By: Jeff Adams / September 30, 2005

“I support our troops” has become a popular saying. It didn’t originate with the current ‘War on
Terror.’ I first remember hearing this phrase during the first Gulf War, back in the early 1990s. I
believe the origin of this saying is found in politicians who may have opposed military action but didn’
t want to end up, for re-election purposes, on the wrong side of voters’ views of that war. It harkens
back to opposition to the Vietnam War and the mistreatment of veterans. Time has allowed people
to see how wrong it was to abuse and bad-mouth the people in uniform back then, as soldiers only
fight the battles they are directed to, they don’t pick them (not to mention we had a draft during
Vietnam, so many were reluctant soldiers, unlike today where we have an all-volunteer force).

Drive around town and you’ll see folks with stickers on their cars that say ‘I support our troops.’ Of
course, there are folks who don’t support our troops (go to to
see one kook who hasn’t got a clue about the kind of people that join our armed forces, or
understands their reasons for joining). I don’t have one of those stickers on my truck, but I have
taken time to help collect items for gift packages my church has sent to troops, and I pray for the
safe return of our troops. On a more personal level, I keep in contact with friends who are serving in
Iraq, via e-mail, encouraging them and keeping them updated on things back home. My wife and I
have even taken time to fix meals for their families here at home. Small things indeed, but it’s a way
of letting the people that matter to us know we care.

I can relate to the ‘call to serve’ in the military. As a young man, I joined the Air Force out of a sense
that I wanted to ‘serve my country’ and pay something back for all the blessings I had experienced in
life up to that point. Plenty of people join the military for such idealistic reasons. Others join for
adventure, and others still join hoping to get some kind of training they can take into the civilian
world and use to make a living. There are lots of reasons people serve in the military, whether it be
active, guard or reserve. But none of them choose to go to war. The Congress is supposed to do
that (although they haven’t since WWII).

I’ve heard on a number of occasions from commentators that ‘you can’t support the troops and not
support the war.’ That’s bull! I care deeply for my friends who are in harms way, and I respect those
that chose to serve in the military at this time. Most just happen to have hit the timing for when our
military is engaged in combat. There are plenty of people who understand the military’s role in our
system of government, and support the troops, even if they don’t support a particular reason for
sending them into combat. Besides, Republicans don’t have a leg to stand on saying you have to
support the war if you support the troops. When Clinton attacked Serbia and subsequently helped
NATO occupy Kosovo, most Republicans went around saying they supported the troops and not the
war. If it was okay then to hold those views, it’s okay now.

There are people like Cindy Sheehan who, in my opinion, is clearly abusing her son’s memory by
using his death to bash Bush over a war she disagrees with. Obviously her son disagreed with her
or he wouldn’t have reenlisted and done a second tour in Iraq. This woman has put her politics
ahead of respect for her son, and instead uses him and his choice to advance her personal
agenda. It’s disgusting.

There are also those, like the people associated with the anti-war group Code Pink, who chose to
protest not against the war but against injured soldiers recovering at Walter Reed Hospital. Again,
soldiers don’t pick the wars they fight in. If these people are anti-war, they should go protest
Congress and the White House, not attack wounded soldiers in a hospital. These are the kind of
sick individuals that picked wings off of flies as children.

A good assessment of supporting troops, but opposing a particular war can be found here.

Personally, I supported sending troops into Afghanistan. There was a clear connection between
Afghanistan, the Taliban, and 9/11. I did not support sending troops into Iraq, and there is nothing
that has come to light since we toppled Saddam that has changed my mind about this. In fact, the
more we learn, the less there is to justify our presence in Iraq (clear evidence of this is the
government’s ever-changing justification for going into Iraq and staying there).

Yes, I support our troops and am thankful there are people willing to serve. However, I don’t support
the politicians who have rashly sent our troops into harms way and refused to make this decision in
the prescribed manner the Constitution lays out. There was a reason the founders set up a
particular system for committing our country to war, and Iraq is a perfect example of how not to go
about it. Now we are in an undeclared war (thus technically the Geneva convention does not apply
to protect our troops in the case of capture; not that I believe their opponents would abide by the
convention anyway) with no end in site, no clear definition of what victory will look like, or clear plans
for when and how to withdraw from this conflict.

Every time I see the picture of another soldier that has died in Afghanistan or Iraq, I can’t help but
think of all the lost potential, the life cut short, the grieving parents, siblings, spouses and children.
The loss is great and the impact is not just on individual families but entire communities. I pray for
our troops. I support them in their personal ultimate goal, which is to serve honorably and return
home safely. What I do not support is our politician’s constant desire to go globetrotting around the
world, un-Constitutionally ‘establishing democracies.’

We are in a mess that can find its roots in the fact that Congress failed to act, voting either to
declare war or not to declare war. Giving an un-Constitutional approval for President Bush to
commit troops to combat under dubious reasons falls way short of the basic requirements of the law
of our land. For politicians, this war is about politics. For the average citizen, it is about billions of
dollars of our money being thrown away in a foreign land, assisting to establish what will most likely
end up being a not-so-democratic government that will be hostile to the U.S. (as apposed to
whatever Saddam was?). The Bill of Rights is being whittled away at here at home while some of our
finest young men and women are being traumatized, maimed and killed half a world away. And the
worst part is that after all their sacrifices, I doubt we’ll see much, if any, difference in that part of the
world, and we won’t be any safer than we were before.

One of my friends serving in Iraq came home for his mid-tour R-and-R a few months ago. He told
me, “We are doing great things in Iraq, and God is doing a great work.” I didn’t argue with him, for I
saw no need to send him back with a lecture about my views, or bringing his spirits down when he
needs to stay focused to stay alive.

I half agree with my friend. God can do great things in the midst of all this. Here’s a piece of an e-
mail from my friend since he’s been back in Iraq; it concerns a project he started to help the locals
who lacked footwear and school items:

Operation Save a Sole is about to happen. The shoes and supplies are almost to Iraq! Over 2100
LBS of shoes and school supplies were collected and will soon be in the hands of the local civilians
in our area. I plan on taking lots of photos to send back home of the kids and families that are being
blessed by your generosity. If you only knew how many people are involved in this, your socks
would fall off from the blessings. GOD IS AWESOME and HE provides.

Just as Paul used the Roman Army to plant seeds around the world in his day, America has been
given a great opportunity to spread the gospel and plant seeds that may change the life of a lost
soul. What an awesome responsibility. And just being here makes a big difference.

As my friend points out, God used the heathen, brutal Roman Army to spread the Good News. It
was not the official intention of the Roman Army to spread the Gospel, as they brought death,
destruction and a faux ‘Pax Romana’ to other lands, but God used them to His ends. So too today
God can use what some see as evil to do good. The neo-cons may want to expand the American
Empire and enforce a ‘Pax Americana’ on others, but all man-made empires die. In its wake will
perhaps be left seeds for expanding the only eternal empire there is: the Body of Christ.

Do I support our troops? Yes. I support bringing the troops home and using them to defend us in a
manner that will show more results: Put them along our northern and southern borders, and let the
Navy work with the Coast Guard to protect our shores. This isn’t about ‘fighting the enemy over
there rather than over here.’ The enemy is pouring in over our borders while our fat cat ‘leaders’
fiddle away in D.C. Support the troops. Buy them a one-way ticket home.

“Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”


Jeff Adams, born and raised in the South, is from a long line of independent-minded Southerners.  
Jeff is a former U.S.A.F. officer, has a Bachelor’s degree in engineering and a Master’s degree in
Human Resources.   A life long Southern Baptist, Jeff makes his living in Houston, Texas.  Jeff is a
new columnist for Ether Zone.

Jeff Adams can be reached at:

Pressbox / September 28, 2005

Is your child easily distracted? Or perhaps he talks excessively, or can become impatient?

Most, if not all, parents would perhaps answer yes to these questions, as they are, what many of us
believe to be, normal expressions of child behaviour.

Not so, according to Psychiatry. It could be that your child has “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder”, a “disease” of the mind that could require medical treatment.

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM, version IV), the
psychiatrist’s handbook, lists a number of behavioural traits, such as these, that it considers
abnormal in children. Others include: “often has difficulty awaiting turn”, “often does not seem to
listen when spoken to directly”, and “often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities

‘It’s total fraud’, says Michael Westen, editor of Psychbusters (, an
online activist group that was set up in 2000 to ‘decode Psychiatric propaganda’. ‘This is not a
disease and these are not “diagnostic criteria.” These are subjective judgments aimed at coercing a
person to follow rules of “proper conduct” made by others with power. The list could just as easily
contain: fails to be white, often does not attend a Christian church, tends to be smaller, younger,
and unable to do adult tasks.’

‘For a disease to exist there must be a tangible, objective physical abnormality that can be
determined by a test,’ says neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman. ‘Such as, but not limited to, a blood or
urine test, X-Ray, brain scan or biopsy. All reputable doctors would agree: No physical abnormality,
no disease. In psychiatry, no test or brain scan exists to prove that a ‘mental disorder’ is a physical

Baughman, from California, and Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, is one of an
ever-growing number of campaigners fighting to expose the lies within the psychiatric industry. An
adult & child neurologist of some 35 years, Dr. Baughman is vocal when coming up against
misleading research or downright fraud palmed off as “science”. ‘They made a list of the most
common symptoms of emotional discomfiture of children, those which bother teachers and parents
most, and in a stroke that could not be more devoid of science or Hippocratic motive–termed them a
“disease”. Twenty five years of research, not deserving of the term “research”, has failed to validate
ADD/ADHD as a disease. Tragically–the “epidemic” having grown from 500 thousand in 1985 to
between 5 and 7 million today–this remains the state of the “science” of ADHD.’

Despite there being no scientific basis for ADHD, prescriptions of Methylphenidate – most commonly
sold as Ritalin – rose to 359,100 last year, a rise of 344,400 since 1995. Figures from the
Prescriptions Pricing Authority reveal that there has been a 180-fold increase in prescriptions since
1991 when only 2,000 were issued in England.

Ritalin, which is pharmacologically similar to Cocaine, is a favoured treatment option for those
labelled with ADHD, yet critics claim it is a harmful drug that can cause neurological defects and
further behavioural difficulties. Earlier this year, researchers in Texas found a link between Ritalin
use and chromosome abnormalities – occurrences associated with increased risks of cancer and
other adverse health effects.

‘The simple fact is that there is absolutely no reliable test that accurately distinguishes between
children that are supposed to have “ADHD” and those that are not’, says Dr. John Breeding, author
of “The Wildest Colts Make The Best Horses”. To counter the claim that ADHD is a valid medical
condition that requires medical treatment, Breeding encourages parents to demand conclusive
scientific evidence. For there simply isn’t any.

Elliot S. Valenstien, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of
Michigan also agrees. ‘Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical, or functional
signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients.’

‘I am constantly amazed by how many patients who come to see me believe or want to believe that
their difficulties are biologic and can be relieved by a pill,’ says psychiatrist Dr. David Kaiser. ‘This is
despite the fact that modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of
any single mental illness. However, this does not stop psychiatry from making essentially unproven
claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety disorders, alcoholism and a host of other disorders
are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin, and that it is only a matter of time until all
this is proven. This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naive and
perhaps delusional.’

‘There are many reasons why a child can become inattentive or hyperactive,” says Michael Westen.
‘Nutritional deficiencies or a poor diet are often underlying problems. There can be difficulties in the
home, vision problems, even a lack of sleep. There can be many others. Yet instead of looking at all
these issues, Psychiatry ignores them, inventing a one-size-fits-all “disease” that requires

‘Disingenuous comparisons between physical and mental illness and medicine are simply part of
psychiatry’s orchestrated but fraudulent public relations and marketing campaign,’ says Dr.

Many seem to share these views including the late Dr. Loren Mosher, a noted psychiatrist and
clinical professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, and former Chief of the
Center for Studies of Schizophrenia at the National Institute of Mental Health. Mosher famously
resigned from the American Psychiatric Association in 1998 due to Psychiatry’s growing “unholy
alliance” with the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.

‘Psychiatry has become drug dependent (that is, devoted to pill pushing) at all levels – private
practitioners, public system psychiatrists, university faculty and organizationally,’ Mosher wrote
before attacking the field as being mechanistic, reductionistic, tunnel-visioned and dehumanising.

‘Modern psychiatry has forgotten the Hippocratic principle,’ Mosher once wrote. ‘Above all, do no


For more information, visit:
Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda

By Victor Thorn / AFP / September 26, 2005

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant
Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The
police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.

The ramifications of this statement are immense: One of New York’s own firefighters says publicly
that 9-11 couldn’t have been the work of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but instead was planned,
coordinated and executed by elements within our own government.

He also added, after pointing to throngs of police officers standing around us, that, “We all have to
be very careful about how we handle it.”

Isaac reiterated what a 9-11 survivor told this journalist during our protest at Ground Zero on Sept.
11, 2005—that emergency radios were buzzing with information about bombs being detonated
inside the World Trade
Center towers.

Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in
New York.

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said
Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials,
preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information
related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand
evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying
that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting
jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are
still not hearing the entire story.

Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC “open grave site” on the afternoon of
Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: “I just got back from Ground
Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that
they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting
what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes.”


Victor Thorn is the author of New World Order Exposed, and co-host of WING TV. For more
information, visit Thorn’s web site at or write P.O. Box 10495, State College, PA 16805-
0495. New World Order Exposed (#1080, $25, 560 pps., softcover) and 9-11 On Trial (#1178, 175
pages, $14, booklet) can be ordered from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS. Write 645 Pennsylvania
Avenue SE, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20003. Call toll free 1-888-699-NEWS (6397) to order by
Visa or MasterCard.

American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

By Greg Szymanski / American Free Press / September 19, 2005

Former 9-11 commissioner Timothy Roemer avoided answering questions, running like a scared
rabbit when confronted by William Rodriguez, the WTC custodian who wanted to know why his
dissenting testimony was omitted in the final report, during a rally marking the fourth anniversary of
the terrorist attacks.
“The 9-11 truth will be told. Bush and Cheney will be indicted for treason and murder. And
immediately . . .the killing and illegal war in Iraq [will be stopped].”
These were the strong and poignant words ringing through the streets of New York Sunday as more
than 250 9-11 truth protesters marched carrying “Impeach Bush” and “9-11 Inside Job” signs. The
rally started at The New York Times Building and ended at the UN.
Organized by members of the web site,, the rally was called to vent anger and make
the public aware of the concerted effort by the mainstream media and the government to keep the
truth about what really happened on 9-11 from the American people.
Although the corporate-elite media came out earlier in the day in force to cover the Ground Zero
activities in honor of the 9-11 victims on the fourth anniversary of the tragedy, the mainstream
media was predictably absent from protest rally just like it has been purposely absent for four years
in covering compelling stories that contradict the government’s official account.
Protesters passed by FOX, CNN and NBC buildings, to emphasize their feelings that media
suppression has been primarily responsible for keeping America from the truth about 9-11 and
largely responsible for allowing government officials to get away with the murder of 3,000 fellow
citizens at Ground Zero.
Rodriguez, the last survivor of the North Tower, told of explosions emanating from the sub-level
basement of the tower, prior to the plane striking the upper floors. His account has been
systematically suppressed by the government, mainstream media and the 9-11 Commission.
“They have done everything in their power to ignore my statements, which directly contradict the
government story,” said Rodriguez as the crowd chanted, “Let the truth be told.”
“I have at least 27 other people who are ready to testify that they also heard explosions, all of whom
have been completely ignored by the 9-11 Commission. Also, the last drop of water fell from the
glass and I realized all hope was lost to get at the truth when the testimony I gave the commission
behind closed doors last year was omitted from the final report.”
This time, however, Rodriguez broke new ground, when, for the first time after four years, a major
news outlet carried his story.
His story aired on a one-hour, pre-recorded special for ABC radio and its nationwide affiliates. The
story aired on the East Coast with comments by author David Ray Griffin, who has written a scathing
report about at least 101 lies in the final 9-11 Commission report. Griffin, who has written two books
about government lies and the government cover-up of 9-11, said the 9-11 Commission report,
which received a national book award, should have been declared a “national disgrace.”
Former Lt. Col. (USAF) Dr. Robert Bowman called for the immediate removal of President Bush,
Vice President Dick Cheney and their cronies on charges of treason and murder. Bowman, who flew
over 100 Vietnam combat missions and worked under presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter,
said he took a solemn oath to protect his country from foreign and domestic enemies, including a
rogue president like Bush.
“9-11 is based on a pack of lies. It wasn’t misjudgment; it was treason,” said Bowman as he called
for removal of what he called the mob and crooks in the White House.
Bowman told the audience that while walking in the march he received a kiss on the cheek from a
member of a family that lost a loved one in the 9-11 attacks. He reassured the audience that those
seeking truth about 9-11 and the illegal war in Iraq w ere “doing the right thing.”
Donna Marsh gave the most emotional appeal. Tears came to her eyes and the eyes of many when
she recalled how her pregnant daughter perished at Ground Zero because of what she called
“criminals in the White House.”
“My daughter called after the first plane hit at 8:46 a.m. and said she was told not to leave the South
Tower because it was safe. In fact she was told not to leave or she would be fired,” said Marsh. She
repeated her statements on a Monday morning radio show hosted By Joyce Riley called “The Power
Hour” on Genesis Broadcasting Network.
“Where was NORAD? What really happened in those buildings? Why did they collapse so quickly
like a controlled demolition? There are just so many unanswered questions the government refuses
to answer. What conclusion can be made other than our own government was involved in killing my
daughter and 3,000 other Americans?” asked Marsh.
“I want George W. Bush [to know], he can no longer use my daughter’s name to spread war and
killing throughout the world. From this day forward, I want my daughter’s name removed
permanently from the official 9-11 victims list.”
After the two-hour rally, protesters doubled in size as they congregated at St. Mark’s Church.
“As Americans we can no longer live in fear of George W. Bush and his band of criminals, who all
belong behind bars in jail,” said attorney Phil Berg. “I promise I will never stop searching for the
truth, and one day the truth will be told.”
 American Free Press – 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

By Chuck Baldwin / September 13, 2005

The blame game has been in full swing ever since Hurricane Katrina crashed into the Louisiana
and Mississippi Gulf Coast. Democrats want to use the disaster as a means to criticize the Bush
administration. Republicans blame the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana, both
Democrats. However, one theme seems constant: the call for more involvement by the federal
For example, a Washington Post report dated Friday, September 9, 2005 begins, “The breakdown
of local and state agencies that tried to respond to Hurricane Katrina has spurred fresh debate
about whether disasters of such magnitude ought to be turned over to the U.S. military and other
federal authorities to manage at the outset.”

The Post quotes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as saying, “The would-be first responders at
the state and local level were themselves victims in very large numbers.” The Post further reported
Rumsfeld as saying, “the [federal] government would likely address again the question of ‘lead
responsibility’ for the Defense Department in disaster response.” The Post article also said, “He
[Rumsfeld] noted that the issue was critical not only in responding to a natural catastrophe but also
to a terrorist attack.”

The Post story continued by saying, “Some homeland defense specialists have argued since
Katrina struck that national plans must be revised to provide for a bigger and faster federalized
effort, particularly in large-scale disasters.”

The Post is not alone in highlighting the call for more federal involvement in America’s domestic
problems. The same day the Post report ran, the most influential newspaper in the U.S., The New
York Times, also ran a major story on the subject. Furthermore, most every television and radio
news outlet in the country has echoed the identical sentiment. One could even say that the media is
clamoring for a federal government take-over of all domestic emergencies.

That the major media would demand more federal involvement in America’s domestic affairs should
not surprise us. After all, the vast majority of the media elite is composed of liberals who intrinsically
believe that more government is always better no matter what the problem! What is disturbing (and
somewhat new) is the fact that even conservatives have jumped on the “more federal government”

Instead of addressing the real weaknesses and needs of our nation, conservatives have
abandoned their traditional principles of less government and more personal responsibility and
have become nothing more than liberals in conservatives’ clothing.

The lessons of New Orleans should be as obvious as the nose on one’s face: 1) The total lack of
foresight by city and state officials to address the engineering concerns of the levees surrounding
the city, concerns that had been often expressed for many years; 2) that New Orleans (and even
the state of Louisiana) has had more than its share of political corruption; 3) the absolute
breakdown of morality and decency in the city of New Orleans, a breakdown that was encouraged
by leaders at every level of the city; 4) the need of individuals to be self-reliant and personally
prepared for unexpected emergencies. As with a host of America’s major cities, many people within
the city of New Orleans know only how to live day to day off the government teat and commonly
demonstrate little appreciation for personal responsibility; 5) the refusal of the city of New Orleans to
effectively deal with crime and criminals.

All of the above contributed greatly to the tragic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Instead of
addressing any of the salient issues, however, the only thing that anyone seems to come up with is,
“We need more involvement from the federal government.” But before we go to seed on giving the
federal government carte blanche to solve our domestic problems, we need to consider carefully
what we would be getting.

Do we really want the U.S. military taking over domestic law enforcement responsibilities? Are we
prepared for martial law? Are we prepared to surrender our freedoms and liberties under the rubric
of “national emergency?” Are we willing to allow military forces to go house to house confiscating
firearms (which they are doing in New Orleans)? In short, are we ready to discard constitutional
government and turn America into a police state?

The answer to the above questions will determine what kind of nation will evolve in the near future,
because you can be sure that there are more “national emergencies” lurking around the corner for
our country. And if we are not careful, the sight of military forces going house to house confiscating
firearms will be seen in every city in America, not just in New Orleans!

PS. Two sermons will be added to my video sermons page this week including, “The Preacher’s Job
Description” and “Why Do We Sit Still?” To view these sermons, go to my web site at: http://www.