Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

KN4M 01-15-06

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Jesus Healed Using Cannabis By Duncan
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 15, 2006
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Thanks,
      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist
      http://www.konformist.com

      Jesus 'Healed Using Cannabis'
      By Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
      The Guardian - UK
      1-7-6

      Jesus as almost certainly a cannabis user and an early proponent of
      the medicinal properties of the drug, according to a study of
      scriptural texts published this month. The study suggests that Jesus
      and his disciples used the drug to carry out miraculous healings.

      The anointing oil used by Jesus and his disciples contained an
      ingredient called kaneh-bosem which has since been identified as
      cannabis extract, according to an article by Chris Bennett in the
      drugs magazine, High Times, entitled Was Jesus a Stoner? The incense
      used by Jesus in ceremonies also contained a cannabis extract,
      suggests Mr Bennett, who quotes scholars to back his claims.

      "There can be little doubt about a role for cannabis in Judaic
      religion," Carl Ruck, professor of classical mythology at Boston
      University said.

      Referring to the existence of cannabis in anointing oils used in
      ceremonies, he added: "Obviously the easy availability and long-
      established tradition of cannabis in early Judaism _ would
      inevitably have included it in the [Christian] mixtures."

      Mr Bennett suggests those anointed with the oils used by Jesus
      were "literally drenched in this potent mixture _ Although most
      modern people choose to smoke or eat pot, when its active
      ingredients are transferred into an oil-based carrier, it can also
      be absorbed through the skin".

      Quoting the New Testament, Mr Bennett argues that Jesus anointed his
      disciples with the oil and encouraged them to do the same with other
      followers. This could have been responsible for healing eye and skin
      diseases referred to in the Gospels.

      "If cannabis was one of the main ingredients of the ancient
      anointing oil _ and receiving this oil is what made Jesus the Christ
      and his followers Christians, then persecuting those who use
      cannabis could be considered anti-Christ," Mr Bennett concludes.

      *****

      Gates, Buffett, China 'run from dollar'
      Expert sees development as sharp warning to Americans
      WorldNetDaily | February 3, 2005

      Decisions by the world's two wealthiest men to bet on a further
      weakening of the U.S. dollar, coupled with China's lack of
      confidence in American currency should grab the attention of every
      working person, says Craig Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading.

      Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is following the example of Berkshire
      Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett, who made a pretax gain of $412
      million in the fourth quarter of 2004 by buying foreign currencies.

      Citing widening U.S. trade and budget deficits and a federal debt of
      $7.62 trillion, Gates said in a TV interview at the World Economic
      Forum in Switzerland last weekend he expects the dollar to extend
      its three-year decline.

      "I'm short the dollar," Gates said, according to Bloomberg
      News. "The ol' dollar, it's gonna go down."

      Smith, whose company specializes in tangible assets, told
      WorldNetDaily he can't believe this news is not the big headline
      across the nation.

      "When I saw this quote, literally I had to catch my breath," Smith
      said. "This is a clear-cut signal that the people who know money are
      running -- they are not walking -- in my opinion, they are running
      from the dollar."

      Smith said the actions of Buffett, worth more than $42.9 billion,
      and Gates, $46.6 billion, are significant in light of the lack of
      confidence recently expressed by leaders of the world's fastest
      growing economy, China, which has its currency pegged to the dollar.

      Fan Gang, director of the National Economic Research Institute in
      Beijing, said last week at the World Economic Forum that "the U.S.
      dollar is no longer -- in our opinion -- a stable currency and is
      devaluing all the time."

      Chinese Central Bank adviser Yu Yongding also has chastised U.S.
      policy makers, saying, "The U.S. should take the lead in putting its
      own house in order."

      Hedging your bet

      Since the beginning of 2002, the dollar has dropped 26 percent
      against a basket of six major currencies, and the trade deficit grew
      to a record $609 billion. In addition, the Bush administration
      expects the budget deficit this year to hit an all-time high of $427
      billion.

      Smith notes that big investors such as Buffett, Gates and the Bank
      of China can hedge their portfolios by shorting the dollar -- making
      a profit off of its decline -- but the average person must turn to
      tangible assets such as gold.

      "That's why this [news] is music to our business," he said.

      Dollar-denominated investments such as retirement, 401K, college and
      savings accounts are in jeopardy with the currency's slide, Smith
      said.

      "An average American has to ask himself this question, 'If the two
      richest men in the world are abandoning the dollar, why should I
      stay in it?'"

      Stephen Moore, senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute in
      Washington, told WorldNetDaily, he still believes it's anybody's
      guess which way the dollar will head.

      "These guys have been famously wrong in the past," Moore said,
      referring to Gates and Buffett, who are partners in investment
      deals. "I don't think there are any gurus who know what is going to
      happen."

      Moore says he has faith in the Bush administration and Federal
      Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, whose announcement today of a
      quarter-percent interest-rate hike led to a rise in the dollar.

      "I think the dollar has fallen about as much as it should," Moore
      said, "and the fact that the White House and Greenspan have made it
      clear that the dollar's decline is not good for the consumer makes
      it more likely it will be addressed."

      Smith points out, however, that when the dollar began sliding in
      2000, then-Treasury Secretary John O'Neill said the Bush
      administration would maintain a strong dollar policy. When O'Neill
      was replaced with John Snow, the new secretary said the same thing.

      "It still kept falling," Smith said. "We can't depend on the dollar,
      with the debt, the twin deficits and the trade gap."

      Smith points out the silver lining that usually accompanies a drop
      in the dollar -- an increase in exports because U.S. products become
      cheaper for foreigners -- has not materialized.

      In fact, the November report was predicted to show a trade deficit
      of some $50 billion, but instead turned out to be $60.3 billion.

      Losing our place?

      Greenspan has expressed concern that the deficits poses the risk
      that investors may stop buying U.S. assets, propelling the dollar
      even lower.

      In that situation, Smith said, interest rates will have to rise in
      order to encourage people to hold on to the dollar. But
      consequently, he warns, the "stock market goes in the toilet."

      Smith said his big concern is that ultimately the U.S. may lose its
      place as the reserve currency of the world.

      He speculates that this possibility may be behind the investment
      strategies of Gates and Buffet.

      "We are first world reserve currency issued by a debtor nation,"
      Smith said. "How long will the rest of the world accept that?"

      *****

      Axis of Fanatics: Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad
      By Norman Solomon
      t r u t h o u t | Perspective
      Friday 06 January 2006

      With Ariel Sharon out of the picture, Benjamin Netanyahu has a
      better chance to become prime minister of Israel.

      He's media savvy. He knows how to spin on American television.
      And he's very dangerous.

      Netanyahu spent a lot of his early years in the United States.
      Later, during the 1980s, he worked at the Israeli Embassy in
      Washington and then became Israel's ambassador to the United
      Nations. By the time he moved up to deputy foreign minister in 1988,
      he was a star on US networks.

      The guy is smooth - fluent in American idioms, telegenic to many
      eyes - and good at lying on camera. So, when Israeli police killed
      17 Palestinians at Jerusalem's al-Aqsa Mosque in October 1990,
      Netanyahu led a disinformation blitz asserting that the Palestinians
      were killed after they'd rioted and pelted Jewish worshipers from
      above the Wailing Wall with huge stones. At the time, his fable
      dominated much of the US media. Later, even the official Israeli
      inquiry debunked Netanyahu's account and blamed police for starting
      the clash.

      Now, with Netanyahu campaigning to win the Israeli election for
      prime minister in late March, he's cranking up rhetoric against
      Iran. His outlook seems to be 180 degrees from the world view of
      Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yet in tangible political
      ways, they're well-positioned to feed off each other's fanaticism.

      The election that gave the presidency of Iran to Ahmadinejad
      last summer was a victory for repressive fundamentalism. Results
      have included a negative trend for human rights in the country and a
      more bellicose foreign policy.

      When Ahmadinejad declared in late October that "Israel must be
      wiped off the map," he did a big favor to the most militaristic of
      Israel's major politicians - Benjamin Netanyahu - who demanded that
      Prime Minster Sharon take forceful action against Iran. Otherwise,
      Netanyahu said in December, "when I form the new Israeli government,
      we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor, which
      gave us 20 years of tranquillity."

      Netanyahu was referring to Israel's air attack on the Osirak
      reactor in June 1981 to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear
      weapons. But now the idea of bombing Iran is nonsensical even to
      many analysts who are enthusiastic about Israel's large nuclear
      arsenal, estimated at 200 warheads.

      "Preemptive military attack is not a strategy for stopping the
      spread of nuclear weapons anymore; the changes in technology have
      made it obsolete." That's the current assessment from Larry Derfner,
      who often writes about Israeli politics for the Jerusalem
      Post. "Concealing a nuclear start-up is so much easier now than it
      was in 1981 and it's only going to get easier yet. Throwing fighter
      jets, commandos and whatnot at Iran is more than risky; it's almost
      certainly futile if not altogether impossible. Better for Israel and
      Israelis to forget about it and instead meet the Iranian threat by
      making this country's deterrent power even more intimidating than it
      already is."

      Derfner added: "A nuclear Iran isn't a cause for indifference
      but neither is it a cause for dread and certainly not for
      recklessness. A nuclear Iran is actually acceptable. We can live
      with it. The truth is we've been living here with threats very much
      like it all along."

      But Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized that he wants to launch
      a military strike on Iran. "This is the Israeli government's primary
      obligation," he said. "If it is not done by the current government,
      I plan to lead the next government to stop the Iranians."

      The specter of Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad fueling each other's
      madness as heads of state is frightening. In such a circumstance,
      the primary danger of conflagration would come from nuclear-armed
      Israel, not nuclear-unarmed Iran.

      Candidate Netanyahu is a standard bearer for nuclear insanity.
      He's also an implacable enemy of basic Palestinian human rights.
      Many Israelis understand that Netanyahu is an extremist, and polls
      published on January 6 indicate that the post-Sharon era may not be
      as hospitable to Netanyahu as initially assumed.

      For that matter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not serve out his full
      four-year term as Iran's president. Evidently the hardline clerics
      who dominate the Iranian government got more than they bargained for
      when they threw their weight behind the Ahmadinejad campaign last
      June. In recent months, Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has
      shifted more power to the governmental Expediency Council headed by
      the shady magnate Hashemi Rafsanjani, a relatively moderate
      political hack who lost in the presidential runoff last year.

      Ahmadinejad is good at making statements that cause
      international uproars, but he's having a difficult time exercising
      presidential leverage. "Even in Iran's mostly conservative
      parliament, the hard-line president has found himself unable to get
      traction," the Los Angeles Times noted on January 2. "In a first for
      the Islamic Republic, lawmakers turned down four of the ministers
      Ahmadinejad asked them to approve. It took him three months and four
      candidates to seat an oil minister. Some reformist legislators even
      agitated for hearings on the president's 'lack of political
      competence.'"

      Using religious claims to bolster their quests for power,
      Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Benjamin Netanyahu each stand to gain by
      pointing to the menacing fanaticism of the other. Yet many Iranians
      and Israelis recognize the grave dangers of such posturing.

      As tensions mount and pressures intensify, the White House might
      end up acceding to an Israeli air attack on Iran. Or the Bush
      administration may prefer to launch its own air strike against Iran.

      Iran. Israel. The United States. Each country has the very real
      potential to move in a better direction - away from lethal
      righteousness. But in every society, that will require more
      effective grassroots efforts for peace and justice.

      *****

      Wednesday, January 11, 2006
      PEW asks possibly the dumbest poll question ever
      by John in DC
      AmericaBlog.com

      What is it with these people? It's like a massive cause of stupidity
      has hit every reporter and every organization dealing with the issue
      of Bush wiretapping Americans without a warrant.

      To wit, PEW's latest poll:

      Reports about President Bush authorizing wiretaps of Americans
      suspected of having ties to terrorists has drawn far more attention
      than the Abramoff case. But there is not an outcry or even consensus
      opinion about the government's monitoring, without court permission,
      the phone and email communications of Americans suspected of having
      terrorist ties; 48% feel this is generally right while about the
      same number (47%) think it is generally wrong. Public attitudes on
      this issue are highly partisan, with 69% of Republicans saying the
      government actions are generally right and nearly as many Democrats
      (62%) saying they are generally wrong.
      Ok, did you catch that? PEW's poll showed only 48% of Americans,
      less than half, believe that the government should, without search
      warrants, tap the phones of Americans suspected of having ties to
      terrorists.

      Again, did you get that?

      Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists. And we STILL only
      have less than 50% support tapping them without a warrant.

      Now PEW actually did ask the REAL question in this debate, namely,
      should the government be allowed to tap Americans' phone calls, but
      they buried their result way down in the report. How do Americans
      feel about having their phones tapped? 73% oppose. Hello? Kind of an
      amazing result, and one that very clearly speaks to "outrage,"
      dontchathink?

      But for PEW to say that the results from just the first question -
      the one that includes terrorist ties - shows there isn't an outcry,
      well excuse me. But fewer than half of all Americans think it's okay
      to tap the phones, without a warrant, of people with suspected ties
      to terrorists? That's a heck of a big deal. I'd have thought most
      Americans would say "if you've got ties to terrorists, all bets are
      off."

      I don't mean to knock PEW, but these kind of mistakes impact us all.
      It's nice that they asked the real question later on, but Jesus
      people, that's your headline, that's your outrage, 73% of the public
      is opposed to what these people are doing.

      *****

      RudePundit.Blogspot.com
      1/11/2006

      Democrats Are Pussies and They're Getting Fucked:

      The Rude Pundit's not nearly as old as Sammy Alito, but he remembers
      the day a couple of hot Socialist college girls walked into the
      university newspaper office and asked to talk to whoever would
      listen about subscribing to The Militant, the Socialist Workers
      Party newspaper. So the Rude Pundit and a male friend went out for
      drinks with the hot Socialist college girls, who were touring
      regional universities to drum up business for the Socialists. At the
      end of an evening of teasing, pleasing, and free love, the Rude
      Pundit, who not only flirted with socialists, but with socialism,
      gladly signed up for a few months of The Militant. Someone told the
      Rude Pundit that simply subscribing to the newspaper assured the
      Rude Pundit a file with the FBI - it was the late Reagan era. Which
      the Rude Pundit took as a badge of honor (and probably wasn't true).
      After the months were up, the Rude Pundit had moved on to The Nation
      and mainstream liberalism, and, well, the memory of the evening
      dimmed when the re-subscribing bill came in the mail.

      The point here ain't that the Rude Pundit was blown into socialism.
      The point is that if someone asked him why he signed up for The
      Militant, he'd fucking remember it and remember why he did it. So
      when Sammy Alito says of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton that he
      has "no specific recollection of that organization," but then says
      why he may have joined it, he's a fuckin' weasel at best, a craven
      liar at worst. In fact, why not follow up with, "Well, Judgey, since
      you have no recollection of the CAP, a racist, sexist organization,
      might it be possible that you have no recollection of other groups
      you may have belonged to? Like the KKK? Or the White Aryan
      Resistance? You are a skinhead, Judge Alito. What about forgotten
      events? Like that ecstasy-fueled evening where you drove into
      Philadelphia and pissed on the Liberty Bell after jacking off on
      Independence Hall, screaming, 'Hey, Sam Adams, here's your beer
      back'? I mean, c'mon, who'd recollect that?"

      But that kind of interrogation would take more than the dull,
      monotonous, barely comprehensible half-dribble of questions and
      speechifying the Democrats engaged in yesterday. (Would someone
      please tell Joe "Behold My Combover of Integrity" Biden to shut the
      fuck up if he's not gonna ask a goddamn question?) What we got from
      virtually every Democrat (and the allegedly "moderate" Republicans)
      was the sight of generously lubricated orifices just begging for a
      fucking from Republicans. Even Ted Kennedy was reduced to droning
      sonorously about the cases he wanted to discuss with Alito. Only
      Russ Feingold and Chuck Schumer got anything from Alito, with
      Feingold causing Alito to back into a corner like every mob stoolie
      Alito ever cut a plea deal with. Feingold got Alito to admit that he
      was wrong when he said that a "computer glitch" caused him to take
      on a case involving Vanguard companies, with whom Alito had nearly
      $400,000 invested.

      Then there's Alito himself, who, if this was about 18 months ago,
      would be called a "flip-flopper." To quote Maureen Dowd (from
      today's column), "Is he the old Sam, who devised ways to upend Roe
      v. Wade and crimp abortion rights? Or the new Sam, who has great
      respect for precedent and an 'open mind' about abortion cases?

      "Is he the old Sam, who plotted ways to tip the balance of power to
      the executive branch? Or the new Sam, who states that 'no person in
      this country is above the law, and that includes the president'?

      "Is he the old Sam, who said Robert Bork 'was one of the most
      outstanding nominees of this century' and 'a man of unequaled
      ability'? Or the new Sam, who shrugged off that statement as the
      dutiful support of one Reagan appointee for another?"

      Or, in other words, Alito is the typical conservative little bitch,
      who will lie openly about his beliefs in order to achieve power
      because he knows that the majority of the country (and the Senate,
      if so-called "moderate" Republicans actually existed) disagree with
      them. Goddamn, Ruth Bader Ginsburg fuckin' laid it all out there,
      love it or leave it, man. The crazed Robert Bork was willing to
      say, "Yes, I do fuck mothers," which took guts. And Alito is about
      as nutzoid as Bork; he just spits less when he expresses it. Or he
      claims he doesn't believe what he believes, which makes him a little
      yapping bitch.

      The most absurd statement came from Senator John Cornyn, who claimed
      to Alito that Democrats "have already decided to vote against your
      nomination and are looking for some reason to do so." It's like
      saying, "Democrats have decided not to shove cucumbers up their
      asses" while you desperately try to get that green gourd all the way
      to your anxious prostate.

      How about this for a Democratic strategy now and in the debate
      after - act like the general public is fuckin' sick of the
      Republicans and how they've led the nation. Act like Americans are
      begging for someone to stop the crazy train we're on. 'Cause if you
      can't pull the emergency brake, then you need to get thrown onto the
      tracks. Slam this motherfuckin' Alito for being the weaselly bastard
      he is. Stop making him into some noble, nice guy - fucker defended a
      warrantless strip search of a ten year-old - what more do you need?
      Remember: no one gives a shit beyond CNNMSNBCFox how badly
      Republicans slam Democrats for being "obstructionists." No one cares
      when Bush says the same thing. What the public will remember in
      November is that Democrats stood for something, that they drew a
      fuckin' line, man.

      Dry yourselves off and slap those hard Republican cocks out of the
      way, or it's just gonna be another sad right wing rape.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.