Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- Please send as far and wide as possible.Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com FeedBack: Another Satisfied Customer You are either Muslim liars or paid by the Muslims 3/12/2004 That there was a Jewish man who was crucified is well testified to in the historical documents. As to "invented"; tell me, if you know, WHEN was the "Old Test-a-mant written? Either that or you are jealous and of the Ye-wish persuasion who are trying to destroy our society by Mafioso criminal tactics endorsing sodomists (i.e. butt fuckers and every other evil). Screw you and all liars too. ***** Swiss government supports end to absinthe ban Fri Mar 12, 2004 GENEVA (AFP) - The Swiss government approved draft legislation to end a ban on absinthe, the mythical herbal liqueur beloved of turn-of-the- century artists and blamed for driving some of them mad. Political debate has been ongoing in the Alpine country since last year over the green spirit, which is thought to be bootlegged in moderate quantities here but was outlawed in 1908, after a factory worker killed his wife and two children in a bout of madness blamed on the drink. Absinthe was allowed back into shops in much of western Europe in 1981 after the European Union passed a directive which overturned bans in many countries. Although the law was later eased in non-EU member Switzerland, the drink nicknamed the "green fairy" has remained outlawed in its high- proof form recognized as real absinthe. The federal Swiss government said in a report that the 1908 ban no longer was justified, since the quantities of thuyone -- the substance in absinthe considered dangerous -- were now clearly regulated in the drink. Legalizing it would actually enable authorities to control the production of the alcohol and tax its sales, it said. The fabled aura surrounding absinthe, immortalized in poems by Charles Baudelaire and paintings by Edgar Degas and Pablo Picasso, could also be dispelled if it were no longer illegal, the government concluded. Pro-legalization camps in Switzerland have touted the economic benefits of the drink for the isolated Val de Travers in the western canton of Neuchatel, which claims to be the birthplace of the alcohol made from wormwood. About 15,000 litwes of absinthe are thought to be distilled illegally in the Val de Travers every year. Most of the locals drink it diluted with water, when it turns into a milky-white colour. ***** Same-Sex Marriage - A Commentary Lenny Hall The current hot topic of same-sex marriage is an issue that can have far deeper impact than its title implies. One should carefully consider their stance on this subject as it opens doors to other issues and thus affects much more than just the rights of our gay and lesbian fellow citizens. In the debate of same-sex marriage, we must first decide what our definition of marriage is, and from what source it is derived. In other words, is our definition of marriage based on a religious or secular point of view? Either way, there are several factors that must be considered. If our definition of marriage is based on religious perspective, then from what religion is it based? The most obvious and likely source would be Christianity, as it is the most prevalent religious influence in this country and would thus have the strongest support and weakest opposition. However, even within the Christian community there are varying points of view on this very subject. So, it would be likely that any conclusion would be based on that which is the most popular belief within Christianity. But, can it be said that what is most popular is also what is best or right? In addition, should our laws be based on the most popular opinion of merely one group of people, or on the Constitution itself? There is another, and even potentially greater problem that arises with a religious approach to defining marriage - the intermingling of religion and government. This is a subject that many religious movements today lose sight of, or simply dismiss as a non-issue. Such carelessness is a mistake. The very act of allowing religious influence to define a law that affects citizens outside the realm of such religious persuasion, is in effect legislating religious law on citizens who may hold a different point of view according to the dictates of their own conscience. While it is unfortunately true that such religious legislation is welcome by some people of faith, the after-affects of such a move may not be. The joining of state and religion is a two-edged sword that threatens to cut away at the very heart of the First Amendment. Once religion crosses the boundary of involving itself in government legislation, it automatically opens the door for government legislation to involve itself in religion. One cannot cross the line and expect that it does not provide the opportunity for the other to do so as well. While it is not fair for others to force their views on religion, it is also true that religion should not force its views on others, no matter how innocent or well intended either may be. Good intentions do not necessarily produce appropriate action. Now, let's assume for a moment that a religious definition of marriage has been agreed upon. With this in mind, is it appropriate for the state to marry people, or would that too be considered a mixing of religion and government? Where is the line drawn? If marriage is indeed considered a solely religious-defined institution, then how can state government offer to marry anyone without getting involved in the religious side of the issue? On the other hand, if the definition for marriage is not considered to be based on religious dogma, and the way is paved for legitimizing same-sex marriage and thus giving full rights of access to benefits for gay and lesbian couples, what affect might that have on religious institutions? Could such institutions be forced to accept a marriage union that they may not agree with, and would such acceptance be considered state interference with religious conviction? Again, where are the lines drawn, and where do they cross? As far as I can tell, when it comes the issue of same-sex marriage, no one is asking anyone to agree with the homosexual lifestyle. It is not a matter of personal view, but rather of acceptance on legal grounds. The legal ramifications are what are at stake. There is no law that prevents people from being gay or lesbian. So, lifestyle is not the issue. The issue is not even about a mere slip of paper that proclaims a marriage commitment. After all, a commitment between two people does not hinge on whether or not there is a piece of paper. Such commitment begins and is maintained within the heart, where the ink of a pen gains no influence. So, the issue that gays and lesbians are seeking is not about "moral" acceptance, but rather of legal acceptance and legal respect. Same-sex couples simply want to be recognized for their commitment to each other and thus share in the same legal benefits that traditional married couples benefit from. Who can say that the love they share is any less deserving of such benefits? On what grounds can we justify the exclusion of their love from such benefits? Is it only because we do not accept their legally protected right to love each other in the way they do? While there is legal protection for two people of the same sex to give their hearts to each other, why is there no legal protection for them to give to each other the possessions they leave behind? Is a home, car, or even a couch suddenly more valuable than a heart? If so, what kind of religion can justify such a belief? As already pointed out, when we begin to allow religion to interfere with state law, we run into problems. And, when that interference deals with the private lives of citizens, it becomes especially dangerous. It is under such legislation that we become "thought police." We simply cannot legislate the way people think. After all, we must keep in mind that there are many reasons why people get married. This includes traditional man/woman marriages. Some people marry for love, while others marry for convenience, money, status, citizenship, etc. Should religion start to define not only what combination of gender is acceptable for marriage, but also what reasons for marriage? If the door is open in one area of personal life, what is to stop it from being closed in another? I have a suggestion. Since it is impossible to find common ground that will satisfy both the religious and non-religious sides of this issue, why not allow both? In other words, let the churches marry people based on their own standards of marriage without government interference. At the same time, allow the states to marry couples based on their own set of standards, which may include same-sex marriages. That way, the churches would not be forced to agree or disagree with it, and the legal benefits that same-sex couples seek could be provided to them by the states. People could choose who marries them based on their own convictions, and the marriage unions of each would be respected by all solely on legal grounds. The only thing that would need to be worked out is how to handle an employment situation where the employer is a religious institution, such as a hospital, school, etc. But, that general issue is certainly not a new one for religious institutions, so not much would change there. In conclusion, is it asking too much to accept the right of people to choose how to live their lives whether or not we agree with it, especially when such a way of life has not been proven to cause harm to others? Perhaps it's time we all remember that one's sincerely held beliefs lie at the very core of that which should be protected, not regulated. To force compliance from the heart of another is exactly what marriage should not be about. ***** Plot to overthrow 'cannibal' president >From AFP March 12, 2004 MALABO: A conspiracy to abduct the long-serving president of the small oil-rich west African nation of Equatorial Guinea was revealed on national television yesterday by the alleged leader of a group of mercenaries. "It wasn't a question of taking the life of the head of state, but of spiriting him away, taking him to Spain and forcing him into exile and then of immediately installing the government-in-exile of Severo Moto Nsa," said the man, named as South African Nick du Toit, 48. President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, who came to power in a 1979 coup in which he had his uncle, former president Francisco Macias Nguema, executed, announced the arrest of 15 mercenaries on Tuesday, saying they were plotting to overthrow him. He linked them to 67 men arrested in Zimbabwe at the weekend when their plane was impounded. That group has been threatened with execution by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Equatorial Guinea called yesterday for the extradition of Mr Moto, who tried to mount a coup against Mr Obiang in 1997 from Angola, for which he was sentenced in absentia to 101 years' jail. He recently set up a "government in exile" in Spain. Mr Moto denied any involvement in the plot and claimed on Spanish radio that Mr Obiang was an "authentic cannibal" who "systematically eats his political rivals". "A while back he paid millions to those they call marabou (sorcerers) to tell him if his power-base was safe. They told him that to keep his grip on power he had to kill people close to him," Mr Moto said. "Obiang wants me to go back to Guinea and eat my testicles. That's clear." ***** Follow the Leader By John Prados, TomPaine.com March 12, 2004 The outcry over the first series of political commercials for President George W. Bush was swift and heartfelt. Using images of victims of the 9/11 attacks and firefighters responding to the emergency at the World Trade Center, the ads trumpeted President Bush's "steady" leadership. Families of the victims and representatives of the firefighters charged that the White House is using 9/11 to advance a political agenda. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani tried to deflect this criticism by emphasizing that Bush's leadership has been steady. But the commercials themselves beg the question: What did President Bush do on 9/11? Giuliani himself framed the Bush question this way: "His leadership on that day is central to his record." Over the weekend that followed initial broadcast of the Bush campaign commercials, both sides took positions on the appropriateness of their content. Democrats protested the imagery. President Bush, who in January 2002, when seeking an extra budget appropriation for his war on terrorism, had told congressional leaders, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue," backed away from that undertaking. From his Crawford, Texas, ranch on March 6 Bush declared, "I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency." Echoing Rudy Giuliani, Bush added, "How this administration handled that day, as well as the war on terror, is worthy of discussion." A leader marches to the sound of the guns. George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Napoleon would have done that. Rudy Giuliani did do that. After the first plane struck the Twin Towers, he went immediately to the World Trade Center and helped supervise emergency efforts there. But what exactly did George W. Bush do? On that crystalline day in September, President Bush was at the Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. Bush was to participate in a conference and some reading demonstrations in support of his "No Child Left Behind" education program. Learning of the terrorist attacks, President Bush made a brief televised statement in which he said he had spoken to Vice President Dick Cheney, FBI director Robert Mueller and New York Governor George Pataki. He called the terrorists "folks" and promised a full investigation. Then he left for the airport. Air Force One was wheels up from Sarasota at 9:57 a.m., a little over 20 minutes after Bush's first statement. At that point, the president, the commander-in-chief, had three choices. Bush could have returned to Washington, where the Pentagon had also been hit by one of the terrorist planes, and where the president had told the nation he was headed. Bush could have gone to New York City, which had sustained the most grievous blows in the 9/11 attacks. What he chose - the third option - was to flee somewhere else to refuel, then remain in the air. The president's plane flew to Barksdale Air Force Base outside Shreveport, La. By choosing to fly to a remote location far away from the site of the attacks, Bush acquiesced to the demands of his security people. At the moment of the initial decision, there was still some reason for the moving out of danger, because one of the terrorist aircrafts, Flight 77, was still airborne, but it crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m., only a few minutes into Bush's flight. Did Bush march to the sound of the guns? Did he go to New York where his presence would have been the symbol of a nation unbowed? No. Instead, at about 10:40 a.m., when Air Force One picked up a fighter escort near Jacksonville, Bush accepted Cheney's advice not to return immediately to Washington. Because every aircraft over the United States except official planes got orders to land, air traffic controllers and military air defense commanders could verify within a few hours that the airborne terrorist threat had ended. Certainly the situation had been clarified by 12:36, when Bush spoke again to the nation from Barksdale, looking flustered on television but promising the United States would track down the perpetrators. An hour later Air Force One was back in the air - the real situation clearer yet - but Bush flew to Offutt Air Force Base at Omaha, headquarters of the Air Combat Command, not to either Washington or New York. Offutt had a secure command post where Bush could teleconference with his top national security people, but he could have done that even more easily in Washington. Only late in the day did the president return to the East coast. He stepped onto White House grounds at about 7:00 that evening. Three days after the attacks, President Bush finally went to New York. This sorry record is not one of steady leadership, nor does it show a decisive president willing to override poor advice. The official record of Presidents of the United States, the Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, which would have to have recorded Bush's statements of the morning and afternoon of 9/11, never appeared for the week of September 11, 2001. The remarks appeared only much later on the White House website. President Bush also went to extraordinary lengths to shield from public scrutiny his inaction on the terrorist threat before 9/11, including denial of documents to congressional investigators and a public commission, the use of secrecy rules to suppress embarrassing information and the manipulation of the scope of inquiry and its deadline to ensure investigators had minimal time in which to review the key issue of Bush's leadership on terrorism. In contrast to this disturbing performance, George Bush went on to take every opportunity to harness 9/11 in service of his political agenda, contrary to his own promises of 2002. A carefully orchestrated World Trade Center speech on the first anniversary of the attacks, the use of the Statue of Liberty as backdrop for a 9/11 commemoration a year later, now the Bush political ads. This is leadership of a different kind. John Prados is an analyst with the National Security Archive in Washington, DC, and author, most recently, of 'The White House Tapes; Eavesdropping on the President.' ***** Conspiracy Nation http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html Spain's 9/11 (Conspiracy Nation, 3/13/04) -- 911 days after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the U.S., a similarly coordinated terror event occurred in Spain. There, instead of an aviation theme, a train theme founded the "stunningly well-coordinated series of 10 explosions on Madrid's packed commuter trains." [1] Instead of September 11th, Spain now holds March 11th (3/11) as its particular "Day of Infamy." "The usual suspects" were quickly announced in Spain in the same way that a "rush to judgement" occurred in the U.S. following the 9/11 horror show. Few are waiting to suspend judgement until more facts are known, as also happened in America soon after September 11th. Already in Spain, those wanting to ride trains face increased scrutiny, as now occurs in the U.S. for those wanting to fly. It is too early to say with certainty what exactly happened in Spain on March 11th, but some hazy facts may be relevant. On March 10th, 2004, BBC News carried a report about a group of alleged mercenaries detained in Zimbabwe. A coup d'etat was apparently planned against the government of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea. "Zimbabwe claimed US, British and Spanish spy agencies were helping the 'mercenaries' in the plot." [2] "Equatorial Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Nguema also said multinational firms were involved in the conspiracy." [2] Following the coup d'etat, the government-in-exile of Severo Moto Nsa allegedly was to have been re-installed in Equatorial Guinea. Moto's government-in-exile is located in Spain. [3] The alleged mercenaries were onboard a plane of mysterious origin when detained. It is fuzzy at this point who exactly owns the plane. It has been traced to the United States but from there the records point in different directions. The alleged leader of the mercenaries reportedly revealed on or about March 12th that there indeed was a "conspiracy to abduct the long- serving president of the small oil-rich west African nation of Equatorial Guinea..." [3] Reportedly, it had not been planned to kill Equatorial Guinea's president. Instead the plot consisted of "spiriting him away, taking him to Spain and forcing him into exile..." [3] The bottom line in the plot seems to be oil and multinational corporations propelling various nation's covert intelligence arms into action. The failure of the alleged plot may have caused a backlash, in Spain, on March 11th. Given the sophisticated nature of the Spanish terror attacks, the participation of rival intelligence operatives ought not to be ruled out. ------- Notes ------- [1] "Group claims it carried out explosions in name of al-Qaida", Associated Press. Published in Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette, 3/12/04. [2] "African 'Mercenary Plot' Thickens", BBC News, March 10, 2004 [3] "Plot to Overthrow 'Cannibal' President", The Australian, March 12, 2004 ------- Conspiracy Nation. Think outside the box. http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to help The Konformist through the following email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you are interested in a free subscription to The Konformist Newswire, please visit: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist Or, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!" (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool catch phrase.) Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/klubkonformist Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
