Doh Self Declaration Of Income: Fill & Download for Free

Placebos are used in both clinical trials and general practice. Arguably the most prescribed drug in human history (1), the history of medicine is in large part the history of the placebo (2). What's the ethical dilemma of placebos in clinical trials? To understand this we need to examine the history of informed consent, and understand what's a placebo, where it stands in current biomedical research and how its use creates an ethical dilemma.The problem starts with the definition of placebo. There isn't one. Rather there are many.The word placebo derives from the Latin word, 'placere' meaning 'I will please' or 'I will do good', a word opposite to nocebo derived from the Latin word 'nocere' meaning 'I will harm'. One definition of placebo is 'An inert substance usually prepared to look as similar to the active product investigated in a study as possible' and the placebo effect is 'any (usually beneficial) changes that occur within a group ‘treated’ with placebo' (3). I wrote one definition implying there are many and therein lies one of several ethical issues about placebos. A recent review (4) helpfully collated different definitions of placebo used by many world-renowned biomedical research organizations and health policy-making bodies.From 4Ironically, even different institutes within the same organization, the US-based NIH, have multiple definitions. Why are multiple definitions a problem? Unlike our past or rather because of it, in biomedical research today, safety of patients is sacrosanct. The more ambiguous the definition of a foundational term like placebo, the greater the possibility of misunderstanding and miscommunication. If the experts themselves don't agree on a common definition of placebo, an intervention that requires the approval of clinical trial participants, what chances then that the latter, likely not experts, fully understand what their consent means? Such a pitfall could further undermine public trust in doctors and clinical trials (5).The clinical trial as we now know it is of recent vintage. It starts with the UK's Medical Research Council 1947 study of streptomycin treatment for tuberculosis (6). Since 1947, clinical trial methodology has improved vastly to minimize bias in design, management and interpretation. Now health-care providers need to provide clinical trial participants information necessary for their autonomous decision-making, i.e. informed consent forms are now mandatory. In this mix, we have placebos.By enabling a causal association between treatment and outcome, placebos have been instrumental in making clinical research more rigorous and scientifically sound, with a caveat of course. After all, the 'placebo effect' tells us in no uncertain terms that we don't fully understand how our body, brain and mind work together. The unpredictable 'placebo effect' also negates economic arguments that are typically made in favor of placebo-controlled trials, namely, that it requires fewer participants and is faster compared to trials that compare two or more treatments (e.g., active controlled or superiority or non-inferiority trials) (7).However, why do clinical trials require informed consent (approval by participants) in the first place?Brief history of informed consent in clinical trialsGerman Nazi doctor experiments on concentration camp inmates and the Tuskegee Syphilis Project are representative examples of egregious medical practice abuse. Human autonomy, the overarching victim, thus became the central tenet in modern medical ethics through a convoluted and not simplistically linear process. While the Nuremberg Code established a set of research ethics for human experimentation in 1947, isn't it ironic that the Tuskegee syphilis experiment was conducted continuously from 1932 until 1972? In this study, African-Americans diagnosed with syphilis were deliberately left untreated in order to follow natural disease progression. This example of egregious post-WWII violation of human rights proved that the Nuremberg Code alone was insufficient to prevent wholesale abuse in human experimentation. While public revelation of the Tuskegee project in 1972 drove the creation of new standards in research ethics requiring the treatment of research participants as autonomous agents, it was only in 1997 that US president Bill Clinton apologized to the Tuskegee study participants and their families. However, neither of these two egregious examples of abuse alone suffice to understand how we arrive at today's 'informed consent'. For this we need to delve into the law and lawsuits.The first piece of 'Informed consent'. When and how the phrase came into existence.The US case Salgo v. Leland Stanford, Jr. University Board of Trustees coined the phrase, 'informed consent'. The plaintiff, Mr Salgo underwent a now-defunct treatment 'involving puncturing the aorta through the back in order to inject a radio-opaque dye, and was left with permanent paralysis of the legs. According to the direction given to the jury: “The physician has . . . discretion [to withhold alarming information from the patient] consistent, of course, with the full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent” ([1957] 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App.) at 181)'(8). In this jury instruction, there is an obvious contradiction of terms between 'discretion to withhold alarming information' and 'full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent'. Nevertheless, this and subsequent cases codified that disclosure needed to conform to 'professional practice standard', namely, what a reasonable health-care practitioner would do under similar circumstances (8).The second piece of 'Informed consent': The 'reasonable person standard'.In the US case, Canterbury v. Spence ([1972] 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir.)), the patient fell out of his hospital bed after undergoing a laminectomy (surgical removal of a vertebral bone called the lamina) and suffered major paralysis (8). The patient had not been warned about 'the possibility of this rare outcome'. This case deemed the professional practice standard inadequate in that it failed to respect the patient's self-determination, and it gave way to the patient- centered 'reasonable person standard', i.e. what any reasonable patient would consider necessary and sufficient to know, rather than what professionals might consider necessary to disclose (9). According to the philosopher Peter Singer and his colleague Helga Kuhse, 'this single move served to overcome three main weaknesses of the professional practice standard: first, that agreed professional standards of disclosure were typically set too low to satisfy patient demand for information; second, that there were no agreed standards for new procedures; and, third, that patients were put at a significant disadvantage in having to rely upon expert witnesses (usually other health-care practitioners) in disputes about standards of care' (8).With the adoption of a 'reasonable person standard', patients have greater decision-making control about their own health care. In theory, anyway. What does this mean in practical terms though? Health-care providers have to disclose to the patient the four elements necessary for informed patient consent: the nature (therapeutic/not), risks, alternatives and benefits of the procedure and/or treatment. Disclose the nature of the treatment: Is it therapeutic or not? This is how we arrive at the current ethical dilemma of the placebo. As with many ethical dilemmas that ensue from the tussle between individual rights and collective good, the participants of a placebo-controlled trial bear the risks. Let's examine who benefits.Who benefits from a placebo-controlled trial, public health (the participants, i.e. patients, nation(s)) or the sponsor? Some case studies highlight a) inevitable conflicts of interest and b) developed vs developing world disconnects in access to consistent standard of care.Neither individuals nor public health, only the sponsor. In Bolivia, Discovery labs was testing a new surfactant, Surfaxin, for respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). However, its intent was not to develop the drug to benefit premature Bolivian infants with RDS but to market it in high-income countries (10). Violation of ethics? No doubt.Individuals pay but public health benefits. In the Romanian government-funded, Bucharest Early Intervention Project (11), abandoned children were randomly assigned to either foster or institutional care even though US childcare experts agreed foster care was better. The result helped Romanian policy-makers establish a foster care program in Bucharest, and an ethicist concluded the study had sufficient 'social value' to justify its design (12). Millum and Grady state 'Social value is a fundamental, but under-analyzed, concept in research ethics' (7). I bet the children left to institutional care would vociferously beg to differ. Another fundamental informed consent issue that this case highlights? Presumably, usually parents or caregivers, i.e. individuals, proffer informed consent on behalf of minors. In the case of these and other orphans, presumably the state, manifestly not an individual, consents? Is individual and state informed consent the same thing? The study (11) itself is mum on this issue. Yet another ethical conundrum.Double standards in medical research.The US 076 regimen gave Zidovudine (AZT) intravenously prenatally, during delivery, and postpartum (13). Though it reduced perinatal (vertical) HIV transmission by approximately 2/3rds and had become the standard of care in developed countries, the needed infrastructure, comprehensive prenatal care, and drug cost couldn't be met in developing countries, which had the majority of perinatal HIV infections. Hence controversial placebo-controlled trials in Sub-Saharan Africa gave a single nevirapine dose to pregnant women during labor and their infants within 72 hours of birth (14). What's egregious about that? As Millum et al write, 'it was known at the time that single-dose nevirapine would not be as effective as more comprehensive and much more expensive treatment regimens that also targeted transmission during pregnancy' (15). Like it or not, when it comes to public health, we live in a world of haves and have-nots.According to latest guidelines, when is a placebo currently acceptable?A brief history of the modern clinical trials and the codified set of rules for their conduct, namely, the World Medical Association's 1964 Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) and its subsequent revisions (7 as of 2013) reveal plenty of controversy such as the 5th revision in 2000 which was approved without consensus from national medical associations in the aftermath of the controversial sub-Saharan nevirapine studies on vertical HIV transmission.The 7th version of the DoH, adopted in October 2013 at the 64th WMA General Assembly in Fortaleza, Brazil, says, 'Medical research involving human subjects may only be conducted if the importance of the objective outweighs the risks and burdens to the research subjects. (Paragraph16)' (15). It also asserts that 'placebos, no intervention or any intervention less effective than the best proven one may be used only when the patients who receive them will not be subject to additional risks of serious or irreversible harm as a result of not receiving the best proven intervention' (16). 'Less effective than the best proven', a phrase that explicitly codified double standards in medical research. In response, the Latin American and Caribbean Medical Confederations did not approve the wording of placebo use in the DoH 2013 because 'the poor and vulnerable populations, discriminated by their lack of resources, cannot be subjected to biomedical research that have levels of safety less than those applied to more developed societies' (17, 18).Ambiguity about the 'risk of serious or irreversible harm' is another big problem with the latest DoH stance on placebo. Is it risk of serious or irreversible harm to not treat a cut or skin biopsy or to not treat an HIV positive pregnant woman? In the arena of global politics, 'risk of serious or irreversible harm' becomes a vast, seemingly insurmountable chasm between the optimal and the dubious in wealthy and poor countries, respectively. Hellman et al also point out that the 2013 DoH excluded the division between therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies, further increasing participant vulnerability (18).Today, health-care providers need to tell placebo-controlled trial participants they could receive either a treatment or a placebo. Do participants balk? Certainly but it seems to vary by disease type and severity. While a study suggests 70% of cancer patients would likely decline to participate in a placebo-controlled trial (19), 24% of hypertension patients are likely to do so (20).Final word: Placebos remain a persistent ethical dilemma. We just added another wrinkle with bureaucracy.Our history teaches us that when we codify processes and develop contingencies to accommodate ethical codes and legal requirements, we tend to become complacent and end up going through the motions without fully comprehending the poignant ethical and moral compulsions that necessitated them. In other words, a definition of bureaucracy. We see a similar effect at play with our current use of placebos in clinical trials. The meager research currently available on how clinical trial participants are informed about placebos and their effects suggests that placebos and their risks are poorly explained (4, 21, 22). This, even without getting into vast global cultural differences. For example, imagine informed consent in cultures that believe evil spirits or witchcraft cause diseases or where the concept of lock and key privacy (...of informed consent forms) is alien or where native healers are accorded respect on par with modern medical practitioners or where illiteracy is prevalent. Given we do live in a world of such enormous cultural, resource and opportunity differences, from benign neglect to active deception, the entire ethical gamut with respect to placebos is still very much at play.BibliographyShapiro, Arthur K., and Elaine Shapiro. "The powerful placebo." From ancient priest to modern (1997).Požgain, Ivan, Zrinka Požgain, and Dunja Degmečić. "Placebo and nocebo effect: a mini-review." Psychiatria Danubina 26.2 (2014): 100-107. Page on hdbp.orgDay, Simon. Dictionary for clinical trials. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.Hernández, Astrid, et al. "The Definition of Placebo in the Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trials." PloS one 9.11 (2014): e113654. Page on plosone.orgLouhiala, Pekka, Harri Hemilä, and Raimo Puustinen. "Clinical use of placebo treatments may undermine the trust of patients: a response to Gold and Lichtenberg." Journal of medical ethics (2014): medethics-2014. Page on mv.helsinki.fiMarshall, Geoffrey, et al. "Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a Medical Research Council investigation." BMJ 2.4582 (1948): 769-782.Millum, Joseph, and Christine Grady. "The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: methodological justifications." Contemporary clinical trials 36.2 (2013): 510-514. The Ethics of Placebo-controlled Trials: Methodological JustificationsA Companion to Bioethics, Second Edition. Helga Kuhse, Peter Singer, editors. A Companion to BioethicsFaden, Ruth R., Tom L. Beauchamp, and Nancy M. King. "A history and theory of informed consent." (1986).Lurie P, Wolfe SM. Commentary 9.2. The Developing World as the “Answer” to the Dreams of Pharmaceutical Companies: The Surfaxin Story. In: Lavery JV, Grady C, Wahl ER, Emanuel EJ, editors. Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research: A Casebook. Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 159–170.Nelson, Charles A., et al. "Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project." Science 318.5858 (2007): 1937-1940. Page on ucsd.eduRid, Annette. "When is research socially valuable? Lessons from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project: commentary on a case study in the ethics of mental health research." The Journal of nervous and mental disease 200.3 (2012): 248-249. Page on bucharestearlyinterventionproject.orgConnor, Edward M., et al. "Reduction of maternal-infant transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with zidovudine treatment." New England Journal of Medicine 331.18 (1994): 1173-1180.Marseille, Elliot, et al. "Cost effectiveness of single-dose nevirapine regimen for mothers and babies to decrease vertical HIV-1 transmission in sub-Saharan Africa." The Lancet 354.9181 (1999): 803-809.Millum, Joseph, David Wendler, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel. "The 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: progress but many remaining challenges." Jama 310.20 (2013): 2143-2144. Page on nih.govWorld Medical Association (WMA). Declaration of Helsinki. Amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. WMA Archives, Ferney-Voltaire, France.Confederacion Medica Latinoamericana y el Caribe (CONFEMEL). Declaracion de Pachuca Sobre la Revision de Helsinki. 22 and 23 November 2013. (Accessed May 5, 2014. Page on confemel.comHellmann, Fernando, et al. "50th Anniversary of the Declaration of Helsinki: The Double Standard Was Introduced." Archives of medical research 45.7 (2014): 600-601.Jefford, Michael, and Rosemary Moore. "Improvement of informed consent and the quality of consent documents." The lancet oncology 9.5 (2008): 485-493.Halpern, Scott D., et al. "Hypertensive patients' willingness to participate in placebo-controlled trials: implications for recruitment efficiency." American heart journal 146.6 (2003): 985-992.Bishop, Felicity L., et al. "Informed consent and placebo effects: a content analysis of information leaflets to identify what clinical trial participants are told about placebos." PloS one 7.6 (2012): e39661. Page on plosone.orgKeränen, Tapani, et al. "Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo." BMC medical ethics 16.1 (2015): 2. Page on biomedcentral.com

Let me answer this, I answered it in another thread that was similar On-Point.I would seek Conscientious Objector Status, and Get a Military Lawyer to help you Get out. And Get out. You’ll come back with PTSD, if you even come back. And your field officer might even know or see your record that you didn’t want to deploy and make sure you didn’t get back. He’ll make sure you’ll be killed in combat.You no longer serve America, you serve corrupt Politicians like Hillary Clinton, Obama, John McCain. The first two are out, but those like minded like them will return, it’s only a matter of time.Bush and Cheney saw to it that "In the days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) was passed. So they could start a war or mini-war deployment, anytime, anywhere, all-the-time. All they have to do is label someone a TERRORIST and Voila, they can send you or any troop there.Do you want that on your conscience, murdering people and killing people who never did a Damn thing to you. You’ll be a foreign invader in someone else’s country, and I guarantee you, you’ll be fighting over seas in some foreign country and killing women and children and calling it “collateral damage”, people fighting you because your a FREAKING FOREIGN invasion army in THEIR COUNTRY.==========================================================THE QUESTION BELOW WAS, WHY WEREN’T THERE MORE BLACKS IN SPECIAL FORCES.Let me answer this from a different perspective. Because they’re (Blacks) are TOO HONEST!!! I don’t say that in a flattering manner nor sarcastic manner.I’m going to ramble a bit.Colin Powell in his service the President Bush Jr. served as Secretary of State. In that famous speech to the UN Powell did which turned out to be fake. At the UN in front of the entire world, Powell showed (supposed Satellite Photos) of Scud missile launchers and WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam Hussein supposedly had.We know what happened, they didn't find a single one WMD. And that's not the truth. They found them alright. They found ALL OF THEM. The problem was the WMD had stamped all over them. Halliburton - Made in USA. Halliburton is Dick Cheney's company. So we were told Iraq didn't have any and US destroyed them all in Iraq blew the entire stock pile up there, rather than divulging it was made in US, then bring the WMD back and worrying about how to dispose of these chemical WMD's. We / US / Halliburton had sold the WMD to Saddam to use against the Kurd's and against the Iranians. Saddam was our ally fighting a proxy war on US behalf vs. Iran. And we turned on him. Why???? so we could put bases in Riyadh and Kuwait, and in Iraq and take his oil.When Colin Powell “realized” they (Bush / Cheney Regime Administration) had used Powell’s good name and sullied it, (Prior to this Powell had A LOT, A LOT of Credibility) people thought highly of him and some even wanted him to run for POTUS; Powell “resigned”, you notice POWELL “DIDN’T SERVE AGAIN” on Bush Jr. / Cheney’s 2nd term. He got out - because HE WAS TOO HONEST!!!! Powell wanted no part of this FAKE WMD WAR NARRATIVE!!!! THAT WAS BEING USED TO GENERATE War with Iraq Narrative. He wanted no part to Sell Bush / Cheney War narrative of US vs. Iraq, he got out.During the Vietnam war during the last years of the war, when there was obvious draw down to only 300,000+ troops left in-country (in Vietnam). The moral was bad, drug use and abuse was high. Some of the troops especially the black ones refused to go on patrol.At the height of the VN war which lasted 15 years there were 550,000+ troops in country in 1969. 3,000,000 troops served and were cycled in on 12 month to 13 month tour basis over the 15 years. For Draftees, it was 2 year term you had to serve. 60% enlisted and 40% were drafted with 1-year in country.Blacks make up only 15% of U.S. population but up 25% were drafted and most served up front, on the front lines and patrol duty. So there was some obvious resentment. Not only that but after MLK was assassinated, the NVA & VC posted the "Famous TIME magazine pictures of the downed MLK LAYING MORTALLY WOUNDED on the balcony of the hotel." With these words, "We are not your enemy, your fight is not here with us, your fight is at home".That hit home to many, many blacks. To them it was saying, "Sending the poor and down trodden of America to kill the poor of another country. Why do you think Cassius Clay aka Mohammad Ali, refused the draft and lost his Boxing Title. That was the mood, American had woken up. People were asking Why were we in VN??? To Fight Communism??? What is Communism??? Let the VNese have "self-rule"???That was the end of the war when people started to asked those questions AND, AND, AND, the body bags started to come home, 58,000+ kia, 300,000 wounded over 15 years.The Vietnam war was very "RACIST", VERY RACIST. It's the same thing happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, Kill those Sand-N!ggers, Kill those Rag-heads!!!Do you know who invented "Communism"??? The French did!!!! Why didn't the US go to Europe to kill French and stop communism in Europe. Doh, Oh maybe because the French have guns, machine guns, tanks, and Nuclear weapons. Oh, but US has to stop the spread of communism, right??? Doh, Oh but communism spread to the WHOLE EASTER BLOCK countries. Russia (aka USSR-Soviet Union), East Germany, Poland, Cuba.Do you know when "Communism was invented"??? 1793, yes, 1793. ONLY, 17 years of the US Independence in 1776.But the US didn't go to Europe to Kill French. They had to stop communism in VN.US had to send it’s young boys, young men, young Fathers, young Brothers, young Sons to kill some Yellow, Gook, Dinks in some God forsaken jungle 3000 miles away from home. For some McCarthism reason to fight Communism against the Yellow Good Dinks. That’s why 58,000+ US got killed and 300,000+ were wounded and almost 3,000,000 served cycled in and out of that war for 12 month tours in-country over 15 years that the war lasted. That’ HOW CORRUPT THE US Gov’t is.Why??? Because the VN are sub-human, they're Gooks, Dinks, Nips, Chinks, Yellow, their Kill-able. A Yellow Dink Gook VC NVA life isn't worth as much as a White life, A White French life, or A White American life.The U.S. was the bully, with Bigger, better weapons. When the French lost at Dien Bien Phu, it was with American Artillery given to China to fight the Japanese. It was American Artillery that bombarded Dien Bien Phu.During 1971 Christmas Bombing of North VN, Hanoi, by that Moron Nixon and that Nazi Henry Kissinger, more bombs were dropped on VN than on all the bombs dropped in WW2 by both sides, in both Europe and Japan. All of it on Hanoi, all of it on North VN. 2,000,000 million Tons. Every hour on the hour from 8am, 9am, 10am, 11am, 12nn, 1pm, 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, 5pm, 6pm, 7pm, 8pm, for 2 solid weeks EVERY FREAKING DAY. The B-52’s flew out from Guam to bomb N. VN.The VC & NVA knew, all they had to do was bid their time and send home enough body bags until America tired out of seeing it’s Son’s, Fathers, Brothers killed 3000 miles away from home for “NOTHING” “FOR NOTHING!!!” “FOR AN IDEOLOGY STYLE OF GOV’T DIFFERENT FROM America” and for “Corrupt Political leaders such as LBJ, NIXON, AND THAT MAGGOT MORON HENRY KISSINGER”>.See, AFTER WW2, the US knew, knew, knew absolutely, THERE WAS OIL OFF THE COAST OF VN. Always follow the money. Why do you think in the last few years China has asserted their right in the Gulf of Tonkin and built those artificial Islands. To protect their oil interest. VN has no Navy, Neither does the Philippines, nor does Indonesia. They might have 1 or 2 destroyers left over purchases relics from WW2.But the Chinese have a Navy, and Air Force.So, the US concocted pretended to Help the French. But secretly they wanted the French to fail.Once the French failed US filled that gap, with American Troops.There's a reason, why they (Special Forces aka, SOG Special Operations Group, Rangers, Delta, SEALS, Each branch has their own, Air Force has them Pararescue (the specialize in rescuing downed Air Men and Women), Marines have them (Recon), Even the Coast Guard has them, Their the guys that will jump in from those Coast Guard Helicopters into the FREEZING COLD WATER off the Coast of Alaska to save the crew of some fishing, trawling or crabbing vessel that just sank) they don't call them that, they call the Delta SFOD-D, SEALS are NSWDG United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (NSWDG), or DEVGRU or SEAL Team Six.There's a reason, why they make their Training so so so FREAKING HARD!!!! And it's not what you would think.In the SEALS out of a class of 200-250 only 10 might graduate hell week. Sometimes the entire class washed out. All of them, a few times that happened. Plus their are injuries. A little known fact MOST SEALS are killed during training. The death rate during training is higher, much higher than during an actual deployment or combat. Understand this, most if not all US Special forces operate best and operate mostly AT NIGHT. US has advanced night vision gear, that's the thing attached to their helmets, night scopes attached to their weapon systems. And so US forces have an advantage, their survival rate in an engagement at night is actually high, much higher than during training. They get in and get out under the cover of darkness. But Sh!t happens during training.The reason, why they make their Training so so so FREAKING HARD!!!! And it's not what you would think.It's for Psychological reasons. YOU'VE GOT TO WANT IT BAD. YOU'VE GOT TO WANT TO BE DOWN RANGE.YOU'VE GOT TO WANT TO HAVE A LICENSE TO KILL BAD. War, and Clandestine military operations are nothing more than "Sanctioned and Licensed murder!!!!!" Might makes right and the Victor or most powerful guy with the most power military dictates what War you can kill in!!!The washout rate for any and all the special forces is EXTREMELY HIGH. You have to want it really, really, really bad. So bad that you have to overcome all physical and hardship obstacles they throw at you during basic training.The reason is this, so you will over-look any Moral Dilemma, Any Ethical Dilemma, Any Legalistic issues, Constitutional issues, Morality, Legality, Constitutionality. So you forget even your humanity. Look at the VN My Lai Massacre. These weren't special forces but it was war time all the same.Women, children, infants, elderly, men, all rounded up and summarily executed.SO NOW CONNECTING THE DOTS FOR YOU. Why are there so few blacks in special forces???You have Racism in America alive and well. Ask a black, in a poor neighborhood or even a medium income neighborhood how often they experience racism. Racism comes in two flavors; Over, in-your-face, and subliminal and covertly.Bush and Cheney saw to it that "In the days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) was passed. So they could start a war or mini-war deployment, anytime, anywhere, all-the-time. All they have to do is label someone a TERRORIST and Voila, they can send you or any troop there. The war on Terror as they call it, has no-end, no-clear-Victory. I met this one Army Platoon Tank Commander at a show, I asked him, "how many deployments have you seen???" He replied, "Six, I've seen Six deployments, I'm getting out, I'm done!!!" During the VN war, you only had 1 deployment for a 12 month period. Even the troops are getting tired.Essentially, it allowed the use of US military force, without the consent of Congress, by-passing-Congress. It was by passing the separation of powers.The POTUS - President Of The U.S., needed the Consent of the Congress to declare war or engage US military forces, NO MORE, not with the passage of this act.The Congress is now considering repealing this Act AUMF.What do you think black America see on the evening news, they're not stupid. They see US forces being deployed to oppress, suppress and kill other people in other countries to steal their resources. You don't think that resonates with them at home. How many wealthy black people do you see that are going to join US military and special forces to kill other country men so the US could steal their resources. Just like in VN.How many educated black parents would want or let their kids to grow up and join special forces to go kill and oppress the people of other countries. ???How many educated blacks who may or may not be wealthy, would say why should my Poor son go kill the poor of other nations for companies, like Big Oil, and the Bankers that control the Reserve Currency known as the Dollar that all other countries rely on.???White parents have no problems with that, once their fed the Patriot Bottle, that's filled with milk what says for God and Country, go kill and bomb the poor of other countries.How many young blacks that grow up in poor neighborhoods do you think would say yeah, I have no problem being poor and going out to kill the poof of other countries.Do you think any special forces are "Policy Makers"?Do you think Any special forces get to choose their engagements???Do you know what Generals and Admirals do when they disagree with a war effort or political decision??? They resign their Commission. They areCommissioned officers! That's the only thing they can do.The US has no enemies, We are the enemy. There are about 195 countries in the whole world. We have bases in 168 of them. Why???? Imperialism.You have western countries that are developed. You have developing countries aka 2nd world. And you have 3rd world countries, destitute and dirt poor.US is in almost all the Poor and destitute countries, to enforce our rule and steal their resources. We are not in France, Russia. We arein Japan and Germany because those are our occupation troops. Both Japan and Germany are conquered nations from WW2. Our troops are there to make surethose countries don't rise up for War again ever. That was the purpose of NATO to disguise US Army occupation.NOW CONNECT SOME MORE DOTS:If you’ve got corrupt politicians like ObamaPimp, and Hillary4Prison and that Psychopath John McCain, creating coups in Ukraine that cost US $5 billion what Victoria Nuland said; You’ve got Obama and McCain as Founders, Creators, of ISIS to over throw Assad and destroy Syria. Why??? Don’t believe all the Cram in the media. Again FOLLOW THE MONEY.Here is Victoria Nuland saying US spent $5 billion to do the Ukraine coup and to “F the EU”.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2fYcHLouXYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bkIt’s about the money that a pipeline for Natural Gas that will flow through Syria to warm Europe. It’s either going to come from Saudi and Qatar (they funded Muslim Brotherhood who supply weapons and salary for the Mercenary Soldiers in ISIS); or from Iran. Those are the two sources.Syria - Pipeline - How The Press Will Not Tell the Truth about SyriaObama saying we trained ISIS.Obama saying we created ISIS.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUABL-Ialckhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5-51-wLVG0KNOWING THIS WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SERVE SUCH CORRUPTION?????KNOWING THIS WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SERVE SUCH CORRUPTION?????KNOWING THIS WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SERVE SUCH CORRUPTION?????Watch some of these videos and learn.Watch the one from Kay Griggs.Read The one about the Army Lieutenant from Hawaii who refused to deploy to Iraq because it is what he claims, an illegal war.Now Lieutenant Watada, 28, is working behind a desk at Fort Lewis just south of Seattle, one of only a handful of Army officers who have refused to serve in Iraq, an Army spokesman said, and apparently the first facing the prospect of a court-martial for doing so.Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deploy to IraqWatch the one about These former Soldiers in Iraq who were told to shoot at civilians, Iraq country men and women in their own country.Watch one on Democracy Now, where former General Wesley Clark says, "Seven Countries in Five years" was the goal from upstairs, that meant Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield. That was on the Memo.GOOD LUCK, I HOPE YOU GET OUT SUCCESSFULLY AND SAFELY, GOD BLESS!!!!!