From Paul Craig Roberts, we learn the specifics how the Bush Administration has waged war on the Constitution and our rights:

- Spying without court warrants on Americans in violation of both the US Constitution and the FISA statute.
- The denial of habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process, and Geneva Conventions protections to those, American or foreign, designated without evidence as terrorists or enemy combatants. (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act

- The justification and use of torture to coerce confessions and the kidnapping of foreign nationals who are sent to be tortured in foreign prisons.
- The initiation of military aggression against states based on intentional deception by the Bush administration of the US public and the United Nations, and the intentional fabrication of “evidence” to justify unprovoked aggression against sovereign states, which is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the US.
- Violation of the oath of office to defend the US Constitution by practically every member of the Bush administration and Congress.
- Bush has assaulted the separation of powers and the rule of law with “signing statements” and “executive orders” that President Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean says are commands that treat the co-equal branches of government and the electorate as subservient to executive authority. In April 2006, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage listed 750 laws “challenged” by the Bush administration. Not even the demonized president of Iran claims to be above the law.
- Genocide against the people of Iraq where one million Iraqis have died as a result of Bush’s invasion and several million Iraqis are displaced persons.
- Massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, which is a form of genocide in which military force is routinely applied to unarmed noncombatants.
- Massive corruption in which no-bid contracts are issued to Republican corporations in exchange for kickbacks to political campaigns.
- The theft of two national elections as documented in books by Mark Crispin Miller and Greg Palast.
- Now the Bush administration wants to take away the American people’s freedom to travel within their own country by airplane. Not content with an 80,000 “no fly” list, a subset of a 500,000–750,000 “watch list,” the Bush administration’s Transport Security Administration has proposed new rules that will require Americans to get government permission 72 hours in advance prior to being allowed to board a domestic flight. Is Edward Viera right, that the only solution is to reconstitute Constitutional militias in each state?

A Hollywood writer, Ira Levin, of such films as "Boys from Brazil" and "Rosemary's Baby", just died. My reason for this "post" is to highlight a classic of his that no one knows about, "A Perfect Day." Seems it's another Orwellian "distopian" novel about an awful socialist/fascist/tyrannical (the terms are interchangeable) future, where individual rights are smothered and misery is the norm. Books like these (I also recommend Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here") are important to remind ourselves what happens when we give up our Rights to Government Power.

This Wickipedia entry on Sinclair Lewis makes me sick, since it falsely describes his philosophy as being anti-capitalist, when in fact he was anti-mercantilist - which means the unholy collusion of Big Government with Big Business, to screw competing small businesses and individuals. Like Mencken and Dreiser and Nock, Lewis was an anti-statist and anti-puritan. God bless these early century classical liberals. On classic books with relevance to today, Reason is blogging on the Mises' Institute's resurrecting of Garet Garrett from the 1940s.

By the way, here are the best books in my world.

Unbelievable. A gold supplier was just seized this morning by jack-booted thugs of the Federal Government. Given the recommendations of "Austrian"/libertarian investors to diversify into resources, metals and international stocks, how are we going to buy gold if it's being stolen by the BureauThugs of Washington, DC?

The New York Times covered this story.

On Alex Jones' daily noon live show on www.PrisonPlanet.com today, he discussed the history of the government's War on Money. The Liberty Dollar company has authorization from the Courts and the Federal Reserve, but such authorizations didn't stop the FBI and Secret Service from their attack. Prior to the 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve, private banks issued their own money and various metals.

Free banking is a goal of the Paul Candidacy, and allowing a free market in money and credit would return value to the Dollar and any other competing currency. It would facilitate the sole proprietor revolution 19th century philosopher Lysander Spooner said was a dream of all individuals.

Liberty Dollar has no more assets because of this Raid. Bankrupting victims is the State's standard procedure, as proven with the its War on Pain Doctors, who have their assets seized and license to earn money seized.

The last time of Gold seizures was during FDR's Socialist Takeover in the 1930s.

Meanwhile, on Thursday the Fed created more dollars out of thin air (inflation) that at anytime since the 2001 terrorist attack. The Fed's theft of 90% of the value of the dollar since the Fed's creation in 1913, shows why prudent investors reward suppliers of private money or hard assets, like Liberty Dollar. Congressman Paul would return to Constitutional money if elected in 2008.

FMNN, DailyPaul.com and others have reported that increasingly the hard-money community is putting its credibility and fund-raising behind Ron Paul. Axel Merk (Merk Hard Currency Fund), Harry Schultz (Harry Schultz Letter), investment biker Jim Rogers, (Jim Rogers.com), and Richard Russell (Dow Theory Letters), plus Peter Schiff (Euro Pacific Capital) are all reported to publicly support Ron Paul - and likely asking clients and subscribers to support him as well.

And here's eminent constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira on how best to replace fractional reserve banking and fiat currency with a coinage and credit system that will set the U.S. back on course for prosperity.

Moody's now predicts a housing price collapse of 30%, but Bush's subprime bailout is dangerous idea. The best Wall Street minds predict the bailout will cut house prices even more! And, sadly, there may even be some abuse or crime being covered up in the bailout.

With every housing collapse - caused as usual by the Federal Reserve's overreactive rate cuts in response to economic conditions - there is legislative payback imposed by Congress, and the scapegoats are the small businesses with no resources to defend themselves politically. This happened in the 1990s, when the mortgage brokers - usually mom-and-pop operations - suffered class action lawsuits and "high cost" mortgage regulations as a result of an inflationary "Bust" that was caused by the Fed. The political scapegoating never ends, and the Fed always remains "above the fray"? Why do financial professionals ignore the cause?

And now it's happening again, with House passage of this bill to help the poor homebuyers up to their necks in subprime mortgages. And another story here. And here's NAMB's grassroots alert on the threat.

Heritage's Ronald D. Utt says, "H.R. 3915 Would Impose New Burdens and Limits on Moderate Income Borrowers." I was the lobbyist for the National Association of Mortgage Brokers (NAMB) during the class action crisis of the late 1990s. So I know how endless this attack on small business is. Here's a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog on the bill. Another CEI expert puts partial blame on bond rating problems.

So the question becomes, instead of just fighting the annual attack from Congress or an Agency, why not look to a more powerful solution, like taking on the whole idea of unconstitutional government, central banking and fiat currency?

The Ron Paul Presidential Campaign certainly is discussing these larger issues. Under the Founder's Constitution, says Candidate Paul, individuals could buy and sell freely among each other, with no government interference unless there is force or fraud. Local courts - or, increasingly, private dispute resolution - could adjudicate disputes. "Reputation," not regulation, would protect consumers, who would become better shoppers when they know that "caveat emptor" rules, and private third party information sources would become the lynchpins of quality.

And credit would become more stable in price, as the "see-saw" Fed is replaced with a banking system free of "Boom-Bust" Cycle-causing support or interference. Currency would be backed by hard resources such as gold, and credit would be priced like any other good or service - according to the classic law of supply and demand. Consumers would regain value in their dollar. Here's a YouTube video on CentralBanking. And here's Auburn University's Mises Institute, summarizing Ron Paul's economic plan.

With no housing/mortgage regulation at the federal level, since no such Power is authorized by the Constitution's Article One Section Eight to the Federal Government, even excessive State regulations would be overturned under a proper reading of the Commerce Clause - which protects interstate trade from government-imposed costs.

Here's the Cato Institute on why Ron Paul is the "darkhorse" potential next President.
CNBC's Maria Barteromo just interviewed Paul on the Fed's role in causing our Recession.

But do any mortgage brokers have a clue as to the role of central banking and fiat currency - or any of the other unconstitutional laws - in their suffering during Recessions? I tried to educate the industry in 1996, when I got NAMB to invite financial consultant Bert Ely to speak at the Convention, how brokers are the victims of the inflation, caused by the Fed. He said "brokers find themselves at the end of the Fed's whip."

And Congressman Paul has studied this matter since Nixon depegged the dollar from gold, and now serves as the Ranking Member of the Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Monetary Policy. Here's Mr. Paul on the Fed's new chairman, Ben Bernake.

So, while NAMB certainly will fight the latest attack from the House bill (now pending action in the Senate by Banking Chairman Dodd (D-CT)), will any financial professionals get involved in the Ron Paul Campaign, to help him raise the much more important issues of unconstitutional laws, and Federal Reserve/Fiat Currency-aggravated inflationary Boom-Bust cycles, and how they victimize small business and the non-wealthy? Let's hope so.

But if "having a chance to win" is a requirement to support a candidate, luckily, you're in luck. The Zogby Polling Company now gives Paul a chance to win! And the Washington Post says the Paul Campaign is making "libertarianism" the new "it philosophy".

Back to housing bailouts, AEI's Wallison is against it, at least for the GSEs. And the New York Times says the credit spigot to businesses now is being shut off. Here comes the Recession. And here's Cato on government's money monopoly.

This morning, on Saturday, November 17, 2007, I attended Prince Georges County's forced vaccinations of kids (see NBC Video which includes yours truly, and a shorter Fox News video [which takes a more shocked view based on using jail as a threat for other school problems, not just nonvaccination]) whose parents had not yet done so for the School year. I was there on behalf of American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, Natural Solutions Foundation, Free World Media, and, of course, my Center for the Common Interest. I was asked to go by Michael Ostrolenk, who heads the Liberty Coalition. What I saw shocked me, but didn't surprise me.

AP's written coverage mentioned me, as "supporting choice", and as "representing a doctors group opposed to vaccines" (which isn't true, since all AAPS opposes is "mandated" vaccinations). The New York Times, which also quoted me, did get the latter right, about the nature of our opposition. With the Times I said the county should have done more to make parents aware of their options. "Reports are that very few folks are really hearing about exemptions."

I first heard about this forced vaccination on Thursday, when the Alex Jones noon Radio show interviewed Prince George's State Attorney Glenn Ivey. Mr. Ivey claimed that parents were not being forced to immunize their kids; rather, to attend school they needed to make a choice between immunization or election of a waiver for either religious or medical contraindication reasons. He also said he did not immunize his own kids! I got a chance to interview the Prosecutor, and he reaffirmed that all that was needed was a choice that parents needed to make. I did not ask Mr. Ivey, unfortunately, what waiver he used to protect his kids from the dangerous vaccines. But I did share that the exemptions were overly narrow: what person, actually, could think of a health reason that would contraindicate a vaccine? And how many religions prohibit vaccines? No, what's needed is what 26 other states offer parents: a "conscientious" objection choice. Mr. Ivey was open to that, but said that was a matter for state legislators.

When I was interviewed today by NBC's Andrew Gross, CNN's Gary Nurenberg, another NBC journalist, Mike Flynn, Sarah Abruzzese from the New York Times, and Gail Chaddock from the Christian Science Monitor, I said that parents were not being told about the two exemptions (they were excluded from the press packets, letters to parents [that some parents claimed they only received yesterday] and in that day's handouts), that the exemptions were insufficient (26 other states have better exemptions, for scientific or conscientious objections), and that such exemptions were offensive to the freedom of health choice already protected in the 5th (protecting life, liberty and property) and 14th (incorporating Constitutional protections on the state level) Amendments to the Constitution.

Parents leaving the Court House confirmed our suspicion that the State was not telling parents about the exemptions. Most parents, unfortunately, seemed OK with the vaccinations, showing what a great PR job the Mainstream Media, Big Government and Big Business have done ignoring possible dangers of vaccines. A clerk with the presiding Judge, told me personally that parents knew about the waiver, and that more info about this issue is at the PG site.

But what I heard about what happened inside the CourtRoom scared me. We nonParents were prohibited from entry, and we heard the lines of moms with their kids to get shots was like a "cattle call," with waiver offerings only barely mentioned or on display. A fellow activist was mercifully let into the Court to use the Restroom, but only under "escort with Security Officers and Dogs." Outside, these same Cops with the dogs chased away any reporter or activist that got within 50 yards of the entrance. Haven't they heard about the 6th Amendment, guaranteeing "public trials"?

I was very pleased that Ms. Chaddock, of the Christian Science Monitor, understood health freedom since prayerful christian scientists have a long history of abuse from government for their resistance to using pharmaceutical chemicals for healthcare (see her story here, which mentions AAPS). After my 1966 birth in Erie, Pennsylvania, by the way, my late Mother raised us kids as Christian Scientists, and my Great Aunt Hammersmith used to attend Bruce Hornsby's Christian Scientist Church in Williamsburg, Virginia.

NBC's Andy Gross also was good in asking if it was "unsettling to have the Courts threatening fines and jail time, to coerce vaccinations". I obviously agreed, since health care needs to be a personal decision, protected from government involvement.

As far as the actual danger of vaccines, I liked the suggestion of nurse/activist Deborah Mason, who said that at least what's needed are "safer" vaccines, or a delay in when they're delivered - don't innoculate infants, but wait, like the Japanese do, to when the child is 2 years old. Ms. Mason recommends this site for more info on the danger of vaccines. And she posted this YouTube from the event (which includes me at the end), and this YouTube Video as well.

Two other activists that did a great job getting in front of the cameras and parents were Kelly Ann Davis and Jim Moody, both from Safeminds. I really enjoyed talking with Jim, a constitutional attorney who helped me really understand the issues of liberty involved in the vaccine controversy. He said the Centers for Disease Control would not study unvaccinated kids, to compare their health with vaccinated kids. Unbelievable.

I had first heard about the tie of vaccines, its mercury ingrediant, and the horrible disease of autism from my college buddy Coy Barefoot, now a radio host in Charlottesville and activist on vaccines. Also kudos to area doctor Donna Hurlock, who with her daughter Elizabeth held up signs, saying, "HANDS OFF OUR KIDS!" And thank you Barbara Loe Fisher for interviewing me for your Natl Vaccine Information Center. According to this Grassroots Action alert, the ACLU cannot take action until a parent actually is arrested for failure to vaccinate their school kids. Here's a "Health Ranger Report" podcast.

Unfortunately, a few reporters expressed no interest in hearing from me about the controversies over "choice" or "vaccine dangers", such as Patrick Madden of WAMU (88.5 FM Public Broadcasting), Gretchen Gailey from Fox, and Jeff Napchin from CBS. All they seemed interested in was asking parents if they got their shots and whether they were worried about being jailed or being kept out of school, for failure to do so. Shame on the disinterest of so much of the Mainstream Media on important matters.

Final kudos to Donovan Hubbard, a local activist, for handing out a history of vaccines, and for making a YouTube video of his interview with Prosecutor Ivey, which he plans to ship to Alex Jones' Radio Show.

For more on today's Vaccine Roundup, click here. To see how vaccines could play a role in any future homeland security emergency, check this out from Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF). Better yet, get involved in NSF's grassroots campaign to protect ourselves from forced drugging.

The State Governors Association says public vaccinations are part of emergency drills in case of (bio)terrorist pandemic.

To protect health freedom in general, subscribe to the eNews of AAPS and NSF.

Cato's Brink Lindsey says Michael Lind's Financial Times' piece about the death of libertarianism and the return of economic populism, is wrong.

"Lind merrily proclaims that welfare-state liberalism has reclaimed the center that it occupied during 1932-1968. But he ignores the fact that welfare-state liberals today are dramatically more libertarian on economic issues than their predecessors in their parents' and grandparents' generations. Nobody these days seriously supports a return to a 70% top income-tax rate, or Keynesian fine-tuning, or interest-rate controls for banks, or the phone monopoly, or regulated trucking; nobody touts nationalization or wage-and-price controls as cures for what ails.

"The economy today is dramatically more competitive and entrepreneurial today, and markets are dramatically less regulated, than was the case a few decades ago. And notwithstanding Lind's fond hopes for a return of the New Deal liberal ascendancy, there is little reason to believe that this huge secular shift is going to be reversed in the foreseeable future."

But Bruce Fein fears society is losing its "wisdom, confidence, and humility," prerequisites in Madison's Federalist #55 for a republic to avoid collapsing into an Executive empire.

"Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid would have accepted the tyrannies of the Stamp Tax and Writs of Assistance because they would not then have had the votes for revolt. Mr. Bush would have quarreled with every indictment against King George III penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence because it contradicted his monarch-like theory of a unitary executive."

"...Thomas Jefferson sermonized: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thus, the Founding Fathers mastered John Locke, Montesquieu and Blackstone. They knew the fates of Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. They were versed in Plutarch's "Lives," Virgil's "Aeneid," Plato's "Republic" and William Shakespeare's masterpieces.

"Authored by Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the Federalist Papers brim with historical and literary allusions that bespeak erudition and philosophical wisdom. The authors would have been aghast at President Bush's assertion he does not learn from reading....Read the debates of the First Congress of the United States. Compare them to the debates of the 110th Congress memorialized in the Congressional Record. The deterioration in learning is alarming, virtual disproof of Charles Darwin's theory of progressive evolution."

The House has passed and the Senate is considering a bill to expose and arrest "radical thought." And I thought momentum was building to repeal the original Patriot Act?

"Critics also fear that the bill's definitions of 'extremism' and 'terrorism' are too vague and its mandate too broad, and that government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws."

Critics point out that the bill would duplicate work already being done in and out of government. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already has a domestic terrorism unit; the U.S. intelligence community monitors the homegrown terrorists and overseas networks that might be reaching out to U.S. residents; and many universities and think-tanks are already specialising in studying the subject. Here's the National Lawyers Guild on this monstrosity.

It gets worse...

By the way, a Court just protected our internet buying habits from Big Brother. Not to be outdone, the TSA wants even more private details from citizens, ostensibly to ease the removal of names improperly added to the "no-fly" list. And a law professor and legal advocate just tallied the extent to which our Government has captured and abused so-called "enemies of the state." And here Homeland Security is caught encouraging fire fighters to report on fire victims "expressing discontent with the government. And our Right to defend ourselves is being eroded, as the FBI adds more names to its list of "mentally unfit" for a gun.

Here's a Timeline on Bush's assault on our Liberty.

CEI's Fran Smith has listed her Thanksiving "Turkeys on the Hill". For my Thanksgiving treat, here's my list of five "Turkeys on the
Hill" - legislation that is particularly onerous for consumers,
taxpayers, and citizens - by increasing taxpayers' burdens, rewarding
"special interests," reducing choice, expanding government control, or
decreasing health and safety.

1) The 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419)

Both the House bill (passed) and the Senate bill (being considered)
continue and expand the bloated farm subsidy programs, increase costs
to taxpayers, provide more funding for the misguided biofuels
programs, and provide taxpayer handouts even to rich farmers. This
$286 billion bill, according to the USDA, includes "$37 billion in
budget gimmicks and increased taxes."

2) Energy bills 2007 (S. 1419; H.R. 6)

Both the House and the Senate have passed energy bills that increase
prices for consumers on an array of goods, including gasoline,
automobiles and food, while doing nothing to increase supplies of
affordable energy. The bills would vastly increase the renewable fuels
boondoogles, would lead to higher energy prices for consumers,
restrict consumer choice in some household products, and would raise
the corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE), forcing consumers
into smaller, less safe cars.

3) Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 (H.R. 3915):

The bill would limit access to home mortgages in response to
disruptions in the market for so-called "subprime" loans. Lenders,
rather than applicants themselves, would be required to determine
whether loans are considered appropriate for the home buyer's
circumstances. Sure to hit lower-income people and new entries into
the credit market the hardest.

4) The Law of the Sea Treaty (Treaty Doc. 103-39)

According to the United Nations, LOST "lays down a comprehensive
regime of law and order in the world's oceans and seas establishing
rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. It
enshrines the notion that all problems of ocean space are closely
interrelated and need to be addressed as a whole."

LOST would harm U.S. interests: It would threaten U.S. sovereignty,
facilitate United Nations global governance, give the UN international
taxing authority, and accomplish backdoor implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol.

5) Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (S. 2045)

In the wake of reports of unsafe imported products, including
children's toys, this bill would unleash the power of state attorneys
general, set up certification systems for children's products that
will increase their costs and may lead to substitution of less safe
products, and encourage disgruntled employees to get back at their
manufacturer employers.

Hope your Thanksgiving turkeys are better than these!

And here's a similar list from Taxpayers for Common Sense. While we are certainly
thankful for the turkey on which we'll dine, Congress has given us some turkeys
this year that taxpayers could do without. Subsidies to big businesses and
goodies to pad the waistline of special interests were plentiful, all of which,
like a plump turkey, should never fly.

(1) The Fat Farm Bill - With farm crops at record-high prices, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed its re-write of the farm bill back in July, which is
little more than a recycling of the old subsidy-heavy legislation. Since 1995,
more than $165 billion has been funneled to farm states, with annual costs to
taxpayers exceeding $20 billion in many years. The Senate will likely wait until
next year to take up consideration of the farm bill.

(2) Million Dollar Oil Royalty Loophole- In October, while oil prices were
nearing $100 a barrel, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, the second-largest oil
and natural-gas producer in the U.S., won a court decision arguing that it
doesn't have to pay taxpayers for oil and gas it removed from federal waters.

Oil and gas companies lease taxpayer-owned lands and waters from the federal
government to drill for oil and gas. In return for this right, they give
taxpayers a percentage of the revenue generated from the oil and gas that is
extracted. Congress needs to make sure that Anadarko pays their fair share.

(3) Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees - Lawmakers created a new loan guarantee
program run by the Department of Energy (DOE) for nuclear power and other energy
sources called "innovative technologies" in the 2005 energy bill. This fall
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) inserted language in the new Senate energy bill
that cuts Congress out of the process and hands DOE a blank check for loan
guarantees. If enacted, the Senate bill will exempt the loan guarantee program
from current oversight law - removing the minimal financial safeguards in place.

(4) Gutting of Earmark Disclosure - In the wake of the last election,
transparency was the hot new Washington buzzword. Disregarding Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) strong opposition, Senators unanimously passed a bill
to require disclosure of the beneficiaries and purpose of each earmark, require
that the information be searchable and online, and that each Senator stipulate
that neither they nor their family have a financial interest in a project.

Then, later in the year and behind closed doors, leadership gutted the original
bill by subtly changing the disclosure language. Now, the only documents that
will be publicly released are the worthless statements from lawmakers that the
earmarks they requested won't result in personal financial gain. Taxpayers
remain in the dark.

Lawmakers need to give thanks and start remembering the voters who got them
there in the first place, rather than the special interest campaign cash they
rely on to keep them in power. Just yesterday, the President held his annual
White House ceremony where he pardoned two turkeys from the carving knife. In
this case, however, lawmakers need stop stuffing themselves with special
interest gravy and give these legislative turkeys the axe.

Little has changed since the spring, when the Democratic-controlled Congress passed its budget resolution. That blueprint, which set targets for 12 appropriations bills that fund discretionary programs, projected spending about $23 billion more than the $933 billion in discretionary spending that the president requested in his 2008 budget. (Funding for the war on terror is handled through supplemental legislation.)

Discretionary spending - which, in addition to national defense, funds education programs, NASA, the FBI, federal courts and prisons, national parks, job training, etc. - will account for about 40 percent of the 2008 budget. Spending on mandatory programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, will exceed $1.5 trillion (about 52 percent of federal outlays). Net interest payments (about $260 billion) will bring total spending to nearly $3 trillion.

A Paul Presidency promises IRS elimination, but only if We the People give up our Addiction to this Spending.

Cato's Chris Edwards has found over 1,000 subsidy programs in the budget. These include subsidies for states, cities, individuals, non-profit groups, and businesses. Click the link to see a chart how the number of subsidy programs has increased 51 percent since 2000.

On behalf of Free World Media and a client, I attended a DEA symposium today, "Good Medicine, Bad Behavior: The National Symposium on Pharmaceutical Diversion." DEA hosted this event to raise awareness for their expanding focus to prescription abuse, not just abuse of street drugs, as well as the opening of a museum on the history of the prescription abuse problem. Reading below about my experience of this symposium, you'll understand why I felt like Hunter Thompson in his book, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" (1970), when he accidentally found himself in a sea of enforcers, at a DEA meeting.

Drug Czar John Walters welcomed everyone, saying the 7 million abusers of prescriptions is an 80% increase over 6 years, and that a problem is that partiers think these prescriptions are safer than street drugs. However, Walters admitted that opioid pain medicine can be a "godsend" to patients, and that only 1/5 of diversion stems from doctors, with 56% coming from family medicine cabinets (Actually, the DEA previously has admitted that a majority of diversion comes from post-manufacture deliveries to pharmacy warehouses).

Also, studies show addiction is vastly overrated as a problem - HHS says only 10% of pain patients run the risk of addiction; rather, such patients are like diabetics who are "dependent," not "addicted," to insulin. Likewise, pain patients are dependent, not addicted, to their opioids (like Oxycontin) for relief. 50 million americans - one in five - suffer excruciating, longterm pain with insufficient relief. The reason is simple - the involvement of law enforcement in the doctor-patient relationship; and the solution is simple - removal of law enforcement from the doctors' offices.

At the symposium DEA announced plans to expand its War on Prescriptions from the doctors offices to pharmacies, by urging Congress to prohibit cyber prescriptions without a face-to-face visit with a doctor (Later, DEA's Joe Rannasizzi admitted that closing one internet pharmacy just squeezes the balloon of demand to another internet pharmacy - he said, "check their chat rooms and see the referrals to new pharmacies!"). The demogoguery on internet medicine will only interfere in consumer convenience.

Later, when Joe complained 90% of opioid use occured in the U.S., another panelist, William Clark from SAHMSA, corrected him, saying that's because developing countries don't offer opioids. The New York Times ran front page stories a couple months ago showing Africans, writhing in pain for lack of opioid relief, commiting suicide for lack of relief. The government keeps no statistics on suicides from pain undertreatment - that's because all the Enforcement thugs and Addictionologists care about is addiction, and making sure Americans are fearful of it. There's a War going on, and facts will only get in the way.

The sole pain doctor, William Jacobs, sadly offered only a little sobriety in the discussion. He said high dose opioid treatment was just ten years old as a standard, but that failure to use such treatment now is considered malpractice. Five of the top Ten prescription killers are analgesics, he said, with "opioids having an abuse potential not shared by other prescriptions". Unfortunately, he failed to differentiate the purity of opiod prescriptions with the dangerous alternative drugs being pushed by Big Pharma - the so-called NSAIDS that bleed the gut and cause heart attacks (like Vioxx). The War on Opoiods, indeed, is a big aggravator of overprescribing. Get rid of the War on Drugs, and patients can limit their prescriptions to opioids, which are pure because they match the endorphins already produced in human nervous systems. (That's why the poppy plant has served as nature's pain relief for thousands of years going back to Egypt).

Interestingly, Dr. Jacobs said academics now were debating whether Congress should codify an "inalienable right to freedom from pain," but that Jacobs warned against striving for an unattainable goal. Showing what "side he's on," Jacobs said doctors who "break the rules," who miss "red flag behavior," are "not practicing medicine" and "should be held accountable." He said there's "big money in drug sales," and that doctors need a "CME continuing education in pain management," and "medical schools need more pain training." He said an unfunded federal prescription monitoring program called "NASPER" should get funding, to allow professionals to better track patient compliance with prescriptions. When asked by an LATimes reporter if the prescription abuse showed a need to scale back on opioids, Dr. Jacobs objected, saying he "needs more quivers for his bow," and that companies are constantly producing newer, better medicines. In other words, Dr. Jacobs is one of the scared, sneaky doctors, willing and ready to defend the state-of-the-art, that high dose opioids are the standard of care, but that doctors who follow this standard should suffer in prison if they fail to read the minds of patients who may later sell those drugs improperly. So doctors know longer can follow the Hippocratic Oath; instead, they are deputies in the War on Pain Medicine.

A nice thing said by another panelist, pharmacist Michael Mone, was that the category of "misusing drugs" should include "undertreatment." Also, he said pharmacy robberies (diversion) represent a "failure of addiction treatment," to treat these robbers - implying that treatment, not enforcement, is the solution to the diversion problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Mone was too subtle in his presentation to show that he understood the severity of the undertreatment epidemic and the role of Enforcement in creating the Chill in pain medicine.

C-Span covered the symposium, and I asked a couple questions that should show up when C-Span broadcasts it:
My first question, to Dr. Jacobs, was how a focus on 7 million mis-using partyers can compare to the 50 million patients suffering searing, long-term, undertreated pain, as ">reported in the New York Times, and why the Symposium had NO PATIENT REPRESENTATIVES, and would Dr. Jacobs describe the chill in pain medicine please? Jacobs agreed that "opioid phobia" was scaring not only doctors from prescribing, but also scaring patients from seeking.

And I asked the DEA Diversion Director, Joe Rannazzisi, how he felt about the State Attorneys General in 2005 condemning DEA for chilling pain medicine. Joe responded that "no one at DEA wants to see patients in pain," and that only 71 doctors last year were arrested by DEA, .001 of doctors registered to prescribe controlled drugs, and that these doctors are dealers, not doctors. Joe gave this figure last July, during the Crime Subcommittee hearing on the "DEA's Regulation of Medicine," but what he fails to admit is that the percentage of arrested doctors spikes to 17% when compared against doctors who actually specialize in pain relief.

A question I didn't get to ask was how DEA felt about the suffering veterans, and the wounded soldiers returning from Iraq, as per the statement by a Veterans Administration official who's worried about lack of opioid relief for those who fought for our country. Anyone who calls themselves pro-military has got to oppose the War on Drugs.

And not only are wounded veterans suffering because of the DEA's chill on pain medicine, but also the retiring Baby Boomers are in for a rude awakening as they grow old and increasingly in need of pain relief - you can't get high dose opioids any more! (All a patient can get these days is low dose opioids, alternative patentable NSAIDs that have horrible side effects, and unnecessary surgeries). Think of the suffering! This issue is about to explode.

It was disappointing to see a reporter from Wired ask a softball question how the prescription focus would change the Drug War, given that most computer geeks I know oppose the Drug War. How about a tougher question! It was awkward asking my brave question in a sea of Drug Warriors, so I had hoped for comraderie from the geeks! (Rannasizzi's anwer was "more investigations, not only of doctors, but also of pharmacies and the internet; and that he was hopeful Congress would update CSA to facilitate internet prosecutions.)

It was nice to see the Common Sense Drug Policy folks there, as well as MAPPS. The latter asked when DEA's Administrative Law Judge would stop interfering in the licensing of the University of Amherst's marijuana program for research. Joe said he couldn't interfere in an ongoing ALJ process.

For background, you have the Szalavitz piece from Reason. My client, the Pain Relief Network, submitted testimony at the July 25 Senate Judiciary Oxycontin Settlement hearing.

Siobhan Reynolds was an actual witness at the July 12 House Crime Subcommittee hearing, "DEA Regulation of Medicine," a hearing accurately described in this story.

Some experts are suggesting, as a solution to the problem of the pain undertreatment epidemic, a solidification of the exemption supposedly already in the Controlled Substances Act, for doctor prescribing of opioid pain relief. Because DoJ has used paid expert witnesses in multiple trials to regulate what constitutes proper prescribing, the current exemption has lost its effect. Thus, a clarification is needed.

Even without the authorization to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship, DEA still would retain its power to stop diversion of prescriptions between their manufacture and their delivery to pharmacies. And DEA still would retain its role in arresting nonphysician drug abusers. But if a doctor deals drugs instead of prescribing medicine, only the State Attorney General could prosecute the doctor. This bill would return the regulation of medicine to state medical boards. Hopefully someone in Congress will introduce this bill and all of us can access pain medicine should we need it.

Until then, God help us all with Symposia like I attended today.

On Monday I covered a UFO Disclosure event at the National Press Club, on behalf of the media arm of the Liberty and Privacy Network, of which this center is a part. Here's CNN's coverage. And here's CNN's film with Arizona Gov Symington.
And Larry King interviews some of the panelists.

The event was sponsored by filmmaker James Fox and Leslie Kean, who just won a UFO court victory, ordering NASA to reopen an investigation into a 1960s UFO crash in Pennsylvania. The Press Club event was organized to highlight a letter, cosigned by all the panelists, urging the Federal Government to restart UFO investigations, terminated by the Air Force's Blue Book program in 1969.

Go to http://www.freedomofinfo.org/ for transcripts of the press conference presentations and the international declaration to the U.S. Government requesting a re-opening of the official investigation into UFOs.  For a DVD of the event, check http://www.outofthebluethemovie.com/ for information.In front of many big cameras, I got up and asked, how the Government Investigation that former Arizona Republican Governor Fyfe Simington and the others were requesting, "will protect against yet another government coverup - indeed, how can they assure disclosure to the private sector of their investigation?"

Governor Simington said involvement of highly qualified private sector experts in the government commission will protect against coverup. I disbelieve mere inclusion of private experts will prevent the government investigation from covering up the truth. Look at the 9/11 commission - does anyone believe their work? Does anyone believe the Warren Commission did justice to President Kennedy's assassination?

The reason I asked that question was because after the 1966 congressional hearings, a resultant Air Force Report, called the Condon Report, was deemed inconsistent with the data, according to one of Monday's panelists. Government, in other words, can't be trusted with the Truth.

(Interestingly, only Candidate Paul would solve the Government Coverup problem, by getting rid of unconstitutional government - so there would be no CIA and other unauthorized programs to committ the crimes of secrecy and lies).

Another good question came from freelancer Cynthia Marsh, about how recovered alien technology has been used for energy/tech solutions in today's marketplace or government operations. She was ignored unfortunately. A French government scientist panelist did say that experts are welcome to visit his lab to see him reproduce flying saucer technology.

Another ignored question came from attendee Ahura Yazdi, who asked about the "ancient astronaut" evidence from the 4,000 BC clay tablets of the Sumerian Culture, implying that today's UFOs are nothing more than their return.

It's funny how the MainStream is so afraid to tackle controversial subjects!

There were actually several very convincing witnesses. One was Jim Penniston, an Air Force security veteran who was tasked with investigating a UFO landing near an English air force base in some woods. Jim showed a tracing he "nervously" made of insignia on the disc. He said witnesses to this day feel "betrayed by the government" and refuse to go public on their experiences. Of that same landing, another panelist, Air Force investigator Charles Halt, has a plaster impression of the landing gear.

When another attendee asked why the Panel ignored Paul Halyer, the former Canadian Defense Minister who believes in UFOs, some snide reporter took the effort to discredit the official. Disgusting.

When a former FAA official panelist, John Callahan, said the CIA told his investigators to hide the truth from the public because disclosure would "scare" everyone, a CNN journalist, Gary Tuchman, questioned that motive, since "the government scares the People every day with its color-coded terrorism alerts." Even Arizona Governor Simington said "hysteria" among his constituents was the only "outside pressure" he faced when dealing with how to go public on his witnessing of the "Phoenix UFO."

When a Peru Air Force fighter pilot described his pursuit and attack on an "orb," its immunity to his weapons and amazing speed, "still gives him chills."

Another blog's take on this event. And here's a media story.

Larry King interviewed some of the panelists.