The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for August 5th, 2010

Military Suicides And Guilty Consciences – An Epidemic Of Morals!

leave a comment »

August 5, 2010: Jacob G. Hornberger / The Future Of Freedom Foundation – August 5, 2010

American statists and imperialists are coming up with all sorts of explanations to explain the epidemic of suicides among U.S. military personnel. The most popular explanations are war stress and stress at home. I’ve got another possible cause: guilt, arising from the wrongful killing of other human beings.

Consider Iraq. Neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. They had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. When U.S. soldiers invaded Iraq, they were the aggressors. At worst, every single Iraqi killed by U.S. forces was simply defending his country against an unlawful invasion by the military forces of a foreign power.

U.S. soldiers in the initial invasion force undoubtedly convinced themselves that they were killing Iraqis under the notion of self-defense, telling themselves that they were protecting the United States from an imminent WMD attack. At some point, however, reality set in. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Yet, countless Iraqis had already been killed by U.S. soldiers.

At that point, did the U.S. government apologize for this grave mistake? Did President Bush order an immediate withdrawal from the country? No. Once it was determined that Saddam Hussein had in fact destroyed his stocks of WMD, the U.S. government nonetheless decided to remain in Iraq, calling on the troops to enforce a brutal occupation, one that necessarily involved killing more Iraqis.

At that point, any semblance of the “self-defense” rationale disappeared for U.S. troops killing Iraqis. Any soldier who killed an Iraqi after that point knew, with 100 percent certainty, that the person he was killing was entirely innocent of any actual attack or threatened attack on the United States, including 9/11 and the WMDs.

Throughout the occupation, people have called on U.S. forces to be more careful about killing civilians. The implication has been that it’s okay for U.S. forces to target insurgents or combatants but needed to be careful about “collateral damage.” Not so. The U.S. government had no right whatsoever, legal or moral, to be in Iraq, and especially not after it was conclusively determined that Bush had been wrong about the WMD threat. That means that U.S. soldiers had no right, legal or moral, to kill any Iraqi, not even Iraqis who were defending their country from an unlawful invasion.

Suppose a U.S. soldier says, “But if they’re shooting at me, I have a right to shoot back in self-defense.” Not so. If a burglar enters a home and is shot at by the homeowner, the burglar cannot, legally or morally, shoot back at the homeowner and claim self-defense. Since the burglar has no right to be in the home, his only option, legally and morally, is to withdraw from the home without firing back at the homeowner.

The situation is no different with the U.S. government. It had no right to invade Iraq. It had no right to occupy Iraq. U.S. soldiers had no right to kill (or maim, incarcerate, torture, abuse, rape, or execute) one single Iraqi — not civilians, not insurgents, not even members of Iraq’s armed forces.

Statists and imperialists have come to defend the killing of Iraqis under a mathematical formula. They say that Iraqi deaths have been worth it because Iraq is now, they claim, a better place than it was under Saddam Hussein. That’s, of course, a proposition that might be disputed by many Iraqis, and most likely the dead would have preferred to be alive, even if Iraq was a worse place without the invasion and occupation.

But consider the moral issue involved here. The statists and imperialists are telling U.S. soldiers that it’s okay for them to kill other human beings in the attempt to bring a better life to the rest of the citizens in that society. What moral or religious creed justifies killing another human being under that sort of welfare rationale? Certainly not Christianity.

Aggravating this entire situation is the fact that U.S. soldiers have killed people in a war that violates the U.S. Constitution, the document that soldiers took an oath to support and defend. It is undisputed that Congress never declared war on Iraq, as the Constitution requires.

Of course, no soldier will ever be criminally prosecuted for the killing of Iraqis. But immunity from criminal prosecution cannot protect a person from the persecution of his own conscience. While the worst sociopathic murderers can somehow bury their consciences and never seem to suffer guilt or remorse when they kill people, most soldiers are not sociopathic murderers. They are normal human beings who joined the armed forces under some idealistic notion that they were serving their country. When they kill people wrongfully, it’s not so easy to escape the psychological and emotional consequences arising from a troubled conscience.

Since soldiers are not permitted or encouraged to confront the reality of what they have actually done in Iraq — kill people as part of a wrongful invasion or occupation — and because they have to continue pretending that they have killed Iraqis in service of America or for the good of Iraq, suicide becomes an easy way out to escape the ongoing pain of a guilty conscience.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Albeit I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Hornberger’s assessment on the ultimate cause for the alarming rise in military suicides, I must correct him on this one point: Saddam Hussein had not “in fact destroyed his stocks of WMD”, that was done by US/NATO forces in 1991 during the first Iraq invasion in order to eliminate the evidence the US sold them in the first place to murder the Kurds. Meanwhile, the suicides of American servicemen and women continues to escalate at record numbers due to the moral and spiritual ramifications of participating in genocide. Below is the NY Times spin from the Pentagon… And thus I pose the question once again: Do you trust the government? – SJH

Pentagon Report Places Blame For Suicides

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/30suicide.html

Link to original article below…

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-08-05.asp

US Senate Confirmed Elena Kagan As 112th In-Justice Of SCOTUS!

with one comment

August 5, 2010:  Julie Hirschfeld Davis / Associated Press via Yahoo News – August 5, 2010

WASHINGTON – The Senate confirmed Elena Kagan Thursday as the Supreme Court’s 112th justice and the fourth woman in its history, granting a lifetime term to a lawyer and academic with a reputation for brilliance, a dry sense of humor and a liberal bent.

The vote was 63-37 for President Barack Obama’s nominee to succeed retired Justice John Paul Stevens. Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”

Kagan watched the vote with her Justice Department colleagues in the solicitor general’s conference room, the White House said. Obama, traveling in Chicago, said her confirmation was an affirmation of her character and judicial temperament, and called the addition of another woman to the court a sign of progress for the country.

Kagan isn’t expected to alter the ideological balance of the court, where Stevens was considered a leader of the liberal wing. But the two parties clashed over her nomination and the court itself. Republicans argued that Kagan was a politically motivated activist who would be unable to put aside her opinions and rule impartially. Democrats defended her as a highly qualified trailblazer for women who could bring a note of moderation and real-world experience to a polarized court they said was dominated by just the kind of activists the GOP denounced.

Kagan is the first Supreme Court nominee in nearly 40 years with no experience as a judge, and her swearing-in will mark the first time in history that three women will serve on the nine-member court together.

Her lack of judicial experience was the stated reason for one fence-sitting Republican, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, to announce his opposition to Kagan’s confirmation Thursday, just hours before the vote. Though calling her “brilliant,” Brown — who had been seen as a potential GOP supporter — said she was missing the necessary background to serve as a justice. “The best umpires, to use the popular analogy, must not only call balls and strikes, but also have spent enough time on the playing field to know the strike zone,” Brown said.

Democrats said they hoped Kagan would act as a counterweight to the conservative majority that’s dominated the Supreme Court in recent years. “I believe she understands that judges and justices must realize how the law affects Americans each and every day. That understanding is fundamental,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman. With her confirmation, he said, “the Supreme Court will better reflect the diversity that made our country great.” Most Republicans portrayed Kagan as a partisan who will use her post to push the Democratic agenda from the bench.

Kagan “is truly a person of the political left — now they call themselves progressives — one who has a history of working to advance the values of the left wing of the Democratic Party, and whose philosophy of judging allows a judge to utilize the power of their office to advance their vision for what America should be,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Just one Democrat — centrist Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska — crossed party lines to oppose Kagan.

A handful of mostly moderate Republicans broke with their party to back her: Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, South Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham, retiring Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar. They argued that partisanship should play no role in debates over the Supreme Court and have called Obama’s nominee qualified.

Still, it was clear that unlike in past decades — when high court nominees enjoyed the support of large majorities on both sides — party politics was driving the debate and vote on Kagan, much as it did last year when the Senate considered Obama’s first pick, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and former President George W. Bush’s two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

GOP senators have criticized Kagan for her decision as dean to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law School career services office because of the prohibition against openly gay soldiers. Republicans spent the last hours of debate accusing her of being hostile to gun rights, and they have also spent considerable time criticizing her stance in favor of abortion rights.

Kagan revealed little about what kind of justice she would be in weeks of private one-on-one meetings with senators and several days of testimony before the Judiciary panel, despite having famously penned a law review article blasting Supreme Court nominees for obfuscating before the Senate. She dodged questions about her personal beliefs on a host of hot-button issues and declined repeatedly to “grade” Supreme Court rulings.

But her public appearances and documents unearthed from her time serving as a Clinton administration lawyer and domestic policy aide painted a portrait of the kind of personality she’ll bring to the bench. She came across as a sharp intellect who enjoys the thrust and parry of legal debate, someone who’s willing to throw elbows to make her opinions heard but nonetheless eager to facilitate consensus. She also showed flashes of a playful, dry wit senators said would serve her well in sometimes tense court deliberations.

Kagan will be no stranger to the eight justices she is to join on the Supreme Court, having served as the government’s top lawyer arguing cases before them in a post often referred to as the “10th justice.” She’s already friendly with a number of them, not least Antonin Scalia, the conservative justice who is her ideological opposite.

Kagan’s nomination to a seat on the nation’s highest court drew relatively little notice this summer, with the public and elected officials preoccupied by bad economic news and the Gulf oil spill, and many lawmakers nervously eyeing the November midterm congressional elections. But senators used the debate to press their dueling visions of the Supreme Court.

When sworn in, Kagan will join two other women on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who was Obama’s first nominee. Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the court, by President Ronald Reagan. She served from September 1981 to January 2006.

Not since 1972 has the Senate confirmed a Supreme Court nominee without experience as a judge. That year, both William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell Jr. joined the court.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Meanwhile, not only is Kagan against free speech, gun rights, and right to life, this anti-Christian lesbian traitor is intimately involved in the Obama birth certificate cover-up – SJH

Elena Kagan tied to Obama’s birth certificate ‘It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?

Link to original article below…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_go_co/us_kagan_supreme_court

Psychology Of Conspiracy Denial – Do You Trust The Government?

leave a comment »

August 5, 2010: Paul Joseph Watson / Infowars.com – August 5, 2010

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer claims his critics are engaging in “cognitive dissonance,” by expressing concern about experimental vaccines, which in fact is the perfect description for Lehrer’s own behavior.

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer attempts to offset the overwhelmingly critical response to his attack on Alex Jones by characterizing skepticism of authority in the context of vaccines and mass medication as a psychological dysfunction, despite the fact that the history of government-funded medical research in the United States is replete with examples of scientific abuse against unwitting victims.

Lehrer fires another salvo in the controversy surrounding brain-altering vaccines that eliminate stress and induce artificial states of “focused calm” by portraying those who are concerned about the potential abuse of such treatments as paranoid cult members who believe in space aliens coming to rescue them from an imminent apocalypse.

Unable to properly address Alex Jones’ video journal about the dangers of mind-altering vaccines point by point, Lehrer resorts instead to retelling a completely unrelated story from the 1950′s about a woman in Minneapolis who thought a giant spaceship would rescue her from the end of the world.

According to Lehrer, people who are concerned about fluoridated drinking water and the New World Order, in other words, anyone who expresses consternation about what they are putting in their own body or what powerful people are planning to do with the planet, are mentally disturbed cult members who are victims of cognitive dissonance.

Of course, Lehrer’s tactic of labeling of those who disagree with him in pointing out that there are very real proposals to mass medicate the water supply with lithium, in addition to the already prevalent neurotoxin sodium fluoride, with a psychological dysfunction, could just as easily be applied to Lehrer himself. The acid test on who is engaging in cognitive dissonance and ‘doubling down’ on their beliefs even in light of conflicting evidence, be it Lehrer or the “conspiracy theorists,” has to come down to the basic facts.

It’s a fact that Lehrer’s own fellow Oxford luminary Julian Savulescu, in a 2008 white paper, called for populations to be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

It’s a fact that Professor Allan Young of Vancouver’s Institute for Mental Health told the BBC that “Large-scale trials involving the addition of lithium to drinking water supplies may…be feasible,” following claims that lithium led to a reduction in the number of suicides in Japan and helped to alleviate “mood disorders”.

It’s a fact that Barack Obama’s top science czar John P. Holdren advocated in his own textbook Ecoscience that a “planetary regime” should employ a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions and mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply. These facts are not a product of some spurious Internet link found on Google, as Lehrer spins it, nor do they have anything to do with alien spaceships or the apocalypse, they were either written or said directly by the individuals themselves.

In Lehrer’s first article on the subject, he wrote that people who expressed concern about proposals to put lithium as well as sterilants in the water supply were trafficking in “idiotic conspiracy theories”. Lehrer’s knee jerk denial of these manifestly provable facts that he derides as “idiotic conspiracy theories” is proof positive that it’s Lehrer himself, and not the conspiracy theorists, who is engaging in cognitive dissonance and “doubling down” on his beliefs even in light of conflicting evidence.

Lehrer’s behavior is a classic case of cognitive dissonance – when presented with the fact that proposals are in place to mass medicate the water supply, he continues to spin yarns about space aliens from the 50′s while defending his belief system with sophomoric name-calling and discredited stereotypes which attempt to label anyone who disagrees with him as mentally unstable.

Given the multi-decade documented history of the United States government using its own population as unwitting guinea pigs for the most abhorrent scientific experiments and trials, to deny that such plots could be hatched today is the height of cognitive dissonance.

Lehrer’s argument frames skepticism of authority in the context of vaccines and health care as a mental disorder, a trait of people who are susceptible to cults, people who believe in space aliens and the apocalypse. In fact, skepticism of authority in the context of health care is the most rational and intellectual mind set one could possibly embrace.

If victims of the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study, conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service between 1932 and 1972, had ignored the advice of the doctors they had been told to trust and sought proper medical treatment, they could have saved their own lives as well as those of future generations who were born with congenital syphilis as a consequence of the U.S. health authorities deliberately withholding treatment.

If victims of Project SHAD, unwilling and uninformed participants in a Department of Defense program that deliberately exposed them to chemical and biological weapons like VX and Sarin nerve gas, had not trusted their superiors then they could have avoided lifelong debilitating diseases and premature deaths.

If parents of mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York, had not trusted Saul Krugman of New York University, who told them that their children were being enrolled for helpful “vaccinations” when in fact thay were being deliberately infected with viral hepatitis, then more heartache could have been spared.

If people had expressed more concern at the time about radiation experiments which led to government scientists, “Feeding radioactive food to mentally disabled children or conscientious objectors, inserting radium rods into the noses of school children, deliberately releasing radioactive chemicals over U.S. and Canadian cities, measuring the health effects of radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests, injecting pregnant women and babies with radioactive chemicals, and irradiating the testicles of prison inmates,” would this have been a healthy form of skepticism to adopt?

The list is endless – the history of human experimentation performed by government scientists on unwitting victims reinforces the fact that expressing concern about experimental vaccinations that promise to induce a state of “focused calm” is not to engage in delusions of paranoia or cognitive dissonance, as Lehrer characterizes it, it’s a healthy and informed response to the multi-generational record of scientific abuse of health care research in the United States.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: For vast and extensive archives documenting the subject of government atrocities and health fraud purposely carried out against the people, go to TTR Categories in the right side bar and click on “Vaccinations”, “Flouride”, “Eugenics”, and “Health”… Do you trust the government? – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-denial/

9/11 Truth Truth: Biggest Crime Of The Century Fades In Memory

with one comment

August 5, 2010: Joel S. Hirschhorn / Global Research – August 3, 2010

Months, years and then decades slip by. Despite an avalanche of information burying me everyday I had not read or heard anything about 9/11 truth for many, many months. Sometimes movements become so marginalized that they no longer have enough vitality to stay within the consciousness of very many people.

I am sure, of course, that there are 9/11 truthers out there that still give and attend talks, write and receive emails and have lively conversations about the insanity of the official government story about 9/11 surviving and various alternative explanations of what really happened. Yet, in not too many weeks, another 9/11 anniversary will be here. And maybe then I will be hit again with chatter about what really happened on that past fateful and awful day. But today it is this writing by me that is my 9/11 truth: Hardly any Americans are concerned about 9/11 truth and there is no real interest in Congress in launching a new investigation.

So I went to a few 9/11 websites of groups that I am affiliated with; they were still there. And then I did a Google news search for 9/11 truth. Here is what I gleaned.

The first news item was something that the head of WikiLeaks.org, that was very much in the news lately because it was distributing a huge amount of materials on the war in Afghanistan, had said about the 9/11 truth movement: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” This did not surprise me, even though, personally, I still believe that the US government conspired to keep the full truth about 9/11 hidden from the public.

But then I quickly came across a story in a local New Hampshire newspaper about a recent 9/11 truth group participation in a local event, and that heartened me that the diehard truthers were still marching proudly. Indeed, this was noted: “We would like to extend our warmest thanks to [the former Keene Mayor, State Representative, and one of our World War II veterans] for bravely standing tall and marching with our group. Your presence commands respect and it was indeed an honor to have you all join us. We sincerely appreciate your willingness to show support for our efforts to publicize the need for a new 9/11 investigation.”

And I was heartened to learn that the fourth of July parade in Takoma Park , MD where I once lived had a float for the 9/11 Truth Now group in it.

Back to the WikiLeaks situation; this website has rightfully received incredible worldwide attention by the mainstream media for its ability to obtain and publicize key documents shedding light where the government and corporations don’t want it. For 9/11 truthers here is something that merits very serious thought. If we are correct, then a fairly large number of people had a hand, probably as part of a black ops action, designing and executing many things, not the least of which was the controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center buildings. So why have none of these people leaked materials to a place like WikiLeaks? Could they all have been so bought off or threatened to stay quiet? Perhaps. But I must admit I find the lack of leakers troubling.

Of course, if the government had pursued prosecution of the many government workers that did nothing to prevent the 9/11 actions for, say, criminally negligent homicide, then perhaps some would have cut deals and blown the whistle. But as far as I can remember no civilian or military personnel were nailed for failure to detect and prevent the terrorism.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that just because no 9/11 whistleblowers have come forward with compelling evidence that the official story is believable. Not at all. What the 9/11 truth movement needs, however, is a steady focus on the considerable evidence that undermines the official story, rather than on evidence supporting various alternative theories of what happened.

In this regard, the website of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth http://ae911truth.org/ remains as one of the best sources of serious, trustworthy information. The group has an event on September 9 this year in Washington, DC and also visits to various members of Congress to lobby for a new investigation. But if they do not offer draft legislation it will be a waste of time.

My other favorite website is Alan Miller’s wonderful Patriots Question 9/11 http://patriotsquestion911.com/, where so many credible people have openly questioned the official story, more than enough to convince the most skeptical people to support a new investigation. Thirdly, I urge people to use the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website http://911scholars.org/ because it also offers useful, reliable information.

Also impressive is the continued work of the NYCCAN group at http://www.nyccan.org/index.php. They have asked the Manhattan District Attorney to investigate the collapse of WTC 7. Recently, they had 400 supporters mail or fax the DA the attached letter, which focuses on the destruction of evidence at the WTC site. The group thinks this is the most likely route the DA would take to opening any kind of investigation into 9/11.

Yes, the movement is still alive. But when will it succeed in getting a new credible and comprehensive government investigation? That is the issue.

When people in the public spotlight do not support the truth movement, as the head of WikiLeaks has done, it is a sign that success remains elusive. One truther exception was Daniel Sunjata, a lead actor from the popular FX television show ” Rescue Me.” The coming anniversary of 9/11 will most likely show that we still lack a critical mass of public demand for a new government investigation. One glimmer of hope might be the wide scale rejection of incumbents in Congress. Do candidates for Congress support a new investigation? The truth movement should get their act together and spread the word that truthers should only vote for candidates supporting a new investigation.

Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn at: www.delusionaldemocracy.com

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: There are really only two ways that a new and independent investigation concerning the events of 9/11 will ever take place, and they both must happen: When the people of this country pull their collective heads out of their asses and wake up to reality, and when the people of this country pull their collective heads out of their asses and wake up to reality!SJH  

Link to original article below…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20455