels shouted for joy when He created the
earth. It must then have been a perfect creation, not a creation that was in chaos and
confusion!
Why would He create it in disorder and then have to straighten it out? That doesn't
make sense! Dr. Bullinger, the Hebrew authority, says that the Hebrew word for
"created," used in Genesis 1:1, " implies that the creation was a perfect work." That
very word "created" implies a perfect and a beautiful order and system, not chaos or
confusion!
Then how did it become chaotic?
In Genesis 19:26, the same Hebrew word is used which is translated "was" in Gen. 1:2.
And there it is translated into the English word "became." In the first three chapters of
the Bible, and many other places where you find the word "was," in almost every case
it is denoting a condition that was different from a former condition. In other words, it
"BECAME" or "was made" that way. It had not always been that way.  The Earth BECAME Chaotic
Plainly the word "was" has the meaning of "became." The Rotherham translation of
Gen. 1:2, out of the original Hebrew language, is this: "Now the earth HAD BECOME
waste and empty." It hadn't always been that way.
In Jeremiah 4:23, in Isaiah 24:10, in Isaiah 34:11, and in other places in the Bible, you
find the same words, toha and boha, meaning chaotic and in confusion. In every case
that condition is a result of sin.
No Chaos Originally notice Isaiah 45:18. "Thus saith the Eternal that created the heavens, God himself that
formed the earth and made it, He hath established it, He created it not in vain." "In vain"
is an incorrect translation. In your Bible, if you have the marginal references, you will
find in the margin the proper translation "waste."
The original Hebrew word there is TOHU. This Hebrew word is the identical word used
in Gen. 1:2, meaning confusion, or emptiness. or waste - a result of disorder, a result of
violation of law. In Isaiah 45:18 we have the plain statement that God created the earth
not "toho," that is, not in confusion, not in disorder. But in Genesis 1:2, the earth was,
or the earth BECAME - as it ought to he translated - chaotic and in confusion!
Then it became that way after it was created. Now, what could have caused that
confusion? - that disorder? What sin could have wrecked the earth and brought it into
the condition in which it was found in Gen. 1:2?
Life Before Adam?
Now, what was the sin then that caused this physical destruction to the earth? It was
not a sin caused by humanity, because there had been no man on the earth until the
sixth day of that re-creation or that re-making. So it was not a sin of man. Adam was
the first man. We find over in I Corinthians 15:45 that Adam is called the first man on
this earth. In Genesis Eve is called the mother of all living human beings. There was no
other race prior to Adam and Eve.
So the sin which brought chaos was not caused by man. And yet life must have
populated the earth because a sin had occurred on the earth that brought it into a
condition of chaos and confusion by breaking the laws of God.
What kind of life could it have been? It wasn't human life. What was it that populated
this earth prior to the second verse of Genesis, the first chapter?
In Genesis 1:28, speaking to the man whom He had created, God said this: ''Be fruitful
and multiply and replenish the earth." What does that word replenish mean? To plenish
is to populate. To replenish means to repopulate - to populate all over again. Those
very words imply that the earth had been populated before!
Immediately after the flood in Genesis 9:1, God spoke to Noah. He blessed Noah and
his sons and said unto them: "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."
Identically the same words that He spoke to Adam!
In Noah's case we know He meant repopulate the earth. Then didn't He mean the
same thing when He used the identical words to Adam: "Be fruitful and multiply and
replenish the earth?" Certainly here is indication that the earth had been populated,
and that it was to be populated once again. Then what kind of life had populated the
earth prior to Adam, prior to the week called "creation week"?
Next, let's turn to II Peter 2:4: ''For if God spared not the angels that sinned.'' Here is
the sin of angels mentioned.  Sin of Angels!
Now read the next verse, "And spared not the old world," between Adam and Noah,
''but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood
upon the world of the ungodly." There it mentions the sins from Adam to Noah, and it
mentions the physical destruction to the earth as a result of the flood, a chaotic,
physical condition brought about on the earth by the sins of those men.
Was there a chaotic condition brought about on the earth as a result of the sins of
angles? The sin of the angels is mentioned first, and it occurred first! There was a devil
already there in existence by the time Adam was created. So the sin of the angels
happened before the creation of man.
Now read II Peter 2:6. ''Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, [God]
condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example to those that afterward
should live ungodly."
Universal sin was in those two Canaanite cities. Physical destruction came to the entire
part of the surface of the earth which those people occupied as a result of that sin.
Then didn't such a destruction come to the earth as a result of the sins of the angels
which occurred before Adam?
Now quickly turn over to Jude. In the sixth verse, you read this: "And the angels which
kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation [they had a place where they
lived, a habitation, an estate, and they left it], God hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Notice! It is the sinning angels
who are reserved in those chains under darkness, restrained from light, restrained from
truth until the judgment of the great day.
Angels Possess the Earth!
How plain! They had an estate which they didn't keep. In Hebrews 2:5 we read this:
''For unto the angels hath God not put in subjection the world to come of which we
speak." In other words, The World Tomorrow, the Kingdom of God, will not be under
subjection to angels. The present one is under subjection of fallen angels. The
demons, and the devil who is their head, rule this present earth and sway its
inhabitants. The Bible everywhere indicates and affirms that very fact.
How did they obtain their dominion? How did they acquire their power? How did they
maintain their control? Where did the devil get the power to control and to lead and to
rule this world?
The devil is the leader of fallen angels, as you will find in a number of places ( John
12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11). In II Cor. 4:4 the devil is called the god of this world.
He is the king or the prince of the evil world that we live in today. Let's see something
about the origin of the devil.
Turn to Isaiah 14, beginning with verse 4, "'Thou shalt take up this proverb against the
king of Babylon, and say, 'How hath the oppressor ceased the golden city ceased!'"
Here is a king of Babylon.
This account continues to tell how he had disrupted the earth. He was an invader, a
conqueror. He was a war monger, trying to take away from others and trying to acquire
all he could. He had just the opposite philosophy from that of God. In other words, he
had the philosophy of the devil. He represented. the devil. The king of Babylon was the
devil's instrument and tool.
Now we find in verse 12 that this lesser human type lifts to the great anti-type - the
devil - whom he represented and whose tool and instrument he was. Rebellion of Lucifer.
Things are said about the great former cherub, the devil, that could not be said about a
human being. God says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer." Lucifer means
shining one, or shining star of the dawn. God names things or people, or beings what
they are. Lucifer was originally a shining "star." Stars represent angels (Rev. 1:20). He
was a great cherub whose duties were represented by the bright morning star. He was
a light bringer. In other words, one who had great knowledge and truth and light, and
who was to give it to those who were placed under him. He was placed in a certain rule
and authority over angels.
Continuing in Isaiah 14: "How art thou cut down to the ground which didst weaken the
nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, 'I will ascend into heaven.'" Then he must
have been BELOW heaven. He must have been ON THE EARTH.
He said, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars (that is, the
angels] of God." I want you to notice he had a throne, but he wasn't willing to be
content with his jurisdiction. He was out to rule the universe.
Now notice what else Lucifer said: "I will ascend above the heights of the CLOUDS. I
will be like the most High." "I'm going to be god myself," he said.
Lucifer Becomes the Devil.
So Lucifer became the devil. God changed his name when his character changed. He
tried to make himself God. But we find HE WAS CAST DOWN TO THIS EARTH.
Now, quickly turn over to Ezekiel 28, verse 1. "Son of man, say unto the prince of
Tyrus. . ." The prince of Tyre, or Tyrus, was a very evil man. He was an aggressor, an
invader, a conqueror. He was a tool of the devil. Now, as we come to the twelfth verse,
just as in Isaiah 14, the lesser type lifts up to the great anti-type. We find the devil
himself pictured! Now we find one that is not human at all. For a few verses, it is talking
about the devil himself, and not about a human being.
Beginning at verse 12: ''Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus."
Here is the REAL king that ruled in and through the prince of Tyrus. "And say unto him,
Thus saith the Lord God. Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in
beauty." Here was one who sealed up the sum total of perfection, of wisdom, and
beauty.
Could that be said about a man? Does God speak like that of any mortal man? Never!
He is speaking of some being far greater than man. Notice, "Thou hast been in Eden,
the garden of God." On the earth! Then he said, "The workmanship of thy tabrets and
thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast CREATED." This was not a
human being, who was born.
The prophet continues to say, "Thou art the anointed CHERUB that covereth." If you
will refer to Exodus 25, verses 16-22, you will find the type of the throne of God
described. Included in the earthly type - the tabernacle in the days of Moses - was the
mercy seat which was a picture of the very throne of God. On it two cherubim were
placed. They were made of metals, of course, but their wings stretched out and
covered the very throne of God. They symbolized the two great cherubs whose wings
cover the very throne of God.
Through Ezekiel, God says: "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth." In other
words, one of the two great cherubs ruling over millions of other angels! He was a
created being. He sealed up the sum total of perfection, of wisdom, and of beauty.
Then in verse 14, we read this: "I have set thee so," God said. God had set him in
office. "Thou wast upon the holy mountain of God,'' - Palestine or Eden! "Thou wast
perfect in thy ways from the day thou wast created. Here was a being that was created
perfect UNTIL INIQUITY WAS FOUND IN HIM.
That iniquity was described in Isaiah 14. He said, "I'm not satisfied with what I have. I'm
going to become an invader. I'm going to take God's place and be the God of the
universe." That was the devil's sin - INSUBORDINATION.
How the Earth Became Chaotic
A third of the angels united with Satan in the rebellion. That is what caused the chaos
of this earth. The sin of angels reached into the heavens and brought chaos on earth.
What the geologists and astronomers see is not an evolving universe, but the
wreckage of a titanic battle waged by spirits throughout space - a battle fought before
man's creation.
The earth was created perfect and complete. Then it BECAME chaotic as a result of
rebellion. And in six days, God re-made the earth, re-shaped, re-fashioned it, and
created human beings upon it.
He gave Adam a chance to take the place of Satan the devil. Remember, Lucifer had
been placed in rulership. God placed the great cherub, Lucifer, to carry out His
government on the earth; but Lucifer refused to carry out God's will, God's commands,
God's government. He wanted to substitute his own - So he disqualified himself.
Adam had the chance to supplant him. In the contest to see if Adam would conquer, if
he would obey God, he failed. He obeyed the devil instead, and man became the
property of the devil, and the whole human race was sold down the river to the devil
ever since.
Jesus Christ came 4000 years later and He entered the great contest - the contest of
the temptation on the Mount. He REFUSED to obey the devil. He quoted scripture
correctly. He obeyed God. Finally, He turned to the devil, and He gave Satan a
command. He said, "Get away from me," and the devil obeyed!
From that time on, the successor of Satan has been qualified to take over the rule of
the earth. But Jesus went to heaven for 1900 years. He is soon coming again, and
when He does, the devil will be DISPLACED. Christ will rule the earth; God's laws will
be restored. Order and peace will come at last!
So God did NOT create a devil. He created a cherub, Lucifer - perfect in his ways, but
with the power of free choice - and Lucifer transformed himself into a devil by rebellion
against the government of God!  Today, you face the question: Will You obey the ways of Satan, or the LAWS of GOD?

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Avalokitesuara Bodisattva

Avalokitesuara Bodisattva

when practicing deeply the Prashna Paramita
perceive that all five skandas are empty
and was safe from all suffering and distress
Know then:
form does not differ from emptiness
emptiness does not differ from form
that which is form is emptiness, that which
is emptiness form, these same is true of
feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness;
all dhamas are marked with emptiness
they do not appear or disappear, are not
tainted or pure, do not increase or
decrease, therefore in emptiness, no form,
no feeling, no impulses, no perception,
no consciousness, no eyes, no ears
no nose, no tougue, no body, no mind
no colour, no sound, no smell, no taste,
no touch, no object of mind, no realm of sensing,
go forth until no realm of consciousness
no ignorance and no extinction of it, and
so forth until no death, no holding,
no extinction of them, no suffering,
no origination, no stopping, no path,
no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain.
the bohdisattva deepens on Prashna Paramita
and the mind is no hindrance
without any hindrance, no fears exist,
for apart from every perverted view
the bodisatva dwells in nivana, in
the three worlds, all Buddhas deepens on
Prashna Paramita and attain the unsurpassed
complete perfect enlightmentmant
Therefore know the Prashna Paramita is
the great transcendent mantra, is the great
bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is
the supreme mantra which is able to release
all suffering and pain, so proclaim
the Prashna Paramita mantra, proclaim
the matra
ga-te ga-te para ga-te, para sum ga-te
bodhi savra

Response to Petition on the Abolishment of the Transportation Security Administration by Pervert Pistole

All I'm going to say is that the goons and pedophiles at the TSA would have you believe that it's because of them that there's been no significant terrorism since 9/11. These liars with all of their health endangering equip. and invasive and perverted "pat-downs" haven't been responsible for the apprehension of one, yes not even one terrorist. True they've been responsible for violating many little girls and boys, grandmothers, invalids in wheelchairs, nuns and every other kind of tourist who is stupid or desperate enough to get somewhere that they make the mistake of flying. But not one terrorist.
We're in their eyes, apparently too stupid to realize that the terrorists have half a brain too, and won't fall into their "trap."


The Head Pervert - Pistole
Response to Petition on the Abolishment of the Transportation Security Administration




By John Pistole, the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration


Thank you for participating in the We the People platform, we respect the right of the petitioners to be heard and value the feedback we receive from travelers who share their experiences – good or bad – with us. The men and women of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have a challenging, but critical mission, and they take their jobs very seriously. TSA understands that the terrorist threat remains real and continues to evolve, as evidenced by the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009 and the disrupted air cargo bomb plot last year.


Why TSA Exists.


TSA was created two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, when Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) [.pdf] to keep the millions of Americans who travel each day safe and secure across numerous modes of transportation.


Over the past 10 years, TSA has strengthened security by creating successful programs and deploying technologies that were not in place prior to September 11, while also taking steps whenever possible to enhance the passenger experience. Here are just a few of the many steps TSA has taken to strengthen our multi-layered approach to security:


Establishing an Intelligence-Driven Approach.


TSA uses intelligence in real-time to strengthen security and share key information with state, local, and international partners, to ensure they can respond to evolving threats.


Vetting of Passengers and Transportation Workers.


Today, 100 percent of passengers flying to, from, and within the United States are prescreened against terrorist watch lists under TSA's Secure Flight program. In addition, employees with access to airports and ports, and those who transport higher risk materials, are vetted to ensure a secure environment.


Screening for Explosives.


TSA screens 100 percent of carry-on and checked baggage for dangerous items including explosives. TSA has also deployed explosives-detection canine teams. The teams are used to detect explosives and deter terrorism in aviation, mass transit, and cargo environments.


Deploying Advanced Technology to Detect Evolving Threats.


As part of its multi-layered approach to security, TSA uses Advanced Imaging Technology and Automated Target Recognition software to detect metallic and nonmetallic threats, including weapons and explosives concealed under layers of clothing on passengers. Using Advanced Technology X-ray, Bottled Liquid Scanners and Explosives Trace Detection (ETD) Technology, TSA can more efficiently and effectively screen checked and carry-on bags for potential threats.


Covert Testing.


Covert testing provides TSA with valuable information that can be used to modify security measures, improve training and inform the development of future technology. The statistic cited in the petition was from testing performed nearly eight years ago and doesn't reflect the current security environment. Since then, TSA has implemented new security measures and deployed enhanced technology to address evolving threats to aviation.


Strengthening In-Flight Security.


Hardened cockpit doors and the Federal Air Marshal Service serve as additional layers of security against an act of terrorism.


Establishing a Professionalized Workforce.


Transportation Security Officers (TSO) working at 450 airports today are hired through a rigorous vetting process and go through extensive training that did not exist prior to September 11. Today's TSOs have an average of three and a half years of experience on the job and have a turnover rate of approximately 6 percent. This compares to an average of 3 months of experience and a turnover rate of 125 percent for screeners prior to the creation of TSA.


TSA's Next 10 Years.


TSA is working to enhance its risk-based, intelligence-driven security initiatives to strengthen security while continuing to improve the passenger experience whenever possible. Current efforts include: changing the way TSA screens passengers ages 12 and under, evaluating the expanded use of behavior detection techniques, and piloting expedited screening for known travelers. Efficiencies gained by implementing more risk-based security methods allow us to make the best possible use of the resources to secure air travel.


Additionally, new software has been deployed to further strengthen privacy protections by eliminating passenger-specific images on Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) machines. The new software has been installed on all millimeter wave AIT units currently in airports, with plans to test and deploy similar software for backscatter units in 2012.


Our Nation is safer and better prepared today because of these and other efforts of the Department of Homeland Security, TSA, and our federal, state, local and international partners. TSA is constantly identifying ways to continue to strengthen security and improve the passenger experience and appreciates the feedback of the public.


We invite you to stop by TSA's blog to continue this discussion.


Check out this response on We the People

Friday, December 23, 2011

Zbigniew Brzezinski on global political awakening and activism

February 18, 2011


Quote of the week: Zbigniew Brzezinski on global political awakening and activism
Quote of the week: (hat tip to Democracy Watch in Ukraine at htt://www.peoplefirst.org.ua )


"For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive... The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination... [The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might be greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people."


Zbigniew Brzezinski


Former U.S. National Security Advisor
Co-Founder of the Trilateral Commission Member, Board of Trustees, Center for Strategic and International Studies


FTW, November 7, 2001, 1200 PST (Revised Jan. 21,2002) - There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco - and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report - is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."



Some Americans do read. So do Europeans and Asians and Africans and Latin Americans.


World events since the attacks of September 11, 2001 have not only been predicted, but also planned, orchestrated and - as their architects would like to believe - controlled. The current Central Asian war is not a response to terrorism, nor is it a reaction to Islamic fundamentalism. It is in fact, in the words of one of the most powerful men on the planet, the beginning of a final conflict before total world domination by the United States leads to the dissolution of all national governments. This, says Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member and former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, will lead to nation states being incorporated into a new world order, controlled solely by economic interests as dictated by banks, corporations and ruling elites concerned with the maintenance (by manipulation and war) of their power. As a means of intimidation for the unenlightened reader who happens upon this frightening plan - the plan of the CFR - Brzezinski offers the alternative of a world in chaos unless the U.S. controls the planet by whatever means are necessary and likely to succeed.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of the US Police Force

I found this article on line at World Afternet and I'm passing it along as it is really scarey to those of us that are upset by the rapidly increasing police abuse in this country and in the rest of the world.


Link to Original Article


WORLD AlterNet / By Rania Khalek

Why Do the Police Have Tanks? The Strange and Dangerous Militarization of the US Police Force


The federal government has supplied local police departments with military uniforms, weaponry, vehicles, and training.

July 5, 2011

This article has been updated.

Just after midnight on May 16, 2010, a SWAT team threw a flash-bang grenade through the window of a 25-year-old man while his 7-year-old daughter slept on the couch as her grandmother watched television. The grenade landed so close to the child that it burned her blanket. The SWAT team leader then burst into the house and fired a single shot which struck the child in the throat, killing her. The police were there to apprehend a man suspected of murdering a teenage boy days earlier. The man they were after lived in the unit above the girl's family.


The shooting death of Aiyana Mo'Nay Stanley-Jones sounds like it happened in a war zone. But the tragic SWAT team raid took place in Detroit.

Shockingly, paramilitary raids that mirror the tactics of US soldiers in combat are not uncommon in America. According to an investigation carried out by the Huffington Post's Radley Balko, "America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement over the last 30 years, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units for routine police work." In fact, Balko reports that "the most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home."

Some 40,000 of these raids take place every year, and "are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers." And as demonstrated by the case of Aiyana Mo'nay Stanley-Jones, these raids have resulted in "dozens of needless deaths and injuries."

How did we allow our law enforcement apparatus to descend into militaristic chaos? Traditionally, the role of civilian police has been to maintain the peace and safety of the community while upholding the civil liberties of residents in their respective jurisdiction. In stark contrast, the military soldier is an agent of war, trained to kill the enemy.

Clearly, the mission of the police officer is incompatible with that of a soldier, so why is it that local police departments are looking more and more like paramilitary units in a combat zone? The line between military and civilian law enforcement has been drawn for good reason, but following the drug war and more recently, the war on terror, that line is inconspicuously eroding, a trend that appears to be worsening by the decade.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is a civil war-era law that prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. For a long time, Posse Comitatus was considered the law of the land, forcing militarization advocates to come up with creative ways to get around it. In addition to assigning various law enforcement duties to the military, such as immigration control, over the years Congress has instituted policies that encourage law enforcement to emulate combat soldiers. Hence, the establishment of the SWAT team in the 1960s.

Originally called the Special Weapons Attack Team, the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) units were inspired by an incident in 1966, when an armed man climbed to the top of the 32-story clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin and fired randomly for 90 minutes, shooting 46 people and killing 15, until two police officers managed to kill him. This episode is said to have “shattered the last myth of safety Americans enjoyed [and] was the final impetus the chiefs of police needed” to form their own SWAT teams, according to an investigation by Diane Cecilia Weber. Soon after, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) formed the country's first SWAT team, which “acquired national prestige when used against the Black Panthers in 1969.”

Use of these paramilitary units gradually increased throughout the 1970s, mostly in urban settings. The introduction of paramilitary units in America laid the foundation for the erosion of the barrier between police and military, a trend which accelerated in the 1980s under President Reagan, when the drug war was used as a pretext to make exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1981, Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which amended Posse Comitatus by directing the military to give local, state and federal law enforcement access to military equipment, research and training for use in the drug war. Following the authorization of domestic police and military cooperation, the 1980s saw a series of additional congressional and presidential maneuvers that blurred the line between soldier and police officer, ultimately culminating in a memorandum of understanding in 1994 between the US Department of Justice and Department of Defense. The agreement authorized the transfer of federal military technology to local police forces, essentially flooding civilian law enforcement with surplus military gear previously reserved for use during wartime.

Weber found that "Between 1995 and 1997 the Department of Defense gave 1.2 million pieces of military hardware, including 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers and 112 armored personnel carriers" to law enforcement around the country. But this was only the beginning.

In 1997, Congress, not yet satisfied with the flow of military hardware to local police, passed the National Defense Authorization Security Act which created the Law Enforcement Support Program, an agency tasked with accelerating the transfer of military equipment to civilian police departments. Between January 1997 and October 1999, the new agency facilitated the distribution of "3.4 million orders of Pentagon equipment to over 11,000 domestic police agencies in all 50 states. By December 2005, that number increased to 17,000, with a purchase value of more than $727 million of equipment," says Balko. Among the hand-me-downs, Balko counts: "253 aircraft (including six- and seven-passenger airplanes, and UH-60 Blackhawk and UH-1 Huey helicopters), 7,856 M-16 rifles, 181 grenade launchers, 8,131 bulletproof helmets, and 1,161 pairs of night-vision goggles."

The military surplus program and paramilitary units feed off one another in a cyclical loop that has caused an explosive growth in militarized crime control techniques. With all the new high-tech military toys the federal government has been funneling into local police departments, SWAT teams have inevitably multiplied and spread across American cities and towns in both volume and deployment frequency. Criminologist Peter Kraska found that the frequency of SWAT operations soared from just 3,000 annual deployments in the early 1980s to an astonishing 40,000 raids per year by 2001, 75-80 percent of which were used to deliver search warrants.

Balko cites Kraska's research from 1997, which observed that close to "90 percent of cities with populations exceeding 50,000 and at least 100 sworn officers had at least one paramilitary unit, twice as many as in the mid 1980s." He correctly points out that "the trends giving rise to SWAT proliferation in the 1990s have not disappeared, so it's safe to assume that these numbers have continued to rise and are significantly higher today."

Then there are the effects of the war on terror, which sparked the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the introduction of DHS grants to local police departments. These grants are used to purchase policing equipment, although law enforcement is investing in more than just bullet-proof vests and walkie talkies. DHS grants have led to a booming law enforcement industry that specifically markets military-style weaponry to local police departments. If this sounds familiar, that's because it is law enforcement's version of the military-industrial-complex.

By instituting public policies that encouraged the collaboration of military and domestic policing, the US government handed a massive and highly profitable clientele to private suppliers of paramilitary gear. Following the breakdown of Posse Comitatus in the 1980s and '90s, Peter Cassidy writes in Covert Action Quarterly that "gun companies, perceiving a profitable trend, began aggressively marketing automatic weapons to local police departments, holding seminars, and sending out color brochures redolent with ninja-style imagery."

Private suppliers of military equipment advertise a glorified version of military-style policing attire to local police departments and SWAT teams. One such defense manufacturing company, Heckler and Koch, epitomized this aggressive marketing tactic with its slogan for the MP5 submachine gun, “From the Gulf War to the Drug War—Battle Proven.”

Today's latest in paramilitary fashion sweeping through local police departments is the armored tank, which is making appearances all over the country at an increasingly alarming rate. The police department in Roanoke, Virginia paid Armet Armored Vehicles, a private company that specializes in military vehicles, $218,000 to assemble a 20,000-pound bulletproof tank with a $245,000 federal grant.

Not to feel left out, the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) in Lancaster, PA, was recently seen sporting the Lenco BearCat, a camouflage colored Humvee-styled tank that can “knock down a wall, pull down a fence, withstand small-arms fire and deliver a dozen heavily armed police officers to a tense emergency scene,” according to a local news report. The BearCat was purchased a year and a half ago with a $226,224 grant from DHS, yet it has spent nearly two years sitting in a garage at the county's Public Safety Training Center.

The most widely used justification for the purchase of heavily armored war machines is that violence against police officers has increased exponentially, necessitating the tank for protection of the men and women who serve our communities. But examination of the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, a database that tracks the number of law enforcement officers killed and assaulted each year, reveals that this is simply not true. According to the UCR, since 2000 an average yearly toll of about 50 police officers have been feloniously killed, the highest reaching 70 in 2001. So the notion that militarization is a necessary reaction to a growth in violence against police officers is absurd, considering that violent crime is trending downward.

Others argue these tanks are needed in case of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. But on September 11, 2001, I do not recall the NYPD complaining that a lack of armored tanks was impeding its policing efforts. And during the catastrophic tornado that tore through Joplin, Missouri earlier this year, heavily armored vehicles weren't present nor were they needed to assist in the aftermath.

The majority of paramilitary drug raid proponents maintain that military-style law enforcement is required to reduce the risk of potential violence, injury and death to both police officers and innocents. Based on Balko’s investigations, the reality is that SWAT team raids actually “escalate provocation, usually resulting in senseless violence in what would otherwise be a routine, nonviolent police procedure.”

Just consider your reaction in the event of a SWAT team breaking down your door in the middle of night, possibly even blowing off the hinges with explosives, while you and your family are asleep. Imagine the terror of waking up to find complete strangers forcing their way into your home and detonating a flash-bang grenade, meant to disorient you. Assuming nobody is hurt, what thoughts might be raging in your mind while the police forcefully incapacitate you and your loved ones, most likely at gunpoint, while carrying out a search warrant of your home. Assuming you were able to contain the mix of fear and rage going through your body, consider how helpless you would feel to know that any perceived noncompliance would most certainly be met with lethal force.

Training and technology-sharing between the defense and civilian law enforcement seems responsible for the pervasive culture of militarism plaguing domestic law enforcement. In fact, an estimated 46 percent of paramilitary units were trained by "active-duty military experts in special operations." Lawrence Korb, a former official in the Reagan administration, famously said that soldiers are “trained to vaporize, not Mirandize." As police officers continue to emulate soldiers in their weaponry, language, tactics, uniform, and mindset, it won't be long before they vaporize instead of Mirandize as well.

We have created circumstances under which the American people are no longer individuals protected by the Bill of Rights, but rather "enemy combatants." The consequences of such a mindset have proven time and again to be lethal, as we now rely on military ideology and practice to respond to crime and justice. For some insight into the implications, one needn't look any further than minority communities, which have long been the victims of paramilitary forces posing as police officers. Black and Latino communities in the inner-cities of Washington DC, Detroit and Chicago have witnessed first-hand the deadly consequences of militarization on American soil. Military culture now permeates all aspects of our society. Does anyone really believe that heavily armed soldiers trained to kill are capable of maintaining an atmosphere of nonviolence?

It's important to remember that police officers are not responsible for instituting these policies. Over the last three decades local police departments supplied with military uniforms, weaponry, vehicles, and training, were told they were fighting a war on drugs, crime and terror. The politicians who instituted these policies are responsible for the militarization creeping into civilian law enforcement. What might the end result be if the distinction between police and military ceases to exist? The answer is a police state -- and certain segments of our society are already living in one.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article has been corrected since its original publication for more accurate attribution to original sources.

Rania Khalek is a progressive activist. Check out her blog Missing Pieces or follow her on Twitter @Rania_ak. You can contact her at raniakhalek@gmail.com.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

More on Tibetan Prayer Wheels - The Altoids Prayer Wheel

I recently came across this video by Jetcityorange aka Jerry Whiting, who posted the video on youtube. It's very interesting and imaginative.  It's something that almost anyone can do but that almost no one would think of. I mean it never occured to me, I've thought about buying them but never making one and I do buy Altoids. I was so impressed that I immediately emailed and asked permission to post about it, and bring it to your attention, to those that can and want to it's a fantastic idea.
Take a look at the video and let Jerry explain how to do it....





Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Demonstrators characterized in same context as Al-Qaeda, Colombian FARC

Found this post at Activest Post    Link to Post Read it, even if not a demonstrator you should find it frightening as to the direction the governments of the "free world" are moving.  It seems that concentration camps are coming back, and not in Germany, well at least as far as I know right now. But they seem to be headed back in this country and in England, at least. President Hussein, ah err Obama, has already announced to us all that he can personally, or order, murder ANY US citizen, for no reason at all, just that he wants to. You all know I believe in reincarnation, is Hussein the current incarnation of Germany's former leader Adolf?  Lots of people thought that was G. Bush the 2nd. Maybe it wasn't, maybe he was just the loss leader, or maybe Hussein, ah errr Obama is the incarnation of Stalin?  If not one of the two, I'm sure they're having a good laugh at us.
In any case if he can freely murder me, or you or your wife, or your kids, or your grandchildren, are concentration, aka re-education, camps impossible? Not really...

Demonstrators characterized in same context as Al-Qaeda, Colombian FARC



Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet


Occupy London demonstrators have been listed as domestic terrorists by the City of London Police, who characterized them in the same context as Al-Qaeda, the Colombian FARC and Belarusian terrorists who bombed the Minsk underground.


“The City of London Police force was facing criticism last night after including the Occupy London demonstration in a letter warning businesses about potential terrorist threats,” reports the Independent.


Police admitted the leaflet, entitled, “Terrorism/Extremism Update,” was produced by them but claimed it was “poorly worded”.


“Activism is not a crime and the desire to participate in democratic decision-making should not be a cause for concern for the police in any free society,” said an Occupy London representative.


Previous advertising campaigns by other law enforcement bodies in London educated the public that behavior such as paying with cash, keeping curtains closed, or minding your own business were all signs of potential terrorism.


One radio commercial, produced by the The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), was later banned because it smeared law-abiding citizens and could “encourage people to harass or victimise their neighbours and was appealing to people’s fear.”


As we reported earlier, ‘Occupy’ demonstrators over the pond in Portland staged a march yesterday to protest the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which under Section 1031 could lead to demonstrators being carted off to detention camps and held without trial.


The Department of Defense is now training its personnel that protest amounts to “low-level terrorism” through tests that DoD staffers are required to take on a yearly basis.


Whether you agree with the grievances of the ‘Occupy’ movement or not, the fact that protest groups are now being designated as domestic terrorists underscores the fact that governments now treat dissent and the exercise of freedoms as a suspicious activity.


Yet weren’t we told the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms? It appears as if the terrorists have won.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

This Is Who Is Working For The TSA And Screening You And Your Children

Transportation Security Administration Administrator John Pistole
It's nice to see the TSA is concerned about finding a rapist in their ranks. But I have a feeling Mr. Rodman (good name for a rapist or pornstar) is while not the brightest bulb in the lamp, more the rule than the exception. He just got tired of feeling up little girls and old women, nuns and housewives and moved on to the next level. We knew he's a pervert, and bully he worked for the TSA. I have to wonder how many other rapes he committed, on and off the job, before he was caught.  I also heard on the news that for the holiday season, to suck people back into flying, the TSA has modified their feeling up of children 12 and under, probably restraining their pedophiles and perverts from penetrating pussies and assholes, for the holidays only, and of course 12 and under can keep their shoes on. There's a big deal, they can keep their shoes on, wow....  This agency of Federal perversion needs to go. I recommend that all people stop flying until the TSA is gotten rid of, of course because of greed, impatience and selfishness, they won't and the TSA will go on, making free travel in the US more and more difficult until it becomes impossible. The good news is I'm a short timer, and hopefully won't be around to see our country as it becomes something it was never meant to be. Today it isn't the US I was born in, but it's becoming even less so, by the day.

Lee Murray


TSA officer charged with sexual assault
By the CNN Wire Staff

updated 11:37 AM EST, Tue November 22, 2011



Washington (CNN) -- A federal airport screener has been charged with sexual assault after he allegedly assaulted a woman near his home in Manassas, Virginia, police said Tuesday.

Police said Harold Glenn Rodman, 52, was wearing a uniform and displayed a badge at the time of the attack.
Rodman is a Transportation Security Administration officer at Dulles International Airport, the TSA confirmed. He has been removed from security operations pending the investigation.
According to Prince William County, Virginia, police, a 37-year-old woman and her friend were walking in a Manassas neighborhood when a man who was unknown to them approached, displayed a badge and then sexually assaulted the woman before fleeing on foot. Police responded to a call at 3:25 a.m. Sunday and, while canvassing the neighborhood, noticed a man matching the attacker's description exit his home, police said. The man was arrested in connection with the incident, police said.
Rodman is charged with abduction with intent to defile, aggravated sexual assault, forcible sodomy and object sexual penetration.
A TSA spokesman said the TSA is working closely with police on the case.
"TSA holds its personnel to the highest professional and ethical standards, and investigates all allegations of misconduct," TSA spokesman Greg Soule said. "The disturbing allegations against this individual in no way reflect the work of the more than 50,000 security officers who every day ensure the security of the traveling public."

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Oldest Known Civilization May Be In India circa 7500 BC

Found this at the Veda Knowledge Online site  Link to site

The Worlds Oldest Living Civilization


Did you know that by 7500 B.C. Bharat (India) already had advanced townships with villages of mud-brick houses?

Bharatvarsh (the Indian Subcontinent) is home to the oldest civilization in the world. Mehrgarh which dates to 7500 BC is the oldest city which predates the Indus Valley Civilisation. Recently there have been archaeological findings off the coast of Gujarat in India which confirm a submerged city which is the worlds oldest city. This Indian city dates back to 8000-9000BC.

In 1922, excavations began at Mohenjo-Daro (which means 'hill of the dead') in the Indus Valley, four hundred miles south-west of Harappa, which revealed a rich urban civilization that no one had suspected. Incredibly, Mohenjo-Daro proved to be as sophisticated as a later Greek or Roman city, built on mud-brick platforms to protect it from floods, with a grid-plan reminiscent of New York, and an impressive sewer system - not to mention sit-down toilets. The size of the city indicated that it held about 40,000 people. The large number of female statuettes found there suggested that a female deity - probably the moon goddess - was worshipped. Their seals proved they possessed some form of writing.

A scientifically planned towns and buildings were part of the landscape and about 300 settlements in a belt extending 1,520 km from North to South covering a million square kilometers have been discovered, of which Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, Kalibangan, and Lothal are important sites. The towns were designed with citadels and defensive walls and the streets and lanes had drains. Individual bathrooms and lavatories were impressively drained into a larger system. Well-developed docks and store houses as well as bullock carts for transportation were very popular.

The earliest recorded Indian mathematics was found along the banks of the Indus. Archaeologists have uncovered several scales, instruments, and other measuring devices. The Harappans employed a variety of plumb bobs that reveal a system of weights 27.584 grams. If we assign that a value of 1, other weights scale in at .05, .1, .2, .5, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500. These weights have been found in sites that span a five-thousand-year period, with little change in size.

Archaeologists also found a “ruler” made of shell lines drawn 6.7 millimeters apart with a high degree of accuracy. Two of the lines are distinguished by circles and are separated by 33.5 millimeters, or 1.32 inches. This distance is the so-called Indus inch. 'In subsequent years, further excavations along the 1800 miles of the Indus river valley revealed more than 150 sites, half a dozen of the cities. The whole area, from the Arabian sea to the foothills of the Himalayas, was once the home of a great civilization that rivaled Egypt or Greece. To the east of the Indus lies a vast desert, the Thar Desert. When remains of towns were found in this desert there was some puzzlement about how they had survived in such arid conditions. Then satellite photography revealed the answer: the Thar Desert was once a fertile plain, traversed by a great river; there were even unmistakable signs of canals. Now only a small part of this river, the Ghaggar, exists. Scholars concluded that the river that had now vanished was the Sarasvati, mentioned in the Vedic hymns.

It seemed that in the heyday of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, this whole plain was one of the richest places in the world. At a time when ancient Britons were Bronze Age farmers, and the Greeks were a few Mycenaean warrior tribes, one of the world's greatest civilizations flourished in the land of the Indus and the Sarasvati. It seems that some great catastrophe destroyed this civilization some time after 1900 BC. Evidence shows that the earth buckled, due to the pressure of the tectonic plate that has raised the Himalayas, and the result was a series of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that literally caused the rivers to sink into the ground. The cost in human life must have been appalling.

Friday, November 11, 2011

ABOLISH THE POLICE - An Article by Anthony Gregory about Police Abuse Around The USA

I was at the Friends of Fullerton website and found the follwing article in the comments section, I found it so informative and interesting that I'm passing it along to you.   Friends For Fullertons Future

11/16/11 I'm doing something I've never done since starting this blog, I'm adding to it after publishing a post. I just want to add that this is something  you should read. It's scary to see how rampant, how widespread police abuse, police criminality is. Beatings, murder, rape, and other criminal activity is becoming the norm, commonplace, all over this country, it's not just here, or there, or over there, it's everywhere. This is something you should read and remember. Next time it could be any one of us.


Abolish the Police



by Anthony Gregory

Recently by Anthony Gregory: Springtime for the Regime       Link to the Article

On May 13, 1985, in the twilight of the Cold War, residents of Philadelphia were ruthlessly bombed from the sky. The enemy government was conducting a political mission, but innocent inhabitants of that distinctly American city were caught up in the attack. After ten thousand rounds were fired at civilians over a period of two hours, a helicopter swooped in and dropped C-4 and Tovex explosives, destroying 65 houses. Five children were slaughtered in the strike.

The perpetrator was not the Soviet Union, or else the attack might have escalated into international conflict. It certainly would have made it into textbook timelines and become part of the nation’s consciousness. No, those responsible for this atrocity were members of the Philadelphia police department. The local cops sought to finish off their political enemies after years of animosity and tension. The proximate legal excuse for bombing their own city? The cops had gotten complaints about noise and the stench of compost.

Twenty-six years have passed since the bombing of the MOVE house and if there was any doubt before, it is now beyond question that the local police have become the occupying troops that Malcolm X described. They are the standing army the Founding Fathers warned against. In the United States, they are the most dangerous gang operating and they do so under the color of law.

Anyone who reads Will Grigg should be familiar with this reality. The man who once edited the magazine for the John Birch Society, an organization whose 60’s mantra was "support your local police," has since then focused largely on documenting the daily outrages conducted by these tax parasites. Reading his specific accounts of misconduct and brutality, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that police abuse is not a bug in the system; it is an intrinsic feature.

We can cite some of the most gruesome and high-profile outrages of recent years, such as the murder of Oscar Grant on New Years Day, 2009, a young man shot by a Bay Area cop in the back while lying face-down on the ground; or the brutal beating of Alexander Landau, a college student who dared to ask Denver cops for a warrant before they searched his trunk; or the plight of seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley Jones, who was murdered last May in Detroit as she lay on her family’s couch while the cops raided the home, tossed in a flash-grenade that set her on fire and then shot her in the head.

Any one of these incidents should set off as much anti-government anger as the Boston Massacre, but some will object that I am cherry picking. So let us limit ourselves to just the last couple months to illustrate the depth of the problem. Last month, police in Trenton shot and killed an unarmed man, saying he was reaching for his waistband. In Orlando, police tased a man to death for being disorderly in a movie theater. In Derby, Kansas, a police officer broke a teenager’s arm because he dared to talk back after getting in trouble for wearing sagging pants.

On May 5, police in Tuscon stormed into Jose Guerena’s home around 9 AM, and shot him 71 times. Yes, fearful for his family’s safety, he was holding an AR-15 in self-defense, but didn’t get a shot in, despite lies to the contrary – yet there was no evidence found of any wrongdoing or illegality on his part. In Alabama, a police officer beat an 84-year-old man for reporting a car accident and daring to put the offender under "citizens arrest" – a more civilized version of what police do routinely – and then the officer turned an ambulance away, insisting the elderly victim didn’t need medical help. Louisiana cops tased Kirkin Woolridge at a traffic stop on May 18, and he soon died of complications in jail.

Just in the last week, we have the DC cops who brutally beat up a defenseless man in a wheelchair. In Moore, Oklahoma, innocent residents are upset that police shot at their homes indiscriminately in attempting to chase down an "armed suicidal subject." In Fort Collins, Colorado, a police patrol car seriously injured a bicyclist, but unlike nearly any other collision between a bike and car, it is being blamed on the bicyclist.

These are just very recent examples that can be found from a minute of Googling. They are no doubt the tip of the iceberg. They do not begin to represent the millions of smaller injustices conducted by police daily, both under the cover of law and in naked violation of statutes and court decisions, or the thousands of daily injustices and acts of torture and sexual abuse in America’s prisons and jails, for which law enforcers are at least indirectly and very often directly responsible.

The chaotic violence of the modern police state is ubiquitous. Every day there are 100 SWAT raids in America. Remember in the old days when SWAT raids were reserved for stopping some terrorist intent on destroying half the city? Maybe that was just in the movies. There were 3,000 SWAT raids in 1981, the year I was born, which was bad enough. There will be 40,000 this year.

In modern America, even small towns have their own air forces. The TV news frets about al-Qaeda, but rarely exposes the threat of the thin blue line. About as many Americans have been killed by police since 9/11/01 as died on that day. Between 1980 and 2005, police killed 9,500 people in the U.S., approximately one per day and almost three-fourths as many people as have been sentenced and executed in the United States since colonial times. A study in Harris County, Texas, found that between 1999 and mid 2005, officers in the county shot 65 unarmed people, killing 17.

But don’t police put their lives on the line for us? Only 117 police were killed in the line of duty in 2009, which might seem like a lot, but being a police officer is not even one of the top ten dangerous jobs in America.

Surely, the people who are killed by the cops had it coming. Well, consider how many are killed when the police presumably do not intend to kill at all and so reach for their taser. Amnesty International found that "the number of people who died after being struck by Tasers in the USA reached 334 between 2001 and August 2008."

This all puts aside the unspeakable corruption that plagues virtually every police station in America. From an Orlando officer covering up evidence of vicious brutality against a 100-pound woman to the systematic corruption of a small-town department in Kansas to San Francisco undercover cops stealing drugs for themselves, even the reported cases of police misconduct – there were 2,500 such reports last year – are enough to show the whole system is rotten. A cursory look at the admitted child rapists and other such lowlifes who often "serve" as officers for years before being caught also puts the lie to the very idea that police are on average any more noble than the general population.

Limited-government libertarians often reserve at least three functions to the state – military, courts and police. But why police? We never tire of talking about America as it was before the government swallowed society whole. In particular, we reminisce about the principles of 1776. Yet, although there was plenty to object to in colonial law and law in the early republic, police as we now know them didn’t exist back then.

Philadelphia adopted a police force in 1845. New Orleans, Cincinnati, Chicago and Baltimore followed suit in the next decade. From the beginning these were politicized bodies, involved in corrupt local politics and enforcing questionable laws. They were not immaculately conceived any more than the state itself. But it was not until the Progressive Era that the modern police force was truly born. At the turn of the century, cities adopted fingerprinting and forensics labs. Soon came radios and patrol cars. Berkeley, California, home to many great strides in progressive social engineering, was also a pioneer in creating modern police. August Vollmer, Berkeley’s chief of police, trained a new generation of cops through the University of California. His protégé O M. Wilson went on to revolutionize the forces of Wichita and Chicago.

By the 1960s, police were more often in cars than walking the streets. This made a big difference. Lawrence M. Freedman writes in Crime and Punishment in American History:

A cop on foot was a familiar cop, a neighborhood cop; he knew his beat, and the beat knew him. He was also pretty much on his own. Headquarters was far away; he was beyond its beck and call. But now a ton of steel separated the motorized officer from the community; police cruising in patrol cars were strangers to the dark, dangerous streets; these police tended to feel alien, beleaguered; the locals, for their part, thought of them as an outside, occupying force.

This alienation from the community tends to galvanize the police into a tight-knit gang complete with its own identity: "The police are a tight, beleaguered group. They develop their own subculture, and it is a subculture of tough, macho conservatism. . . . They see human beings at their worst, and that certainly colors their philosophy of life."

Furthermore, cops have come to "believe in fighting fire with fire. Police brutality was part of a more general system of police power. It rested on a simple credo: the battalions of law and order had the right, if not the duty, to be tough as nails with criminals. Force was the only language the criminal understood."

Force might be necessary to deal with violent thugs, but allowing the greatest predator of all – the state – to monopolize the sector of the economy concerned with using force against criminals is a recipe for oppression and injustice. The entire history of government police demonstrates they cannot be trusted. They are the henchmen of all the totalitarian regimes we see on the History Channel. In the United States, they were always a menace, at least to some. They tended early on to focus their brutality against the other – immigrants, gangsters, ethnic minorities, transients and the counterculture. Today they still bias their violence against the fringes of society, the young and the powerless, but they are now so vast a presence that no one is safe, no matter how respectable, no matter his demographic.

The 20th century brought us all the horrors of progressivism, and one conspicuous example has been the militarized city police force, which has become an organization hostile to all manner of civilized decency. The last century, particularly since the 1960s, also meant an increasing nationalization of police, arming them with military weapons, plugging them into national databases, harmonizing oppression throughout the country so there is no escape, charging cops with new national crusades against drugs and other non-crimes. Then there is the revolving door between the military and police precincts, with veterans, often traumatized from battle, increasingly enlisting back home as cops. The institutional and cultural nationalization has made matters worse, although local police, as agents of the state, have been very eager partners in the federalization of law enforcement. They have never been the great defenders against national usurpation conservatives long hoped for; but today they are all-out quislings.

Needless to say, all anarchists should support outright and immediate abolition of the police. We’re talking about the enforcement arm of the state, after all. If you oppose the state monopoly, you must favor eliminating the state’s method of maintaining its monopoly – through the police. And indeed, if you distrust socialism, you should distrust law-enforcement socialism as much as anything, for this is the original sin that allows all other state depredations to follow. Also, when the state misallocates resources, it is not nearly so evil in itself as when it inevitably misallocates violence on a massive scale.

For much of U.S. history, Americans had less government and fewer police. Government will necessarily be weaker, all else being equal, the fewer enforcement agents it boasts. Without any armed enforcers, the state withers away. The fewer armed state agents the better. The growth of modern leviathan in the 20th century accompanied the rise of the city police force. Big government and cops go hand in hand.

If your goal is to end the welfare state, the regulatory state, the wars, or anything else seriously bad about government, abolishing the police would seem to be a major priority. Do you oppose taxation? Abolish the police, as well as all other agencies of government law enforcement, and see how threatening those 1040s and state tax forms seem then.

Some will argue that the police protect our rights. But if the market is really better than socialism, abolishing the police outright shouldn’t be a problem. Why trust the state to continue cornering the market on rights protection? If protecting life, liberty and property is important – and it most certainly is – we cannot to let the central planners and their armed enforcers run the show. Fire them immediately. The market will find a better way to protect us within 24 hours, if it takes nearly that long. If we all take up the abolitionist cause, certainly by the time police are abolished, civil society will find a way to fill the void.

And of course, the very premise that we must maintain state police for the sake of our rights assumes that they protect our rights more than they infringe them. This is completely dubious. Surely we have no "constitutional right" to police protection, as the Seventh Circuit Court determined in Bowers v. Devito (1982). When there’s a riot or huge unleashing of social unrest, police often bail out, leaving shop owners and other people to fend for themselves, who do a better job anyway, as during the 1992 LA riots. What’s more, the police often exacerbate the catastrophe by disarming homeowners and shooting at people committing petty offenses, like they did after Katrina. Furthermore, studies seem to indicate that police strikes don’t lead to any demonstrated rise in crime.

We can probably assume that abolishing the police would not lead to the apocalypse people fear, not even in the short run as the market sorts things out. Why?

First of all actual crimes are almost never prevented by the police. The vast majority go unsolved. At best, the police investigate them after they occur, and then usually do nothing. Sometimes they make an arrest, which might, at a huge expense to taxpayers, result in someone in jail – and maybe even the right person. Even in this minority of cases, the idea that jail is a remedy to the rights violation, or prevents more rights violations from occurring, is an unchecked premise. Even putting violent predators in prison where they can brutalize less violent people may not actually reduce the amount of aggression, if we count the victims in the cages, as we should. Meanwhile, even the government’s pursuit of actual criminals entails numerous rights violations in itself – investigations of the innocent, enslaving jurors and witnesses, turning lives upside down. Victims are never made whole. And for this we have to run the risk of being shot or wrongly arrested by the state.

Second of all, the police actively encourage violent crime in myriad ways. They enforce the drug war, which probably doubles the number of homicides and vastly increases street crime, along with some help from gun control, which they also enforce. Gun control, by the way, demonstrates that people do fear the police more than criminals – otherwise no one would follow these gun laws. Instead, law-abiding folks know the risk of being caged for this non-crime is more significant than the risk of being caught unarmed by a private thug. So does gun control operate in preserving the advantage for private criminals. Abolishing the police outright, even if it put upward pressure on crime rates, would probably overall lead to fewer crimes because of the elimination of the criminality incited and encouraged by state activity.

Third and most important, the police themselves routinely violate the rights of innocent people as a major component of their job description. The greater their numbers, financing and power, the worse it gets. It is the job of police to harass the innocent, to jail people for victimless crimes, to stop people for minor traffic violations, to trick people into admitting law breaking, to fulfill quotas for arrests, and to generally instill in the community a fear and awe of the state. It is almost impossible to be a police officer on the beat and not violate the non-aggression principle on a regular basis. As a material fact, most police conducting arrests on the street are committing acts of kidnapping, theft, trespass, and invasion. Those who arrest people who end up in prison are effectively accessories to rape and assault.

Even if having police is a desirable thing, we cannot do so safely until the bad laws are off the books, and then it would be best to fire all police and start over. If having had a severe criminal record tends to disqualify people from the job, so too must having been a reputable police officer. If I am too harsh in this regard, it is just one more reason to abolish the government’s police and allow for the market to take over. Allow entrepreneurs to decide which former government police are redeemable and employable as private security and which are not.

What to do about violent thugs? The market, social norms, private security, the wonders and corollary institutions of private property, gated communities, private gun ownership, religious values – all the blessings of civil society are on our side. But the police rarely are. When a violent criminal kills or assaults or rapes or steals, we all condemn it, and we can find a way to deal with it when the criminals are not protected by the system. But what about when the criminals are the system?

Private security is already a greater bulwark against violent and property crime than many people realize. As of 1997, according to the Economist (as cited by Robert Higgs):

There are three times as many private policemen as public ones.... Americans also spend a lot more on private security (about $90 billion a year) than they do, through tax dollars, on the public police ($40 billion). Even the government itself spends more hiring private guards than it does paying for police forces.

For a decade and a half, we have had three times as many private guards as public ones, yet it is an oddity indeed to hear about their abuses, unlike those of the police that make the papers every day – and that’s just counting reported offenses. It should be no wonder. As market actors, private security guards are generally heroic defenders of property, commerce and life, and are liable for the wrong they do, unlike the state’s armed agents, who work for an institution of monopoly, theft, kidnapping, rape rooms and murder.

Can we really survive without government police? When we consider how much they do to disrupt civil society, it would seem obvious that we can. The police, on balance, are a force for decivilization and disorder. They commit massive violations of person and property. They enforce gun and drug laws that basically create organized crime and breed gang activity. Most of what they do encourages, rather than diminishes, violence. Despite all this, America remains a fairly civilized place. If we survived this long with the police, just imagine how much better off we’d be without them.

May 26, 2011
Anthony Gregory [send him mail] is a research analyst at the Independent Institute. He lives in Oakland, California. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given