|
| Just What Was He Smoking? |
|
Posted by FoM on March 20, 2002 at 21:44:27 PT By Gene Weingarten, Washington Post Staff Writer Source: Washington Post 
Now that the latest tapes from the Nixon White House have been released, the press is all over them with characteristic glee, eager as always to remind us that not long ago the leader of the free world was buggier than a flophouse blanket. Don't you get tired of this?Me neither. So when researcher Doug McVay from Common Sense for Drug Policy sent me tapes he culled from Nixon's Oval Office rants about drugs, I pounced on them. I figured it would be a welcome respite from Nixon's recent rants about Jews. From the Weed Screed, May 26, 1971: "You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists." In my professional capacity, I diagnose a delusional state of mind. It's simple logic: In a previously released rant, Nixon and Billy Graham gnash and froth over how Jews control the media. How can most Jews be psychiatrists and still control the media? Nixon does not explain. But he does explain many other things in these drug tapes, including the insidious nexus between drugs, homosexuality, communism and, of course, Jews. The excerpts begin with the Nixon doctrine on why marijuana is much worse than alcohol: It is because people drink "to have fun" but they smoke marijuana "to get high." This distinction was evidently enormously significant to Nixon, because he repeats it twice. In an excruciating sequence from Sept. 9, 1971, Nixon is meeting with former Pennsylvania governor Raymond P. Shafer. Shafer heads a presidential commission on drug policy that Nixon has heard might be flirting with the notion of recommending the decriminalization of marijuana. "You're enough of a pro," Nixon tells Shafer, "to know that for you to come out with something that would run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels, and what we're planning to do, would make your commission just look bad as hell." Shafer begins to stammer. Nixon appears to be telling his commission, in advance, what to conclude. If there is any doubt about this, Nixon erases it instantly. He instructs Shafer not to seek input from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which he seems to think is soft on drugs, apparently because it is filled with, you know, psychiatrists: "As an old prosecutor, I don't mind somebody putting it in J. Edgar Hoover's hands, but I come down very hard on the side of putting it in, uh, hardheaded doctors, rather than a bunch of muddle-headed psychiatrists." Shafer can barely get a word in edgewise. "They're all muddle-headed," Nixon says. "You know what I mean?" The governor's discomfort is palpable. You can almost hear him hooking a finger in his collar. Nixon continues, making things perfectly clear: "But anyway, the thing to do now is to alert the country to the problem and say now, this far, no farther, and I think that's what you want to do, take a strong line." Suddenly, people start getting up. The meeting is over. Before Shafer knows what hits him, the president is pushing him out the door, with a gift of golf balls and cuff links. Eventually, Shafer's commission would recommend decriminalization. The Nixon White House was appalled, understandably: Nixon saw drugs as a threat to the vitals of the republic -- right up there, hand in hand, with the scourge of homosexuality. Nixon expounds on this in a lengthy monologue on May 13, 1971. On this day, he makes it clear that he does not like gay people. Northern California, he says, has gotten so "faggy" that "I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." Nixon loves this subject. He is nearly unstoppable on it. His top aides H.R. "Bob" Haldeman and John Ehrlichman are in the room, but they barely speak beyond monosyllabic sycophancies. It takes the president a while to get to the point, which begins with his review of a popular TV sitcom he has just watched, apparently for the first time: "Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. . . . The son-in-law apparently goes both ways." Nixon seems to have concluded, against all evidence, that Meathead is bisexual. Possibly it is the length of his hair. Another character in the show, Nixon reports, is "obviously queer. He wears an ascot, and so forth." The president is outraged that this filth should appear on TV: "The point that I make is that, goddamn it, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality. You don't glorify it, John, anymore than you glorify, uh, whores." The president asserts that America is in jeopardy from this Archie Bunker gay thing: "I don't want to see this country to go that way. You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates." Ehrlichman interrupts to reassure his boss. Socrates, he says, "never had the influence that television had." Precisely, precisely. Nixon is on a roll, lecturing like a history professor: "Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. . . . You know what happened to the popes? It's all right that popes were laying the nuns." Someone laughs nervously. Nixon bulls on, not a hint of humor in his voice. "That's been going on for years, centuries, but when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell in, I don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual. . . . Now, that's what happened to Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn it, they root them out, they don't let 'em hang around at all. You know what I mean? I don't know what they do with them." "Dope? Do you think the Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope, uh, immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They're trying to destroy us." Well, that was 31 years ago, and I am happy to report that the Jew-homo-doper-Commie-shrink-lefty-pope cabal has not, to date, destroyed us. Nixon seems to have been wrong on this one. Of course, it's not the first time he was wrong. Yes, he was a crook. No, it wasn't a third-rate burglary. And yes -- we do still have Dick Nixon to kick around. Apparently, thanks to his tapes, forever and ever and ever. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles & Web Site: Common Sense for Drug Policy Book Says Nixon Took Mood-Altering Drug Fixin' Under Nixon - Salon Magazine Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #26 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on March 22, 2002 at 09:58:54 PT |
| Searching through Map Inc., I found the article below entitled "War on Pony Tails". Who would have thought the war on us would outlive Nixon? [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #25 posted by kaptinemo on March 22, 2002 at 05:07:19 PT:
|
| Read ST at age 12, you said? Same here. The concepts of voluntary service Heinlein laid out inspired me to join a Civil Air Patrol squadron a year later...where I learned many of us had read the same book. And the Patrol squadron I joined was one rough bunch. ("Juan Rico" would have felt right at home.) Had to be, as we'd get called out almost every other week for SAR ops. Cadets. Kids - aged 13 and up. Doing field searches. And seeing things maybe kids shouldn't see at that age. But most of us were bound for the military, anyways. I experienced the same fierce pride in knowing that for all the harsh military discipline I underwent, I was a free human being; I could quit at any time up to the 30 seconds before a mission departed. I stayed 7 years. As did many of my comrades. Because of the ideas in that book and the others Heinlein wrote of. Heinlein was without a doubt a 'lower case "l" libertarian. The thread of absolute necessity for [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #24 posted by lookinside on March 21, 2002 at 21:22:35 PT:
|
| As I write this, I'm looking at most of Heinlein's fictional works on my bookshelf, 2 feet away. All are well read. Some I've had since the 60's. I agree with your assessment of the RAPE of Starship Troopers. I read it the first time when I was about 12. I didn't read it again for nearly 30 years. It came as a shock to see that I had incorporated much of that book into my political attitudes. An honest rendering of the story might have done much good in pointing out the idiocy of our government's current direction. I was hoping Heinlein would live forever.....(or at least a couple more millenia.) [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #23 posted by kaptinemo on March 21, 2002 at 12:59:07 PT:
|
| I desperately needed a good laugh, as it's been a bad day. You really brightened my spirits. Thanx again! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #22 posted by DdC on March 21, 2002 at 12:35:49 PT |
| dddd on March 20, 2002 at 22:58:41 PT ....smoke?... ....further proof that the real world class nuts and psycho sickos didnt smoke anything!,,(except maybe tobacco). ...let's look back thru history....nope,,I cant think of any world class scoundrels that smoked weed. .....heck,,,the next thing ya know,,the ondcp will sponsor a show on PBS,where Geraldo Rivera,and Stone Phillips discover Hitlers Bong,,?. American High Society Links The Hashish Club [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #21 posted by DdC on March 21, 2002 at 12:08:00 PT |
| Frying in meat oil is high in poly unsaturated fat, the heart clogging stuff, frying in veggie oil is better but baking is best. Hempoil shouldn't be heated let alone used for cooking btw. And crude oil is only good for making Bushit and wingnut OPECkers wealthy. When something is partially boiled it is called parboiled, when something is partially fried, it is lightly fried, sautee'd, overeasy or uncooked, rare or not done. Parfried might work but I've never heard of it. People who fry could be called friars, but they are also Catholic Monks. One named Tuck who wore tights stealing from the rich was forced by decree to fry fish on Fridays, banning meat on that day to cut down on funding terrorist groups like the Robin Hood cells located throughout the Sherwood Forest, no fish there! Then Sheriff Ashcrafty said all Friars must be frocked to make profiling easier so Tuck got frocked to blend in but it didn't work, they busted him. Then in the 60's the Pope allowed the Bible to be read and the people to eat cows everyday but the Friars still get frocked! Being fried in the brain is a bad thing, unless its while taking fry also known as LSD, which is most likely a temporary condition or it would cost a lot more. And once again the politico's lied promising flashbacks as my watch says its going on 33 years. When Tricky Dick? Much better to be baked. But not burnt, especially to the outer limits of cognesant thoughts known as burnout. Contrary to popular belief people didn't limit this method of cooking to Fridays, or did they not bake or get baked on Fridays. Since frying is more unhealthy maybe it should be changed to Bakeday. Some chickens are friars but they don't have to be Catholic or frocked, though we know the D.E.A.th Czars do take liberties. Peace, Love and Liberty or D.E.A.th! DdC [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #20 posted by DdC on March 21, 2002 at 11:06:57 PT |
| This was 25 days after I had my first encounter with a real live honest to goodness jackbooted stormtrooper. As he not so gentily in the wee hours of the morning, dragged me back into the drizzling rain from the Sanctuary of the Lincoln Memorial. As I looked at the words of Freedom on the wall behind him thinking, What a crock! Oh well, the experience didn't darken the weekend of Beach Boys and $12 horse choker lids! Peace, Love and Liberty or D.E.A.th! DdC San Sinsimillia [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #19 posted by kaptinemo on March 21, 2002 at 09:40:45 PT:
|
| I've only written what so many of us would say...if they could. And I've only presented other people's points of view as they said it...even if I disagreed with some or all of it. That's what makes our community what it is; we're willing to see other points of view. Antis cannot afford to...simply because they know that to entertain any doubts as to the righteousness of their actions is to welcome the hard light of honest criticism of them. Once that happens, once antis are put in the docket of public opinion and are revealed to have some unsavory anti-democratic habits, their support will vanish like an ice-cube in a blowtorch. This is why they are so afraid to actually debate us. They know what would happen. I am only a messenger, that's all. And a poorly equipped one, at that (tapping chunks of clay from feet). [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by greenfox on March 21, 2002 at 07:37:04 PT |
| I have to say it, once again, that you have put together meaning and inspiration out of things that we could only dream to do. In any event, thanks for being a part of cannabisnews.com [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by goneposthole on March 21, 2002 at 06:38:59 PT |
| A restaurant on east Pennslyvania Avenue in the erstwhile 'free nation' capitol had every president's portrait hung on their walls except for... you guessed it... 'Tricky Dick'. Pictures of Haldeman, Erlichmann, et al, were hanging there with the word 'apprehended' stamped across their faces. Something that might land anyone in the hoosegow these days. Slavishessly fighting for FREEDOM, I am. What a 'mitey' government we have. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on March 21, 2002 at 06:07:29 PT:
|
| I cut my political literary teeth on Heinlein's proto-Libertarian writings when I was a kid. To my knowledge, he was never a member of the Lib party - but many of us hold with the major points of his philosophy. As you can guess, they had an enormous impact. Unfortunately, with the release of that (spitting the word) bastardized movie adaptation of STARSHIP TROOPERS (which, like most screenplays made from books, resembles the novel only superficially) his ideas have been misconstrued and taken out of context so much only people who've actually read his works know what he was trying to say for so long. A pity; Heinlein was a career military officer...who dragged his own service and all the others over the coals for the stupid things they had done. He was a strong believer in checks and balances...and favored the responsible exercise of personal freedom as opposed to governmental restriction 'for your own good'. Heinlein watched pols with an eagle eye, always on the lookout for skullduggery and dishonesty...and was unsparing of his criticism when he found it. He deeply mistrusted the coalescing bonds between Fundamentalist religions and business concerns, using their enormous resources politically to acquire unwarranted power (sound familiar?). And he made it abundantly clear that if he had to choose between Humanity at large and any particular government - including his own - Humanity got the nod. Too bad the man passed away 14 years ago - too bad for us, that is. He'd probably die of apoplexy at seeing how his beloved America has been turned into a close approximation of the very monstrosity he wrote about in IF THIS GOES ON.... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by qqqq on March 21, 2002 at 06:06:49 PT |
| ..I think that perhaps the opposite of "raw",,is "uncooked".....but then again.."frying" is a type of "cooking"..so ,,I think you're right Patrick,,,and,I'm glad you took the time to mention it.,something that has not yet been fried is probably "raw",or unfried,,depending on your utensils or technique......... and,,speaking of frying,, I've always sorta had this theory that that frying,,or 'Deep Fat Frying',,was a good way to cook things that may have been "raw" ,for a questionably long period of time..?............. ..I kinda like ending up discussing things that have nothing to do with the article,,Nixon,,or,,Smoking..... It's a sorta cheap diversion from the brutal,real world of factual reality,,in which Nixon had discovered that Marijuana was dangerous! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by Patrick on March 21, 2002 at 05:32:04 PT |
| is fried? Raw? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by qqqq on March 21, 2002 at 05:27:16 PT |
| ..I have always liked Michael Moore..I would like to see him replace Bill Maher..... ..the Robert A. Heinlein thing was,,to put it mildly; extraordinarily outstanding!................Thank You [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on March 21, 2002 at 05:15:54 PT:
|
| We aren't the only ones railing against this transparent power grab by corporations/secret societies. I don't normally shill for a book, unless I think it's definetely worthwile, from a Reformer's point of view. But I am recommending this one: and here's a sample of why: Police Raid, Shut Down My Booksigning in San Diego http://www.michaelmoore.com/diaries/book_diary_2002_0311.html " have visited the most out-of-the-way places in California and, no matter where I go or how right-wing the congressman is that represents their district, all sorts of people are desperate to get inside to be with the thousands of others who want to be part of "United We Stand Against the Thief-in-Chief." Grass Valley, Hayward, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, Ukiah, Arcata, Berkeley, Westwood, East L.A., Koreatown (L.A.) -- I wish all of you could see what I have seen. In every town, at every stop, huge throngs of Americans who are sick and tired of the silence that has been demanded of them, lest they be thought of as "unpatriotic" should they dare to question the actions of George W. Bush and company. That's what this tour is all about. It's time to come out and start acting like Americans again. As to what constitutes an 'American', I can only offer this: THIS I BELIEVE by Robert Heinlein http://www.heinleinsociety.org/thisibelieve.html Robert A. Heinlein wrote these words in 1952 and delivered them to a national radio audience in a broadcast interview by Edward R. Murrow. His wife, Virginia Heinlein, read them when she accepted on his behalf NASA's Distinguished Public Service Medal on October 6, 1988, awarded him posthumously. "I am not going to talk about religious beliefs but about matters so obvious that it has gone out of style to mention them. I believe in my neighbors. I know their faults, and I know that their virtues far outweigh their faults. "Take Father Michael down our road a piece. I'm not of his creed, but I know that goodness and charity and loving kindness shine in his daily actions. I believe in Father Mike. If I'm in trouble, I'll go to him. "My next-door neighbor is a veterinary doctor. Doc will get out of bed after a hard day to help a stray cat. No fee -- no prospect of a fee -- I believe in Doc. "I believe in my townspeople. You can knock on any door in our town saying, 'I'm hungry,' and you will be fed. Our town is no exception. I've found the same ready charity everywhere. But for the one who says, 'To heck with you -- I got mine,' there are a hundred, a thousand who will say, 'Sure, pal, sit down.' "I know that despite all warnings against hitchhikers I can step up to the highway, thumb for a ride and in a few minutes a car or a truck will stop and someone will say, 'Climb in Mac -- how far you going?' "I believe in my fellow citizens. Our headlines are splashed with crime yet for every criminal there are 10,000 honest, decent, kindly men. If it were not so, no child would live to grow up. Business could not go on from day to day. Decency is not news. It is buried in the obituaries, but is a force stronger than crime. I believe in the patient gallantry of nurses and the tedious sacrifices of teachers. I believe in the unseen and unending fight against desperate odds that goes on quietly in almost every home in the land. "I believe in the honest craft of workmen. Take a look around you. There never were enough bosses to check up on all that work. From Independence Hall to the Grand Coulee Dam, these things were built level and square by craftsmen who were honest in their bones. "I believe that almost all politicians are honest ... there are hundreds of politicians, low paid or not paid at all, doing their level best without thanks or glory to make our system work. If this were not true we would never have gotten past the 13 colonies. "I believe in Rodger Young. You and I are free today because of endless unnamed heroes from Valley Forge to the Yalu River. I believe in -- I am proud to belong to -- the United States. Despite shortcomings from lynchings to bad faith in high places, our nation has had the most decent and kindly internal practices and foreign policies to be found anywhere in history. "And finally, I believe in my whole race. Yellow, white, black, red, brown. In the honesty, courage, intelligence, durability, and goodness of the overwhelming majority of my brothers and sisters everywhere on this planet. I am proud to be a human being. I believe that we have come this far by the skin of our teeth. That we always make it just by the skin of our teeth, but that we will always make it. Survive. Endure. I believe that this hairless embryo with the aching, oversize brain case and the opposable thumb, this animal barely up from the apes will endure. Will endure longer than his home planet -- will spread out to the stars and beyond, carrying with him his honesty and his insatiable curiosity, his unlimited courage and his noble essential decency. "This I believe." Those words were written half a century ago...and much has happened to us as a nation since then. And damn little of that was good. But the essential character of what we are as a people has not changed - despite the worst efforts of those who have their own plan for human destiny. I hope this helps... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by qqqq on March 21, 2002 at 01:57:17 PT |
| ..it is "burnt",,,,but what is the term for what happens before something is fried?.... .....here's some off topic fun for those of you who have seen the peculiar TV commercial,,I think it's from the "AD Council",,(whoever they may be?",,,and it has a bunch of people from obviously different ethnic groups,,and they say;,,"I am an American",,,"I am an American",,,,,,, but they left off the Americans who have really been left out.......If they were honest in this ad,,they would have shown at least one angry American........ ..I like to think of the same ad,,,but at the end,the last person is an older guy who says;;;.."I am an American,,and I'm really fuckin' pissed!"................................it's almost as if the government itself is becoming less and less "American"????....."American",,,who can define it? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Harvey Pendrake on March 21, 2002 at 00:17:30 PT |
| The current Bush adminstration is doing everything it can to keep records of the Reagan and previous Bush White Houses from being made public. Of course, they're not having to fight very hard because the American public has decided to go catatonic and give George W. Bush the "thumbs up" no matter what he does. And the media? They're busy reporting on the important stuff: Andrea Yates and the "Case of the Dog Mauling Murder". When I read this about Nixon, it makes me want to know what was going on behind the scenes during Reagan/Bush. I guess I'm one of the few, but I hope I don't have to wait 25-30 years to finally find out. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by p4me on March 21, 2002 at 00:07:43 PT |
| This comment appeared here last Friday. This is a continuation of comment 8. He had a email on the original comment of last Friday morning and I do not know if that still works when copied and pasted. VAAI Comment #6 posted by paul peterson on March 15, 2002 at 10:23:47 PT: aged cannabis user-ALIENATED from family I found, after using some 15 prescriptions to deal with the side effects of ritalin (Attention Deficit Disorder), that cannabis helped where none else would (most had high blood pressure, joint pain, wierd thought patterns-don't go there. Then a therapist told me to "move to California", meaning it might not have been too wierd to try pot at night to ward of the depressive slide I got from the ritalin, that (controversial as that is as well) helped me with focus, etc. Then I researched the Illinois statute (720 ILCS 550, #11), and found, in 1998, that in 1971, our state did the best darned medical marijuana law in the nation & the first one at that! Then, in 1979, they added this really good "mandatory" language, open ended, physician discretion based, without any DEA limiters to boot-Believing that I could get this validly authorized, I got some, tried it again, and almost saved my marriage, since I lost that nightly "cross" look on my face, my four kids almost started to like me again as well. All went well until she divorced me in 2001, fearing leagal reprisals (since I couldn't convince my doctor to give me the paper, since no one knew about the law). So I tried to get somethng going here, in Illinois, they took my license to practice law, merely because I tried to be honest, open, ethical, and advocate, for the state to do what the law SAID THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. The Illinois ARDC even committed PERJURY to get my license. I am now penniless, alone, rather depressed about the sorry response I got from everyone in government, WHEN I MERELY TOLD THEM ABOUT THE LAW ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! I just got a FOIA response back from the state. Even though I have direct evidence, from a Senator Grotberg, (peobody, set the wayback to 1980) who stated in the legislative chamber 5/8/80 that the DDC(Dangerous Drug Commission-abolished by Reagan warriers in 1984)was finally getting cannabis (under this statute) into the hands of physicians to help their cancer patients! these people in 2002 had the gall to tell me that MARIJUANA has never been authorized under this statute - further that they have no record of any activities on the part of the DDC. Reagan, true to the legend that he and his minions ruthlessly destroyed every positive evidence of cannabis research, effectively buried both the best & earliest state program on pot use (here in Illinois, 1979-83?) and then destroyed any record of it ever having been conducted in the first place! Now, in the 21st century, I can't even get a local newspaper to print any story on this issue-or to get any local station to help me in any way. CBS News had this really good bit about the California 8 year old, with a remarkably similar chemical imbalance, etc., and still nobody will take on this story about our really good state statute. No advocacy group is willing to help me with funding (because I am alone, in Illinois, of all places) and I could use some support here, since I have had my occupation taken away on false pretenses (remember the PERJURY?). Please come to my site, check out what I have to say about this statute, I would like to keep going on this fight, (and by the way, my kids are rather bewildered by my lack of willingness to deny the truth about this controversial substance-the DARE program could easily be made a little bit better, by telling them to 1) stay away from drugs until they are older 2) then, keep to the harmless stuff like marijuana & 3) use this, as well as all drugs-alcohol included, in moderation and with the best safety in mind IF THEY ARE GOING TO USE ANY DRUGS (that might save their lives someday-If someone would only tell them that). PAUL PETERSON 312-558-9999 (CHICAGO, IL.) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by p4me on March 21, 2002 at 00:00:35 PT |
| I looked at the number of hits for Cnews and it seems our numbers are increasing. It is 2:30 in the morning and I just wanted to babble. There was an interesting comment made by Paul Peterson on Friday. I gather that Mr. Peterson is a lawyer and educated in marijuana as medicine. My first feeling is that what he originally said deserved comments as much as any article. So today, I tracked down his original post and emailed him asking him to join us at cannabianews and let us know his story. Now look at the time that this lawyer spent typing out a reply to an email. So my main intent tonight is to say that anyone can comment here. You do not have to pay a fee or get approved by a committee. If you feel froggy, jump. If you have something to say type. Everyone here has certain knowledges and everyone's bullshi* detectors are operational and you hear a lot of those detectors going off at all the bullshi* the prohibitionist come up with. Everyone that visits this site has a unique perspective and sometimes people do not comment when most of us enjoy the perspective that you bring to Cnews when you comment. I am going to post the email I got in return from Mr. Peterson here and I will copy the original comment so that it is read first. I would like Mr. Peterson to become one of us regulars and I hope the numbers at Cnews increase dramatically. ACLU WOULDN'T HELP ME AT ALL WITH MY "ETHICAL" CASE BECAUSE THE ARDC (LAWYER POLICE) CHARGED ME WITH "THREATENING TO CHARGE OTHER LAWYERS (a socalled "personal" issue-even though it was a fraud & obtuse perjury on the ARDC part-2 weeks prior to socalled "threatening" to file those charges, I DID FILE FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST 2 lawyers-then merely called both later and told them I filed charges-duh!-The ARDC refused to give me documentation of filing those charges for 4 months-I had to go to the Ill. Supreme Court with emergency motions to "abate fraud", then they gave me the goods-but not before they had filed absolutely false documents in the same ISC! The ISC refused to chastise the ARDC-who are employees of the ISC-complicated enough yet?), the NORML people said-sorry, they have 700,000 other people to defend on criminal charges (mine is only ethical rub)-That's OK though, I am having some success here with my motion practice-and I am fighting back big time regarding the fraud/perjury/now aiding and abetting perjury/I want to charge these people under federal criminal law-mail fraud-this leaves me with a curious catch 22-the feds don't want to charge them because of my "pot" thingy, the feds don't want to charge me (I am hoping) because of the "mail fraud" thingy. I am implicating Jim Ryan, the Republican Governor candidate, he is also the state's Attorney General now-and I have repeatedly badgered him to investigate the ARDC-He had the audacity to send a letter last week suggesting that I bring my charges of "prosecutorial misconduct" against the ARDC --get this: to the ARDC! I blasted him today with my letter demanding that he take on the case as Illinois' HIGHEST LAWYER-because of a conflict of interest in the ARDC- I also demanded last week and today again-that the ARDC administrator RESIGN, based upon failure to investigate her own employees!-Sounds like aiding and abetting perjury to me (I have the proof in the pudding). Now I'm talking with the Libertarians about running for state rep (merely to get press and exposure about this fraud thingy-It is really wierd how no local paper will take ANY story from me-I am not sure how to post a web link-Go ahead and do it-(you could be my impromptu press agent for these web sites-I am totally broke and losing everything unless I can get some funding-MPP told me I am too "amateurish" or something (unfocused I think they said-don't ever contact us again they said). The Lindesmith people are a little too snobby, I think-Let me know if you know anybody that might know somebody with cash to loan on a piece of realty I own free and clear. Also, I have a glaucoma person in Illinois that needs a doctor-this could be a good test case for my local statute-I need a doctor's certification though (the local statute does not require that the doctor be in state-just that "research" (losely defined as observation of effects) is going on here-would require a visit to Illinois, etc.& some ink to paper). Yes, I will document my experience on line-go ahead and post this email whereever you think it would do- [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 20, 2002 at 23:55:45 PT |
| This man shaped our lives completely, and now we have pretzel boy to make him look good. No wonder it's Cheneys' full time job to hide out and destroy evidence, there must be mountains of it! Can't wait to hear the evidence against war boy when it gets released by a deep throat. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by el_toonces on March 20, 2002 at 23:34:05 PT:
|
| .....as I have been doing is sometimes tough but when I know I can come here and see only the best of the news that interest me, I take real pleaure. This one makes my day, and hell, maybe even tomorrow... Thanks, FoM. El [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by BGreen on March 20, 2002 at 23:04:58 PT |
| In 1937 it was the "Mexicans, Negroes, and Entertainers." In 1971 it was the "Jews, Hippies, and Entertainers." The war on cannabis was created by lies and perpetuated by lies, when it has obviously been a personal attack on "undesirable" groups of people from the start. God is TRUTH, and the TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by freedom fighter on March 20, 2002 at 23:04:27 PT |
| is alive and well. Got a gun, Tricky Dick? ff [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by dddd on March 20, 2002 at 22:58:41 PT |
| ....further proof that the real world class nuts and psycho sickos didnt smoke anything!,,(except maybe tobacco).
...let's look back thru history....nope,,I cant think of any world class scoundrels that smoked weed......heck,,,the next thing ya know,,the ondcp will sponsor a show on PBS,where Geraldo Rivera,and Stone Phillips discover Hitlers Bong,,?...dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 20, 2002 at 22:46:15 PT |
| A nut-job started the drug war. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on March 20, 2002 at 22:06:21 PT |
| On this day, he makes it clear that he does not like gay people. Northern California, he says, has gotten so "faggy" that "I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco." A bold statement for a man named Dick! [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |
