No discussions to display.

03-24-2008

In the upcoming US national elections, we are, not unlike times before, forced to choose between two political parties which offer us “opposing points of view”. The political parties not only oppose each other, but each individual party's views oppose their own.

The majority of the Republican Party wants to invade the privacy of every single American citizen. They want the government to be able to read our emails and listen in on our phone calls without a warrant. That is the cornerstone of “The Patriot Act”. What kind of patriotism is involved in circumventing the Constitution? I believe “The Patriot Act” is a misnomer. It should be called 'The Unpatriotic Constitution Trashing Act”. It's obviously something I and many, many others strongly disagree with.
On an opposite note, the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party party wants to “preserve the Second Amendment Rights of every single American.” (The freedom of the right of the people [of the individual] to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.) So, with NRA lobbyist working on behalf of their members, they seem to like this particular part of the US Constitution (in the “Bill of Rights”). So, I wonder if the everyday American citizen needs to hire lobbyists if they want every part of the US Constitution to get any attention from our so called “leaders” in Washington?

The majority of the newly elected Democratic Congress and Senate said they opposed “The Patriot Act” before the election that gave them the power. Now that they have been elected, they voted to renew that “Patriot Act”. So we need a group that lobbies for the protection of the ENTIRE Constitution from elected officials. They told us before the election that they wanted to guarantee our Constitutional freedoms would be protected.
On an opposite note, the newly elected Congress and both Democratic Presidential nominees want to give the United Nations the discretion to determine what rights American citizens have under our own Bill of Rights' Second Amendment. They want to give the UN the right to decide US small arms laws. That undermines the right of the people to keep and bare arms, and even the part that says it “shall not be infringed”. So we have another conundrum. We can vote for the democrats if we want to protect our privacy, but they want to take away our private right to own small arms, which include not only handguns, but also hunting rifles and shotguns. They have a tendency to lie and deny that hunting rifles and shotguns will be included, but they do and will be. Read up on the UN Charters if you'd like to see the stance of the UN. It's still important to remember that the first actions of every tyrannical government, including the Nazi's, has been to disarm the people. Again, who is protecting the ENTIRE Constitution? Neither party, obviously.

The Republican Party is on the side of “Right to Life” when it comes to protecting unborn children. They recognize that every American has that fundamental right. Yet we have another conundrum. The philosophy of “right to life” fails completely when it comes to certain convicted felons. The vast majority of the Republican Party believes in the Death Penalty. Isn't that also a right to life issue? How can you be in favor of killing some, but a right to life for others?
The majority of the Democratic Party believes in “the right to choose”, which is a nice way of saying they are pro-abortion and, therefore, pro-death for unborn children. People left of center of the Democratic Party are anti-death penalty. So they are pro-death for unborn children and pro-life for certain convicted felons. Am I the only one who sees how sick it is to separate these life and death stances between the parties? It's an obvious attempt to confuse us and make us believe that there is a difference between the parties. Each party seems happy to kill off segments of society to make us believe there is some kind of difference between them. I personally think all people have a right to life. I do not think we, as humans, have the right to murder anyone.

Don't be fooled by these so called “differences” between the two parties. Both parties own views contradict their own damn views. It isn't an accident. They devised these differences to both confuse voters and give them a sense that there is a difference between the parties. Be forewarned, the American Agenda, often hidden in the past few years, will continue to move forward no matter how you vote. If that weren't true, then why didn't that Democratic takeover of the House and Senate get us pulled out of Iraq, or at least given us those timetables we were promised? Because the US involvement in Iraq is part of the greater American Agenda. Just as the Republicans lied to us about the reasons for getting us into the war, the Democrats lied to us about getting us out of the war.

Lying to the American people seems to be the only thing on which both parties seem to agree.

In a true democracy, lobbyist would have no place. In that true democracy, our leaders wouldn't split up the same view between both parties. In a true democracy all of our elected officials would protect the ENTIRE Constitution. In a true democracy, our parties wouldn't give us an illusion of differences but would show real differences. And, most importantly, in a true Democracy, VOTES WOULD BE COUNTED. If you think they are, then why was and is George W. Bush President?

God help this once great Nation.

0 Comments

03-16-2008

What about freedom for my religion? I am a shaman. Shamanism is, by far, the worlds oldest religion. Evidence of shamanic rituals have been found that are 15,000 years old. As a shaman, I occasionally require certain organic substances such as marijuana, "magic" mushrooms, San Pedro cactus and others to accomplish what is at the core of my religion. The United States Constitution is supposed to guarantee my right to religious freedom, yet the US government makes the tools of my religion illegal.

I can understand the government's argument that people can get hurt by these substances (with the exception of marijuana, which has never killed anyone in known history). The government doesn't understand, neither does it want to understand, that these tools, in the hands of an experienced shaman, are very benign. People aren't hurt by true shamans. People are often helped and even cured of alcoholism and other mental or spiritual disorders by shamans and their tools. That information can be backed up with proof. The fact that shamans can use organic substances directly from the earth to cure, not treat, disorders poses a serious threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The drug companies have lobbyists who will fight hard to keep legal medical marijuana out of the hands of the dying. I'm sure they would take similar steps to stop any other substance that can be grown and used without the need for processing. We also need to understand that pharmaceutical companies make much more money by treating diseases and disorders.. They have much less to gain by curing them.

Now I will digress... a little...

I will post another blog soon outlining the hypocrisy of the drug companies, and how they back campaigns against drugs while selling deadly and highly addictive substances. How can pharmaceutical companies sell OxyContin, methadone, Levodromoran, Demerol and other deadly, addictive, semisynthetic substances to relieve pain when one plant can be taken directly from the ground that has been proven to be non-addictive (physically), non-deadly and a powerful painkiller? It is my educated opinion that marijuana is almost as safe as tea, as long as you don't have serious heart problems. The general rule is, if you're able to walk up a flight of stairs or able to have sex, you're healthy enough to use marijuana. The side effects of the plant are few. The leading side effect is bronchial trouble or bronchitis. Another is slightly increased heart rate and blood pressure. The risk of cancer is so low that it is negligible (it's no where near the cancer risk that tobacco poses -something your government won't tell you). The other leading side effect is short-term memory trouble, which is reversed within a few days of the cessation of use.


I don't want to legalize marijuana like alcohol (which kills, on average, 100,000 people every year). I would love to see it decriminalized. Under decriminalization, if someone is caught with a small amount of marijuana, the contraband would be confiscated and the people would be sent on their way. Simple economics dictates that folks would leave their weed at home rather than risk losing it to the cops. Under decriminalization, people's lives will not be interrupted with court dates, lawyers, arrests and embarrassing incarcerations. Tax payers would enjoy huge savings because court dockets would no longer be backed up from ridiculous arrests and charges about marijuana possession. Sometimes these simple marijuana possession charges back up court dockets by months. Then you have to consider the cost of confining, clothing and feeding those who are sent to jail.

Marijuana has not only been decriminalized but has been very well tolerated by the Dutch. As a result, they have 60% fewer users of marijuana than the US. It seems the Dutch took the fun out of smoking weed for a lot of people.

DECRIMINALIZE! Not legalize.

The ShAman

0 Comments

View More Blog Entries