Talk-Polywell.org

The George W. Bush administration actually began scaling down the Byrne and COPS programs in the early 2000s, part of a general strategy of leaving law enforcement to states and localities. But the Obama administration has since resurrected both programs. The Byrne program got a $2 billion surge in funding as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by far the largest budget in the program's 25-year history. Obama also gave the COPS program $1.55 billion that same year, a 250 percent increase over its 2008 budget, and again the largest budget in the program's history. Vice President Joe Biden had championed both programs during his time in the Senate.

The Pentagon's 1033 program has also exploded under Obama. In the program's monthly newsletter (Motto: "From Warfighter to Crimefighter"), its director announced in October 2011 that his office had given away a record $500 million in military gear in fiscal year 2011, which he noted, "passes the previous mark by several hundred million dollars." He added, "I believe we can exceed that in FY 12.”

Then there are the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism grants. The Center for Investigative Reporting found in a 2011 investigation that since 2001, DHS has given out more than $34 billion in grants to police departments across the country, many of which have been used to purchase military-grade guns, tanks, armor, and armored personnel carriers. The grants have gone to such unlikely terrorism targets as Fargo, N.D.; Canyon County, Idaho; and Tuscaloosa, Ala.

In the tiny town of Keene, N.H.,, the citizens protested plans to purchase a Lenco Bearcat armored personnel carrier with a DHS grant. One resident told HuffPost last year, "Keene is a beautiful place. It's gorgeous, and it's safe, and we love it here. We just don't want to live in the kind of place where there's an armored personnel carrier parked outside of City Hall ... It's just not who we are."

They succeeded only in delaying the purchase by a few months. Keene now has a Bearcat. To town officials, it was a no-brainer. Keene was getting a $400,000 vehicle from the federal government, essentially for free. Why wouldn't it accept?

<snip>

"I wish the ACLU success," Calvo said. "And I suspect that once they force the police agencies to cooperate, they'll find that this problem is even more dramatic and pronounced than most people know. But then the question is, now what? Even if you can show that people are being victimized and terrorized by these tactics -- and to no good end -- if no one cares, then what does it matter?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0 ... 13334.html

========

And of course the Federalization of a segment of the local police is absolutely nothing to worry about.

And does it matter? Of course not. Why should it. They mostly go after people no one cares about. For now. Excepting the occasional mistake.

If these towns don't want/don't need these armored vehicles couldn't they just sell them on Craigs list and use the proceeds to cut local taxes, they must at least be worth something as scrap iron? Maybe they could be fitted out as snowplows or something else useful in the meanwhile, if fact that would be a great method to ridicule the program, a national contest to see which town has found the most humorous use for their apc.

choff wrote:If these towns don't want/don't need these armored vehicles couldn't they just sell them on Craigs list and use the proceeds to cut local taxes, they must at least be worth something as scrap iron? Maybe they could be fitted out as snowplows or something else useful in the meanwhile, if fact that would be a great method to ridicule the program, a national contest to see which town has found the most humorous use for their apc.

I agree. Except the people in charge take all this stuff seriously. And no doubt there would be paper work required.

Is it possible that all this talk of a NWO and Agenda 21 originated with the small arms industry? Let's say they wanted to boost sales to private citizens, raising the bogus threat of usurpous government would be the ideal method. Lobbying politicians to introduce repressive legislation and make outlandish anti 2nd amendment pronouncements, helping promote the NRA and playing both sides would really get things going.

Given the history of American resistance to increased government intervention in society, you would think that progressives would have learned to take a more counterintuitive approach by now. For example, let's say you want to stop Americans from using drugs and owning guns, end classroom bullying, and make them submit to totalitarian rule. Rather than try to repeal the 2nd amendment, change it to make gun ownership mandatory!

Insist under constitutional law that every citizen purchase and maintain a minimum of 1 full auto assault rifle with grenade launcher and white phosphorous grenades, 1 anti-tank rocket launcher with ammo, 1 shoulder launched surface to air missle, 2 claymores, and as a personal side arm, 1 mac 10. This one would be for you Mike, all citizens would have to smoke a minimum of 10 cannibus joints per day, at least one of which has been spiked with PCP, plus maintain a constant blood alcohol level above .08 while driving. All school age children would have to attend courses on bullying, as in, how to torment smaller children, with detentions and explusion to insure compliance. Just to cap it all off, all American citizens must attempt to overthrow the federal government at least once before age 30, or face treason charges! Failure to comply with any of these changes would result in forced reeducation at the local FEMA facility, how could you rebel against this kind of repressive government!

choff wrote:Is it possible that all this talk of a NWO and Agenda 21 originated with the small arms industry? Let's say they wanted to boost sales to private citizens, raising the bogus threat of usurpous government would be the ideal method. Lobbying politicians to introduce repressive legislation and make outlandish anti 2nd amendment pronouncements, helping promote the NRA and playing both sides would really get things going.

Given the history of American resistance to increased government intervention in society, you would think that progressives would have learned to take a more counterintuitive approach by now. For example, let's say you want to stop Americans from using drugs and owning guns, end classroom bullying, and make them submit to totalitarian rule. Rather than try to repeal the 2nd amendment, change it to make gun ownership mandatory!

Insist under constitutional law that every citizen purchase and maintain a minimum of 1 full auto assault rifle with grenade launcher and white phosphorous grenades, 1 anti-tank rocket launcher with ammo, 1 shoulder launched surface to air missle, 2 claymores, and as a personal side arm, 1 mac 10. This one would be for you Mike, all citizens would have to smoke a minimum of 10 cannibus joints per day, at least one of which has been spiked with PCP, plus maintain a constant blood alcohol level above .08 while driving. All school age children would have to attend courses on bullying, as in, how to torment smaller children, with detentions and explusion to insure compliance. Just to cap it all off, all American citizens must attempt to overthrow the federal government at least once before age 30, or face treason charges! Failure to comply with any of these changes would result in forced reeducation at the local FEMA facility, how could you rebel against this kind of repressive government! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Surprisingly enough Dr. David Allen suggests a daily regimen of eating cannabis - with the right ratio of cannabinoids for heart health.

http://youtu.be/Kvwz9WyI3OM

The Swiss require you have an auto weapon - I'm not sure if the government provides it. The Israelis have near universal conscription. Every one gets weapons training.

Keeping the BAC level up in that range will not be easy.

=====

You do have a point up to a point. I don't think it will work quite the way you imagine.

What would probably happen under the regime you imagine is that people will decide that most of what you suggest is a good idea but they would revolt against mandatory not the things mandated.

Hitler claimed the people could be taught to think misery was happiness and happinesss misery, but if the peoples teachers try too hard, they might fool themselves into teaching the opposite and not realize.

Seems to me that if ingesting a particular hormone or neural transmitter analog was of general benefit, a mutation producing a similar effect would be advantageous and spread through the population, rendering the ingesting of the chemical unnecessary.

hanelyp wrote:Seems to me that if ingesting a particular hormone or neural transmitter analog was of general benefit, a mutation producing a similar effect would be advantageous and spread through the population, rendering the ingesting of the chemical unnecessary.

In fact that is generally true. There are more endocannabinoid receptors in the body than any other receptor type. However, sometimes thing get out of whack. Then it may be a good idea to do supplements. Especially if the out of whack is cancer and the supplements retard or cure the cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17621270

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442435

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1159836

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21220494

And that is just from the first page of this search: "nih thc cancer"

"nih endocannabinoid cancer" will bring up more.

What do you think will happen politically when this information gets out? What do you think will happen when Republicans vote against and campaign against this treatment(s)?

I'm doing my best to make this public knowledge.

=====

What is also quite amusing is that on a blog nominally devoted to science we have people who are determined to avoid the science. Of course as the information gets out these folks will look anti-science. And since they are mostly on the right it will fuel "Republicans are the anti-science party". I can't see how that is a good thing. Even if it is only true in this case.

====

This heart surgeon suggests marijuana to prevent heart disease:

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/a-he ... marijuana/
====

And because the endocannabinoid system is a general regulator of the body it is good for a myriad of things. How is it going to look to the general public when they figure out Republicans are prejudiced against this medicine? Well they will probably be angry. How will that help the Rs politically? Strong emotions bring people to the polls.

I'm doing my best to educate the right. But the prejudice is strong.