Saturday, July 4, 2015

Good one...

Poster of the day...

"If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals, which addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD. Anti-psychotic drugs, to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. And of course, the SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence."

The CIA: long-range planning for a drugged and debilitated society

by Jon Rappoport

“Long ago, I interviewed John Marks, author of Search for the Manchurian Candidate, the book that exposed the CIA’s MKULTRA mind-control program. He told me that in 1962, when MKULTRA supposedly ended, the CIA actually transferred the program to its Office of Research and Development, where it went completely dark. A CIA representative told Marks there were a hundred boxes of material on the ‘new’ MKULTRA, and he, Marks, would never see any of it, no matter how many FOIA requests he made.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

“Plans for guiding the world can be formed and launched a long, long time before we see the results. Don’t assume cause and effect are merely and only short-term. That’s an unwarranted idea.” (The Underground)

Drugs to transform individuals…and even, by implication, society.

Drug research going far beyond the usual brief descriptions of MKULTRA.

The intention is there, in the record.

A CIA document was included in the transcript of the 1977 US Senate Hearings on MKULTRA, the CIA’s mind-control program.

The document is found in Appendix C, starting on page 166. It’s simply labeled “Draft,” dated 5 May 1955.

It begins: “A portion of the Research and Development Program of [CIA’s] TSS/Chemical Division is devoted to the discovery of the following materials and methods:”

What followed was a list of hoped-for drugs and their uses.

I’m printing, below, the list of the 1955 intentions of the CIA regarding their own drug research. The range of those intentions is stunning. All statements are direct quotes from the “Draft” document.

Some of my comments gleaned from studying the list:

The CIA wanted to find substances which would “promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness.” Serious consideration should be given to the idea that psychiatric medications, food additives, pesticides, and industrial chemicals (like fluorides) would eventually satisfy that requirement.

The CIA wanted to find chemicals that “would produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way.” This suggests many possibilities—among them the use of drugs to fabricate diseases and thereby give the false impression of germ-caused epidemics.

The CIA wanted to find drugs that would “produce amnesia.” Ideal for discrediting whistleblowers, dissidents, certain political candidates, and other investigators. (Scopolamine, for example.)

The CIA wanted to discover drugs which would produce “paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.” A way to make people decline in health as if from diseases.

The CIA wanted to develop drugs that would “alter personality structure” and thus induce a person’s dependence on another person. How about dependence in general? For instance, dependence on institutions, governments?

The CIA wanted to discover chemicals that would “lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men.” Sounds like a general description of the devolution of society.

As you read the list yourself, you’ll see more implications/possibilities.

Here, from 1955, quoted verbatim from the Agency document, are the types of drugs the MKULTRA men at the CIA were looking for:

* Substances which will promote illogical thinking and impulsiveness to the point where the recipient would be discredited in public.

* Substances which increase the efficiency of mentation and perception.

* Materials which will prevent or counteract the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

* Materials which will promote the intoxicating effect of alcohol.

* Materials which will produce the signs and symptoms of recognized diseases in a reversible way so that they may be used for malingering, etc.

* Materials which will render the induction of hypnosis easier or otherwise enhance its usefulness.

* Substances which will enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion during interrogation and so-called “brain-washing”.

* Materials and physical methods which will produce amnesia for events preceding and during their use.

* Physical methods of producing shock and confusion over extended periods of time and capable of surreptitious use.

* Substances which produce physical disablement such as paralysis of the legs, acute anemia, etc.

* Substances which will produce “pure” euphoria with no subsequent let-down.

* Substances which alter personality structure in such a way that the tendency of the recipient to become dependent upon another person is enhanced.

* A material which will cause mental confusion of such a type that the individual under its influence will find it difficult to maintain a fabrication under questioning.

* Substances which will lower the ambition and general working efficiency of men when administered in undetectable amounts.

* Substances which promote weakness or distortion of the eyesight or hearing faculties, preferably without permanent effects.

* A knockout pill which can surreptitiously be administered in drinks, food, cigarettes, as an aerosol, etc., which will be safe to use, provide a maximum of amnesia, and be suitable for use by agent types on an ad hoc basis.

* A material which can be surreptitiously administered by the above routes and which in very small amounts will make it impossible for a man to perform any physical activity whatsoever.

That’s the list.

At the end of this 1955 CIA document, the author [unnamed] makes these remarks:

“In practice, it has been possible to use outside cleared contractors for the preliminary phases of this [research] work. However, that part which involves human testing at effective dose levels presents security problems which cannot be handled by the ordinary contactors.

“The proposed [human testing] facility [deletion] offers a unique opportunity for the secure handling of such clinical testing in addition to the many advantages outlined in the project proposal. The security problems mentioned above are eliminated by the fact that the responsibility for the testing will rest completely upon the physician and the hospital. [one line deleted] will allow [CIA] TSS/CD personnel to supervise the work very closely to make sure that all tests are conducted according to the recognized practices and embody adequate safeguards.”

In other words, this was to be ultra-secret. No outside contractors at universities for the core of the experiments, which by the way could be carried forward for decades.

A secret in-house facility.

Over the years, more facilities could be created.

If you examine the full range of psychiatric drugs developed since 1955, you’ll see that a number of them fit the CIA’s agenda. Speed-type chemicals, which addle the brain over the long term, to treat so-called ADHD. Anti-psychotic drugs, to render patients more and more dependent on others (and government) as they sink into profound disability and incur motor brain damage. And of course, the SSRI antidepressants, like Prozac and Paxil and Zoloft, which produce extreme and debilitating highs and lows—and also push people over the edge into committing violence.

These drugs drag the whole society down into lower and lower levels of consciousness and action.

If that’s the goal of a very powerful and clandestine government agency…it’s succeeding.


Friday, July 3, 2015

Ron Paul's Dire Warning...

Cartoon of the day...

California's 'Corporate Fascist' Vaccine Law...

Independence from what???

Changing of Our Guards

By Eric Peters

This weekend we celebrate the changing of our guard.

Which, when you stop to think about it, is more than a little odd. Do the inmates of Rikers Island throw a party when they get a new warden? To celebrate the changing of the color of the uniforms worn by their cagers?

And yet, we do.

This coming weekend, Americans will celebrate not being free to – among other things:

Buy and display fireworks themselves.

Choose whether to wear a seat belt.

Say “no thanks” to the health insurance mafia.

Travel without permission (and decline to produce your “papers” on demand).

Smoke in a privately owned bar or pool hall.

Freely associate – or not.

Ever truly own a home or land outright, free from yearly rent payments (in the form of real estate taxes) to the government.

Educate your children as you (rather than strangers in a distant capital city) see fit.

Consume substances decreed (arbitrarily) to be “illegal.”

Possess “contraband” items (including firearms, without which the right to self-defense is a nullity).

Open a business without permission.

Contract your labor without permission – and under “terms and conditions” decreed by the government.

Elect not to provide the government with evidence (the income tax form) that can and will be used against you, despite the Fifth Amendment.

Produce and sell milk and other farm products that haven’t been “inspected” by the government and without the permission of the government.

Defend oneself against even the most egregious violation of the law by the law’s enforcers.

Rent a room or apartment you own to whom you wish.

Fish (or hunt) without a license… even on your own land.

Use your car to provide taxi service.

Collect rainwater for personal use.

Opt not to have your home connected to “grid” electricity.

Have your young daughters set up a curbside lemonade stand on a hot July afternoon.

The “long train of abuses” (as Jefferson described them 239 years ago this Saturday) is extensive. Far more so today than it was back then. And yet, we – most Americans – continue to play their part in the annual July Fourth kabuki theater. We pretend we’re “free” – and the government pretends it has the “consent of the governed.”

Few stop to ask themselves: If the Fourth Amendment guarantees that we are to be “free from unreasonable searches and seizures” how it can be that all of us are legally subject to completely random searches – without even a whiff of individualized suspicion – whenever we go for a drive in our cars or travel by airplane?

If the Bill if Rights – which is legally part of the Constitution – is (as we are told) the law of the land, how is it that other laws – “interpretations” issued by judges at odds with the crystal clear language of the Constitution – have come to supersede it?

How does one “consent” without actually having given consent? How does the fact that a question was put to a vote – and some people voted in favor – come to mean that you have given your consent to the measure?

Try quoting the Constitution – the Bill of Rights – in court.

1776 began nobly enough – but by 1787, the revolution was over. Meeting in secret conclave – what was that about the “consent of the governed”? – the elite of colonial America met for the sole purpose of re-creating what had been overthrown, only with themselves in charge of the operation rather than the English monarch. “The people” – held in contempt by men like Alexander Hamilton – never gave their consent to these “representatives,” who proceeded to enact the 18th century version of a Beer Hall putsch. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation – nothing more – they proceeded to rip it to shreds and in its place, substituted the “vigorous” and “energetic” (Hamilton’s words) Constitution we suffer under today. The sole purpose of which was to establish a federal leviathan of in-principle unlimited power. Which – exactly as intended – grew into a leviathan of unlimited-in-fact power. One so unlimited, even your “health care” is now its business rather than your own.farce pic

Alexander Hamilton was many things, but not a fool. He – and his fellow “federalists” – knew precisely what they were doing. In private conversation, some (including Hamilton and also John Adams) admitted their admiration of the British system. That is, of an authoritarian mercantilist (what we would today call corporatist) state, directed by a coterie of Wise Men (themselves) who knew better than the public what was in the “public interest.”

And told them so.

Thus it has been ever since. Especially since the failure of the southern states – which realized what had happened but reacted to it too late and not adroitly when they finally did react – to rescind their purported “consent” and go their separate way in peace. What was denied the states was then – and ever since – denied the individual. We, as Americans, have no more right to say “no thanks” – to go our way in peace, to be left in peace provided we ourselves our peaceful – than an inmate of Rikers Island.

You may reply: The inmates of Rikers Island have committed – and been convicted of – crimes. They deserve to be caged, their liberty taken. Fair enough, perhaps. But what crime have you committed?

Whom have you harmed by not wearing a seatbelt?

Why should innocent people – who’ve given no reason to even suspect them of having committed any offense – be subject to random stops and searches?

How is it that armed men can threaten you with lethal violence for deciding it’s ok to let people who freely wish to enter (and who may just as freely leave) your privately owned bar or pool hall smoke, if they wish to?

Have you hurt your neighbor by selling him milk he freely wished to buy at a price mutually agreeable to both parties?

Why do any of us “owe” money to people we’ve never met, never injured, never agreed to pay?

If we are free, why are we so controlled, regulated, micromanaged? Under almost constant threat of harassment, fining – and caging? Why is there literally almost no decision – even to the extent of what goes on in our own homes and bedrooms – that’s left entirely up to us?

The truth is we’re in the same prison as the inmates of Rikers Island – only our “yard” is (for now) a bit more generous. This is an uncomfortable fact, but no less true because it is uncomfortable. The differences are merely of degree, not of principle. The guards at Rikers are the absolute masters and the prisoners are free to do as they are told.

Our “freedoms” are of a piece.

Happy Changing of the Guard Day.


"The Low Serotonin Theory Was Never Proven True, Yet Spawned a Booming Market of SSRIs..."

Social Anxiety Disorder Linked to High Serotonin Levels, Throwing Treatment with SSRIs into Serious Question

By Joseph Mercola

By Dr. Mercola

Depression and other mental health problems are at epidemic levels judging by the number of antidepressants prescribed each year.

According to CDC data,1 one in 20 Americans over the age of 12 report some form of depression, and 11 percent of the US population over the age of 12 is on antidepressant medication.2

This despite overwhelming evidence showing that antidepressants do not work as advertised.

At best, antidepressants are comparable to placebos. At worst they can cause devastating side effects, including deterioration into more serious mental illness, and suicidal or homicidal tendencies.

Virtually all of the school and mass shooters, for example, have been on antidepressants. Antidepressants are also prescribed to pregnant women, which can have serious repercussions for the child.

Research3 shows boys with autism are three times more likely to have been exposed to antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in utero than non-autistic boys. Those whose mothers used SSRIs during the first trimester were found to be at greatest risk.

Recent research into the mechanisms driving anxiety and social phobias now turn conventional drug treatment with SSRIs on its ear.

Turns out these mental health problems are not due to low serotonin levels as previously thought. They’re linked to high levels! If these findings are taken as seriously as they should be, the mental health field is in for a major overhaul.

The Low Serotonin Theory Was Never Proven True, Yet Spawned a Booming Market of SSRIs

Prozac was released in 1987 in the US, giving rise to an entire new antidepressant therapy class known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Some of the most popular ones include:

Paxil (fluoxetine)
Celexa (citalopram)
Zoloft (sertraline)
Paxil (paroxetine)
Lexapro (escitalopram)

SSRIs work by preventing the reuptake (movement back into the nerve endings) of the neurotransmitter serotonin. This makes more serotonin available for use in your brain, which is thought to improve your mood.

Most people have heard of the “chemical imbalance” theory, which states that depression and anxiety disorders are due to low serotonin levels. Most believe this theory to be true. But the theory was just that—a theory. It soundsscientific, but there was actually no hard evidence behind it.

As explained by investigative health journalist Robert Whitaker, in 1983 the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) investigated whether or not depressed individuals had low serotonin. At that time, they concluded there was no evidence that there is anything wrong in the serotonergic system of depressed patients.

Research 4, 5 published in 2009 added further evidence to the pile indicating the low serotonin idea was incorrect, as they found strong indications that depression actually begins further up in the chain of events in the brain. Essentially, the medications have been focusing on the effect, not the cause.

Drug companies kept running with the low serotonin theory though, as it justifies the aggressive use of antidepressants to correct this alleged “imbalance.” Now, Swedish research really throws the justification for using SSRIs to treat anxiety disorders into question.

Anxiety Linked to High Serotonin Levels, Making SSRIs a Questionable Remedy

More than 25 million Americans report suffering from social anxiety disorder, which makes them feel embarrassed or severely uncomfortable in public situations.

As with depression, low serotonin has been the prevailing theory for explaining social anxiety, and hence SSRIs are typically prescribed for this disorder. (Other commonly prescribed anti-anxiety drugs includebenzodiazepines, such as Ativan, Xanax, and Valium.

These are also associated with serious risks, including memory loss, hip fractures, and addiction. Among women who take SSRI’s to counter symptoms of menopause, the drugs can significantly elevate their risk of bone fractures, and this risk lingers for several years.

One recent study6 found that, compared to women treated with H2 antagonists or proton pump inhibitors (indigestion drugs), SSRI’s raised bone fracture rates by 76 percent in one year. After two years of treatment, the fracture rate was 73 percent higher.People who take these drugs are also nearly four times more likely to die prematurely than people who don’t, and also have a 35 percent greater risk of cancer.)

As reported by Medical Daily:7

[Dr. Tomas] Furmark and Dr. Mats Fredrikson, another professor of psychology at Uppsala University, questioned the underlying hypothesis of treating patients with SSRIs: What molecular role, exactly, does serotonin play in social phobia?8,9,10,11

To discover the truth, they used brain scanning technology, PET scans, to measure serotonin in the brains of volunteers with social phobia…

Communication within the brain works like this: Nerve cells release serotonin into the space between nerve cells. Then, serotonin attaches itself to receptor cells. Following this, serotonin is released from the receptor and returns to the original cell.

The researchers discovered patients with social phobia were producing too much serotonin in the amygdala. This brain region, tucked deep inside our skulls, is the seat of our most primitive emotions, including fear. The more serotonin produced in this area, then, the more anxious people feel in social situations.”

Previous studies have revealed that increased nerve activity in the amygdala is part of the underlying mechanism that produces anxiety. Basically, those with social phobia have an over-active fear center. These new findings provide additional information, suggesting increased serotonin production in the brain may be part of this mechanism.

Either way, when it comes to treating this anxiety disorder, increasing serotonin in your brain with an SSRI will not soothe your anxiety. It will increase it, making SSRIs a questionable treatment option.

Fermented Foods May Help Social Anxiety Disorder, Study Finds

The impact of your gut microbiome on your brain function has been confirmed by a number of studies, and research is moving rather swiftly in this area. One of the reasons for why the bacterial makeup of your gut would have an influence on your mental and emotional health relates to the fact that your gut actually works much like a second brain. Your central nervous system (composed of your brain and spinal cord) and your enteric nervous system (the intrinsic nervous system of your gastrointestinal tract) are created from identical tissue during fetal development. One part turns into your central nervous system while the other develops into your enteric nervous system. These two systems are connected via the vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve that runs from your brain stem down to your abdomen.

It is now well established that the vagus nerve is the primary route your gut bacteria use to transmit information to your brain. Even more interesting, serotonin is produced in your gut as well as your brain, by specific bacteria. In fact, the greatest concentration of serotonin is found in your intestines, not your brain.

It’s not so surprising then that researchers keep finding positive correlations between gut health and improved mental health. Most recently, researchers found that fermented foods and drinks helped curb social anxiety disorder in young adults. The study,12,13 published in Psychiatry Research, involved 710 psychology students at the College of William and Mary.

The participants filled out questionnaires rating their level of worry and anxiety, and documented their fermented food consumption over the past 30 days. Other factors such as healthy diet and exercise were also addressed. Among those who rated themselves as having a high degree of neurotic feelings, eating more fermented foods was linked to fewer symptoms of social anxiety. Meaning, the relationship between fermented foods and decreased social anxiety was strongest among those who tended to be more neurotic.

Key Factors to Overcoming Anxiety and/or Depression Without Drugs

It’s important to realize that your diet and general lifestyle are foundational factors that must be optimized if you want to resolve mental health problems such as depression or anxiety, because your body and mind are so closely interrelated. Compelling research demonstrates just how interconnected your mental health is with your gastrointestinal health for example. While many think of their brain as the organ in charge of their mental health, your gut may actually play a far more significant role. The drug treatments available today for depression are no better than they were 50 years ago.

Clearly, we need a new approach, and your diet is an obvious place to start. Research tells us that the composition of your gut flora not only affects your physical health, but also has a significant impact on your brain function and mental state, and your gut microbiome can be quickly impacted by dietary changes—for better or worse. Research has also revealed there are a number of other safe effective ways to address depression and anxiety that do not involve hazardous drugs. So, if you suffer from an anxiety- or depression-related disorder, please consider addressing the following diet and lifestyle factors before you resort to drugs...

Read the rest:

Thursday, July 2, 2015


Climate Change: Is a Deadly Ice Age on the Horizon?
Written by Selwyn Duke

The last ice age ended approximately 12,000 years ago, and since then we’ve been enjoying a pleasantly warm “interglacial period.” But given that an interglacial may last only 12,000 years, we’re confronted with a scary prospect: Another ice age may be nigh.

And this could have devastating effects on mankind.

So says atmospheric and space physics expert S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and a founding director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. While he has never been worried about global warming — emphasizing that climate alarmists’ predictions have been consistently wrong — he writes at American Thinker today that he has “recently become quite concerned about ice ages and the dangers they pose to humans on our planet — and indeed to most of terrestrial ecology.” In fact, he’s so concerned that he proposes we try to mitigate any cooling that may occur.

Professor Singer cites a manuscript written by a co-author of his, Dennis Avery, which documents the historic causes of civilizational collapse. Its conclusion, Singer reports, is that “cold periods and droughts appear to be the main dangers to agriculturally based societies in all regions of the world.” Of course, this is just common sense. Plants don’t grow very well in deserts or during Northeast winters.

But what if it were winter year 'round? The effects would be striking. As Singer tells us, there have been nearly 20 major glaciations “in the past two to three million years. The coolings are quite severe: the most recent one, ending only about 12,000 years ago, covered much of North America and Europe with miles-thick continental ice sheets and led to the disappearance of (barely) surviving bands of Neanderthalers; they were displaced by the more adaptable Homo Sapiens.”

While Singer says that most experts believe the next glacial period lies just on the horizon, the exact timing is unknown; one scientist claims it may be delayed by another 40,000 years. It’s more than just major ice ages that imperil us, however. As Singer also informs, “There are two kinds of ice ages; they are fundamentally different…: (i) Major (Milankovich-style) glaciations occur on a 100,000-year time-scale and are controlled astronomically. (ii) “Little” ice ages were discovered in ice cores; they have been occurring on an approx. 1000-1500-yr cycle and are likely controlled by the Sun. The current cycle’s cooling phase may be imminent.”

And while such a period may be called “little,” its effects are anything but. Describing the consequences of the last such age, occurring between 1400 and 1830 A.D., Singer writes, “The Norse settlements were abandoned; indeed, Scandinavia was hardest hit. Climatology pioneer Hubert Lamb documents crop failures, starvation, and disease in Europe, together with ice fairs on the frozen Thames.”

Further illustrating the dangers of global cooling, some researchers believe that an earlier period of cold and dry weather might have contributed to one of history’s major events: the Western Roman Empire’s fall. As the Daily Need wrote in 2011 citing a study published in the journal Science, “Climate variability, with other factors, brought about a period of agricultural instability that affected both the Romans and militant migrant populations to the northeast — the ‘barbarians.’ These migrants then fought their way south, toward the warmer Mediterranean weather — and toward an already weakened Rome.”

And while headlines about global warming climate change “global climate disruption” have dominated the news in recent years, predictions of an impending ice age are nothing new. For example, Pravda warned in 2009 that compelling evidence from the field of climate science indicates the Earth is now on the “brink” of returning “to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.”

This prospect is troubling to Professor Singer, so troubling that he proposes measures to negate severe global cooling, should it become a reality. As he wrote in May:

An obvious scheme to counter a cooling is to make use of greenhouse (GH) warming. However, carbon dioxide is not the answer: CO2 is limited in supply and is already saturated — hence additional CO2 is not very effective. Synthetics, like SF6, are too long-lasting and may have risky side-effects. The answer may be water, but in the form of ice crystals; the scheme is easily tested and is transitory — reversible and incurring little risk.

Yet critics might question this prescription. Given that CO2 levels when dinosaurs reigned were five to 10 times today’s, how could the gas now be “saturated”? Moreover, there’s some question as to whether CO2 even has a warming effect upon the Earth. As Principia Scientific International reported in 2013, “A recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere. NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that ‘greenhouse gases’ actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun.”

Of course, this doesn’t mean higher CO2 levels aren’t correlated with higher temperatures, but are they a cause? Or an effect? As to this, Scientific American reported in 2007 on research indicating that the last ice age was ended not by an increase in CO2, but by warming oceans. The connection is that since cold water more effectively retains the gas, oceans release more CO2 as their temperature increases. This, mind you, is why soda is best when cold: When warm, it quickly loses its fizz (its CO2).

Whatever the case, while the perils of perpetual winter are many, there is little to fear from a warmer world. While the term “greenhouse gases” is meant to evoke fear, it’s important to note that a greenhouse is a structure in which plants grow extraordinarily well precisely because the temperature and CO2 levels are high. Of course, botanists continually pump CO2 into their greenhouses because, far from being a pollutant, it is “plant food.” Studies have shown that higher levels of the gas increase plant yields upwards of 30 percent across species. This is one reason why the dinosaurs’ age was marked by lush foliage.

This doesn’t mean that radically changing CO2 levels won’t spell our demise. In fact, astrobiologist Jack O’Malley-James said in 2013 that life on Earth would end because of declining CO2 levels, with an ever-hotter sun creating conditions in which the gas will reach low enough concentrations to render plant photosynthesis impossible. Call it the un-Greenhouse Effect.

Fortunately, this prospect lies perhaps a billion years in the future. As for the shorter term, with temperatures having remained stable or actually having decreased for approximately 20 years and warmist predictions chronically wanting, many say that the only man-made aspect of global warming is the data supporting the notion it’s occurring. Let’s hope we put a freeze on climate-change initiatives before natural forces put a freeze on us.


"Instead of creating real jobs and rebuilding America and by employing a clever use of language to not call it what it really is — forced slave labor, the brain trust in DC is going to wrap the flag around more failed foreign policies to make sure that everyone suffers."

Are the American Youth Ready for Conscription?

By Jay Johnson

The shining future that America once had is all but a page note in the history books now. Record unemployment, failed foreign policies and domestic strife is the new normal. And how is the brain trust in DC going to solve these problems? National service for all 18 – to 28-year-olds!

All across the land, people were smiling and laughing. World War II had just ended and America suddenly found itself to be the manufacturing capital of the world. There were plenty of jobs for the average man and the future was bright, even if you didn’t have a college degree. In fact, not many people had a degree, and yet, for those that didn’t, they were still able to buy a car, a house, take several weeks of vacation a year and still be able to have food on the table. Although this was the new normal at the time, today’s new normal is something quite different.

In America today, there are close to 50 million people living in poverty and there are more than 100 million people that get money from the federal government every month. As the middle class continues to disintegrate, poverty is climbing to unprecedented levels. Even though the stock market has been setting record high after record high, the amount of anger and frustration boiling just under the surface in our nation grows with each passing day.

As an example of just how bad off joe-sixpack is these days, the WSJ notes that — “Only 38% said they could cover a $500 repair bill or a $1,000 emergency room visit with funds from their bank accounts.” A person quoted in that article said — “A solid majority of Americans say they have a household budget, but too few have the ability to cover expenses outside their budget without going into debt or turning to family and friends for help.” Further on in that article a survey noted that — “… an unexpected bill would cause 26% to reduce spending elsewhere, while 16% would borrow from family or friends and 12% would put the expense on a credit card. The remainder didn’t know what they would do or would make other arrangements.” Basically, people don’t have any money. But how can that be? Hasn’t Obama saved the American economy? Isn’t the official unemployment rate near 5 1/2 %?

To answer this question, Jim Clifton over at Gallup wrote — “if you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed. That’s right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news — currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren’t throwing parties to toast “falling” unemployment.” He goes on to note another reason behind the misleading numbers — “Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 — maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn — you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%.” But, it doesn’t stop there. He lists the third reason — “….those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%.” He sums up his article by saying — “The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”

So, there you have it. The Obama recovery is a big scam. Propaganda, some might say. A facade hiding the festering sore below the surface of polite society. But actually, it is possible to see this by just looking at the headlines over the last few years — “Five teenagers were arrested when a 600-person brawl broke out in a Florida movie theater’s parking lot on Christmas night” or — “Hundreds of teens trash mall in wild flash mob”. In fact, the list goes on and on. What at one time would have been a huge talking point in the media circuit has now just become back page article. So, with the sky-rocketing youth unemployment rate, many government officials are asking what can be done. Not necessarily to provide work- but to create a safety valve for society. And it appears that the answer to this question is — “National service for all 18- to 28-year-olds”.

That’s right. It’s called national service. Not the draft, or conscription or any other word that would have negative connotations. National Service! For your patriotic duty! National Review addressed this issue when it wrote —“ Require virtually every young American — the civic-minded millennial generation — to complete a year of service through programs such as Teach for America, AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or the U.S. military, and two things will happen:

1. Virtually every American family will become intimately invested in the nation’s biggest challenges, including poverty, education, income inequality, and America’s place in a world afire.

2. Military recruiting will rise to meet threats posed by ISIS and other terrorist networks, giving more people skin in a very dangerous game.”

So, there you have it. Instead of creating real jobs and rebuilding America and by employing a clever use of language to not call it what it really is — forced slave labor, the brain trust in DC is going to wrap the flag around more failed foreign policies to make sure that everyone suffers. Just like Status Quo sang in that song —“A vacation in a foreign land, Uncle Sam does the best he can.You’re in the army now, oh-oo-oh you’re in the army now. Now you remember what the draft man said, nothing to do all day but stay in bed. You’re in the army now, oh-oo-oh you’re in the army now.”

So, what do you think dear listeners, “Are the American youth ready for conscription?”


" It apparently needs to be said that the only proper libertarian position is that marriage isn’t any business of the government – at any level. From a solely libertarian viewpoint, marriage is nothing more than a voluntary contractual arrangement."

Libertarians and Culture

By Bionic Mosquito

You won’t need a link; this week the Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage. All are welcome.

It apparently needs to be said that the only proper libertarian position is that marriage isn’t any business of the government – at any level. From a solely libertarian viewpoint, marriage is nothing more than a voluntary contractual arrangement.

This isn’t the view of many so-called libertarians. They are praising the decision. They only desire a world of subservience and dependence, in which they suck on the pig’s teat for their succor.

Like gaining legitimacy from a government that has violated the life and property of countless billions of individuals is something to be desired. “Oh great god government, destroyer of nations, destroyer of life and property, I look to you for legitimacy, please send your blessing upon me; bring me salvation and make me whole.” This is the prayer of those libertarians who praise the ruling.

Don’t believe me? Just ask the bleeding hearts:

Justice Kennedy’s opinion in the same-sex marriage case makes clear that what is at stake is equal access to liberty, the freedom to marry. (Emphasis in original)

There is also praise for the ruling at Cato, see here and here.

What “liberty” and “freedom” does one gain by having their marriage blessed by an illegitimate government? I find none. Yet this doesn’t mean there is no gain to those individuals so blessed. There is certainly a gain for those so blessed via access to services and the like. From the government, benefits such as Social Security and Medicare are now available; from private employers, various state-mandated (and, without doubt) voluntary benefits are now available – whether the employer wishes it to be so or not.

Of course, these benefits could also have been made available via contract. All such benefits are nothing more than contractual agreements – I know the statement is fuzzy when it comes to government benefits, but the principle is the same; it is more easily explained when using the private example:

I work for the Hard-Nose Conservative Company; no matter how much I insist, they will not provide medical benefits to my “partner.” I find another opportunity with the “Welcoming Company.” We agree that they will provide these benefits. I change employers.

See how that works? No force required; no judgement in a 5-4 decision. It’s called a contract.

The “freedom” that these so-called libertarians proclaim is the freedom from voluntary relationships.

But none of this is the main point of my post – the point is culture. As a libertarian, I say smoke pot, snort coke, visit a pro, choose your gender, marry whomever you want, whatever. As long as you impose no cost on me, I have no standing to intervene.

But this doesn’t mean I am obliged to celebrate such rulings – even as a libertarian.

However, culture matters. I suspect there is not a single example in history where a growing libertine culture has not destroyed the previous, prevailing culture within a few generations. Decadence comes with a cost.

Every thriving – even surviving – society requires governance; not government as the term is currently understood, but governance. The lowest level, closest to most voluntary, most decentralized level of societal governance, is the family. Destroy the moral foundations of family and you destroy society. Of this there is no doubt, and history has enough examples.

This Supreme Court ruling is not the beginning of this destruction; the road to decadence began long ago. I need not provide a list of examples (this would make for too-long-a-post on its own): just consider every act that chips away at the family, consider how these are now acceptable – and even praised; many by libertarians.

The libertine libertarians celebrate decadence. They are cheering on the doom of us all. They ensure that those who might otherwise be attracted to the libertarian message but at the same time are mature enough to understand that culture matters will not consider joining the libertarian cause.

Call me thick and you would be wrong; this isn’t a libertarian issue. It is an issue of culture, and culture will determine the future of this society, far more than any narrowly defined libertarian theory. Libertarian theory speaks to nothing more than the legitimate use of force. Everything else is what defines a society.

I see no reason for this destruction to be praised. A libertarian need not praise this decision to remain libertarian.


Wednesday, July 1, 2015

"Totalitarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin and everywhere in between have always sought to centralize and control education. The reason is simple: Whoever molds the minds of the youth can eventually dominate the population, even if it takes a generation or two. That is why tyrants in recent centuries have demanded compulsory, government-led education."

Common Core: Goodbye, Homer; Hello, UN Declaration of Rights
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Common Core: Goodbye, Homer; Hello, UN Declaration of Rights

Common Core standards require students to read less literature and more nonfiction. And, judging from the list of approved texts, it’s not the sort of nonfiction most parents would appreciate.

On two separate occasions, the New York Times has published information regarding the reduction reading from the classics of Western literature in favor of an increase in study of selected government publications and psychological treatises.

In its report from June 20 entitled “English Class in Common Core Era: Tom Sawyer and Court Opinions," the New York Times reports:

In Harrison, N.Y., 10th graders read articles about bipolar disorder and the adolescent brain to help them analyze Holden Caulfield. In Springdale, Ark., ninth graders studying excerpts from “The Odyssey” also read sections of the G.I. Bill of Rights, and a congressional resolution on its 60th anniversary, to connect the story of Odysseus to the challenges of modern-day veterans. After eighth graders in Naples, Fla., read how Tom Sawyer duped other boys into whitewashing a fence for him, they follow it with an op-ed article on teenage unemployment.
ULINE Shipping Supplies
Huge Catalog! Over 29,000 Products. Same Day Shipping from 11 Locations

Why the change in curriculum? “The rationale is that most of what students will be expected to read in college and at work will be informational, rather than literary, and that American students have not been well prepared to read those texts,” the article claims.

When in comes to classroom content, the Times reveals that under the Common Core scheme, teachers won’t be “teaching an entire novel,” but they will be using technical reports and government-sponsored white papers to ensure that teachers are “teaching the concepts that that novel would have gotten across.”

In other words, rather than reading Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, students will read some report published about Caesar's psychic pain when he crossed the Rubicon or how Brutus was suffering from some sort of maniacal mental disorder that motivated him to murder the consul-cum-king.

Progressive pet projects are well represented in the revised reading list, too. The New York Times reports that in one eighth-grade class in Manhattan, "The students were more excited about a unit on women’s rights, focused on speeches by Shirley Chisholm and Sojourner Truth, and a 2006 letter by Venus Williams criticizing Wimbledon for paying female winners less than men."

Somehow, though, some students seem to be less than thrilled about the dry subjects on the syllabus. From the Times piece:

Karma Lisslo, an eighth grader and an avid reader, said that while she appreciated that nonfiction could provide historical context for a novel, she got tired sometimes of the short informational texts she was assigned.

“We do so much nonfiction,” Karma said. “I just want to read my book.”

What the students want or what would engage them is apparently less important than the advancing of the Common Core (read: federal) agenda.

While that revelation is certainly not surprising, neither is the fact that one of the documents in the corpus of Common Core-mandated readings is the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Times reports that this document is so important to the Common Core educrats that students are required to suffer through a “a painstakingly close reading” of its provisions.

One of the authors of the language arts standards, Susan Pimentel, told the New York Times that "she thought that reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was valuable, in part because it contained a lot of academic vocabulary, which she said was critical to students’ reading comprehension skills."

If students must learn such lessons from nonfiction, one wonders whether vocabulary and comprehension skills couldn’t be improved by reading the Declaration of Independence rather than the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. What’s the difference?

John F. McManus, the publisher of The New American, set out the significant differences in the two documents: “Our Declaration of Independence states that ‘Men are endowed by their Creator’ with rights. The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights turns that on its head and proclaims that rights ‘are granted [by a] constitution or by law,’” McManus wrote.

Similar misstatements on the source of our rights are found in other Common Core-approved textbooks. As I wrote last April:

In a textbook approved by Common Core for use by students studying for the Advanced Placement (AP) history exam, the Second Amendment is defined this way: "The Second Amendment: The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.”

Another book that received the Common Core stamp of approval informs students that the Second Amendment “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms as members of a militia of citizen-soldiers.”

Then, there is a worksheet reportedly approved by Common Core for use by history teachers in preparing lessons on the Bill of Rights that “informs” students, “The Government of the United States is currently revisiting The Bill of Rights. They have determined that it is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”

Actually, the statement is not a statement of fact, but an introduction to a proposed lesson asking the students to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two amendments to The Bill of Rights.”

Finally, there is the description of the Second Amendment published in a book approved by Common Core for use in elementary schools.

Regarding the Second Amendment, the authors of the book state:

This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with reading nonfiction. It is, as with most things, a question of the quality of the curriculum.

For example, wouldn’t American students be better served by reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers or the writings of the eminent men who influenced our Founding Fathers? So many of the names of the major mentors of our founding generation have been forgotten, removed completely from the syllabi and memories of contemporary Americans.

Perhaps those two events — the abolishing of these writers and the exaltation of the new Common Core-approved authors — are related.

The New American’s Alex Newman commented on the “real agenda” behind the implementation of these state-sponsored standards:

Totalitarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin and everywhere in between have always sought to centralize and control education. The reason is simple: Whoever molds the minds of the youth can eventually dominate the population, even if it takes a generation or two. That is why tyrants in recent centuries have demanded compulsory, government-led education. Hitler made clear that he wanted to use “education” as a tool to mold German children in accordance with the National Socialist regime’s despotic and murderous ideology. So did Stalin, and numerous other infamous tyrants and mass-murderers. As Karl Marx noted in his Communist Manifesto, government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism.

In his masterpiece On Liberty, renowned British philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill succinctly explained the inherent problems with government schools. “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government … it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body,” he wrote.

Perhaps there has been no better definition of the Common Core standards than “despotism over the mind.” Of course, that was written by John Stuart Mill, a name students in the new era will likely never hear.


America is rapidly turning into a medical dictatorship...

U.S. Congress considers mandating vaccinations for all school children
by: Jonathan Benson

Your God-given right as a parent to choose the best and safest medical interventions for your children is under attack by a Democratic congresswoman from Florida. Representative Frederica S. Wilson from Florida's 24th District (North Miami) recently introduced the "Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015," which in a nutshell would force vaccinations on all children as a requirement to attend public school.

No longer would parents have the freedom to opt out of this form of medical assault using personal or philosophical exemptions. States would be required under Rep. Wilson's bill to basically scrap these exemptions in order to continue receiving federal funding, which amounts to the same kind of tyranny our nation's founders sacrificed their lives to escape.

"Wilson's bill, if passed, would for the first time establish a federal vaccination requirement to attend school," reports the Autism Action Network. "Current vaccines policies are set by the states, but with the increasing federal control over schools with No Child Left Behind and the Common Core, Wilson's bill maybe [sic] an indicator of what is coming."

Parents: your government overlords no longer want you in charge of your children's health
Verbiage from the bill reads as follows:

For a State or a political subdivision or other public entity of a State to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Secretary's satisfaction that... the State requires each student enrolled in one of the State's public elementary schools or public secondary schools to be vaccinated in accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

As you'll notice, there's no mention whatsoever of parental involvement in this important decision-making process. The State, assuming the role of every child's guardian, will have sole discretion in dictating how many vaccines a child receives and when. It's the epitome of despotic government overreach in the name of public health.

"This [bill] would be an unprecedented expansion of the federal government into an area of law and policy long recognized as the preserve of the states," adds the Autism Action Network. "It ignores the principle of informed choice as the bedrock of any ethical medical procedure, and eliminates any parental say over what is injected into their child's body."

America is rapidly turning into a medical dictatorship: Are you going to sit idly by and watch your children's future disappear?
As of this writing, Rep. Wilson's House Resolution 2232 has no co-sponsors, and because this tyrant is a Democrat trying to increase federal desecration of personal liberty in a Republican-majority congress, her bill presumably doesn't have a huge chance of actually passing. But the fact that it has even been proposed is cause enough for concern.

And parents, you too could be forced to receive injections as well, if medical fascists like Rep. Wilson get their way. As pointed out by The Daily Sheeple, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is in the process of crafting a "National Adult Immunization Plan" that would schedule vaccines for adults!

This means that, should mandatory vaccination legislation ever come to be in the U.S., adults as well as children could be forced into getting jabbed with poison cocktails that may result in permanent injury or death.

"H. R. 2232 defies the de facto vaccine standard of the developed democracies, which allow parents to make the final choice," warns the Autism Action Network. "There are no such things as required vaccines in Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, Ireland, Israel, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, etc."

To let Rep. Wilson know how you feel about her attempt at overriding your parental authority, you can contact her at:

(305) 690-5905
(202) 225-4506

Learn more:


This cost her her job...

Black Professor: 'Whiteness Is Terror'
"Stop whiteness once and for all."
Trey Sanchez

An assistant sociology professor at the University of Memphis and self-described "Dirty South black feminist" has filled her Twitter feed with racist rants declaring white people terrorists just because of the color of their skin and, of course, the "privilege" that comes with that melanin.

Dr. Zandria Robinson, known at her blog as the New South Negress, was inflamed by the church shooting in Charleston and displayed her feelings about whites and the Confederate and American flags online. [Note: During the writing of this piece, Robinson suddenly protected her tweets, essentially wiping them away. It seems as if someone notified her employer, UofM, to call for her termination. Fortunately, the text was copied and is quoted below.]:

The flag thus is a direct symbol of race, class, gender, & sexuality oppression. We need a more nuanced intersectional reading of the thing.

This isn't to say that the American flag does not represent such things, but the confederate flag only represents those things for whites.

White folks think that if they are nice to you they are above a critique of whiteness, white supremacy, or structural racism.

Read the rest if you can stand it:

"After all, erasing the Confederate battle flag from our history by shoving it down the memory hole would have prevented a lunatic from shooting nine people in a church, we are told in so many words."

Hypocrisy cake
by Bob Livingston

The liberal/progressive mind is steeped in hypocrisy and double standard.

History began yesterday. Truth is the fleeting outrage of the moment. Nothing else matters.

Christians who refuse to violate their conscience and cater — whether it’s by baking a cake, photographing, making flower arrangements or hosting nuptials in their establishments — to homosexual “weddings” are bigots and haters, the liberal/progressive tells us. Upon establishing their businesses, Christians must check their belief system at the door. The Christian business owner’s principles become secondary to the privileges and desires of the customer.

Any deviation from this established dogma subjects the Christian business owner to state-sponsored harassment, fines, threats of imprisonment and sensitivity/diversity training courses, aka re-education camp. Such abuse is reasonable to the liberal/progressive.

But Wal-Mart’s refusing to bake a cake emblazoned with a Confederate battle flag and the words “Heritage not Hate” is a principled stand and perfectly acceptable to the liberal/progressive mind. When something the “tolerant” leftists will not tolerate is involved, refusal of service is a virtuous stand.

After all, erasing the Confederate battle flag from our history by shoving it down the memory hole would have prevented a lunatic from shooting nine people in a church, we are told in so many words.

In its statement on the ban of all things Confederate, Wal-Mart claimed, “We never want to offend anyone with the products we offer.”

The liberal/progressive advocates for an end to all things offensive, except for those things offensive to Christians.

The Christian must just “grin and bear it,” while the liberal/progressive snacks on a slice of hypocrisy cake.


"America’s founders knew one thing: The republics of history all died when narrow interests overwhelmed the common good and the interests of the commonwealth..."

Gary Hart: America’s Founding Principles Are in Danger of Corruption

Gary Hart

Welcome to the age of vanity politics and campaigns-for-hire. What would our founders make of this nightmare?

Four qualities have distinguished republican government from ancient Athens forward: the sovereignty of the people; a sense of the common good; government dedicated to the commonwealth; and resistance to corruption. Measured against the standards established for republics from ancient times, the American Republic is massively corrupt.

From Plato and Aristotle forward, corruption was meant to describe actions and decisions that put a narrow, special, or personal interest ahead of the interest of the public or commonwealth. Corruption did not have to stoop to money under the table, vote buying, or even renting out the Lincoln bedroom. In the governing of a republic, corruption was self-interest placed above the interest of all—the public interest.

By that standard, can anyone seriously doubt that our republic, our government, is corrupt? There have been Teapot Domes and financial scandals of one kind or another throughout our nation’s history. There has never been a time, however, when the government of the United States was so perversely and systematically dedicated to special interests, earmarks, side deals, log-rolling, vote-trading, and sweetheart deals of one kind or another.

What brought us to this? A sinister system combining staggering campaign costs, political contributions, political action committees, special interest payments for access, and, most of all, the rise of the lobbying class.

Worst of all, the army of lobbyists that started relatively small in the mid-twentieth century has now grown to big battalions of law firms and lobbying firms of the right, left, and an amalgam of both. And that gargantuan, if not reptilian, industry now takes on board former members of the House and the Senate and their personal and committee staffs. And they are all getting fabulously rich.

This development in recent years has been so insidious that it now goes without notice. The key word is not quid-pro-quo bribery, the key word is access. In exchange for a few moments of the senator’s time and many more moments of her committee staff’s time, fund-raising events with the promise of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of dollars are delivered.

Corruption in a federated republic such as ours operates vertically as well as horizontally. Seeing how business is conducted in Washington, it did not take long for governors of both parties across the country to subscribe to the special-interest state. Both the Republican and Democratic governors’ associations formed “social welfare” organizations composed of wealthy interests and corporate executives to raise money for their respective parties in exchange for close, personal access to individual governors, governors who almost surely could render executive decisions favorable to those corporate interests. A series of judicial decisions enabled these “social welfare” groups, supposedly barred from political activity, to channel virtually unlimited amounts of money to governors in exchange for access, the political coin of the realm in the corrupted republic, and to do so out of sight of the American people. Editorially, the New York Times commented that “the stealthy form of political corruption known as ‘dark money’ now fully permeates governor’s offices around the country, allowing corporations to push past legal barriers and gather enormous influence.”

Frustrated, irate discussions of this legalized corruption are met in the Washington media with a shrug. So what? Didn’t we just have dinner with that lobbyist for the banking industry, or the teachers’ union, or the airline industry at that well-known journalist’s house only two nights ago? Fine lady, and she used to be the chairman of one of those powerful committees. I gather she is using her Rolodex rather skillfully on behalf of her new clients. Illegal? Not at all. Just smart . . . and so charming.

There is little wonder that Americans of the right and many in the middle are apoplectic at their government and absolutely, and rightly, convinced that the game of government is rigged in favor of the elite and the powerful. Occupiers see even more wealth rising to the top at the expense of the poor and the middle class. And Tea Partiers believe their tax dollars are going to well-organized welfare parasites and government bureaucrats.

Recent months have seen, in effect, the legalization of Watergate. Who would have thought, forty years after the greatest political scandal and presidential abuse of power in U.S. history, that the Supreme Court of the United States would rule the practices that financed that scandal were now legal?

That is essentially the effect of the Citizens United decision. Bets may be taken as to the length of time that will expire before this tsunami of political money ends up in the pockets of break-in burglars, wiretap experts, surveillance magicians, and cyberpunks. Given the power and money at stake in presidential and congressional elections, it is inevitable that candidates or their operatives with larceny in their hearts will tap into the hundreds of millions of dollars that their campaigns are awash in to game the system in highly illegal ways.

And, of course, the ultimate victims of the corruption of the democratic process are not defeated candidates and parties but America’s citizens. Perhaps Supreme Court justices should have to experience a corrupted election process firsthand to recognize a hollowed-out democracy. As one who experienced Watergate in its multi-tentacled form, I know it is not pleasant to be placed under surveillance, to have your taxes audited, and to experience dirty tricks. All this happened to me, among a number of others, simply because we worked for an honest presidential candidate who dared challenge the authority and power of a president who had long since forgotten the integrity the democratic process requires.

The advent of legalized corruption launched by the Supreme Court empowers the superrich to fund their own presidential and congressional campaigns as pet projects, to foster pet policies, and to represent pet political enclaves. You have a billion, or even several hundred million, then purchase a candidate from the endless reserve bench of minor politicians and make him or her a star, a mouthpiece for any cause or purpose however questionable, and that candidate will mouth your script in endless political debates and through as many television spots as you are willing to pay for. All legal now.

To compound the political felony, much, if not most, campaign financing is now carried out in secret, so that everyday citizens have a decreasing ability to determine to whom their elected officials are beholden and to whom they must now give special access. As recently as the 2014 election, the facts documented this government of influence by secrecy: “More than half of the general election advertising aired by outside groups in the battle for control of Congress,” according to the New York Times, “has come from organizations that disclose little or nothing about their donors, a flood of secret money that is now at the center of a debate over the line between free speech and corruption.”

The five prevailing Supreme Court justices, holding that a legal entity called a corporation has First Amendment rights of free speech, might at least have required the bought-and-paid-for candidates to wear sponsor labels on their suits as stock-car drivers do. Though, for the time being, sponsored candidates will not be openly promoted by Exxon-Mobil or the Stardust Resort and Casino but by phony “committees for good government” smokescreens.

To add to the profound misdirection of American politics by the Supreme Court, we now have what might be called convergence in the garden of government influence.

Back in the 1960s Flannery O’Connor wrote the short story “Everything That Rises Must Converge.” It had to do with generational insensitivity between a mother and son, and between generations on the issue of race in society. In reading a piece by Thomas B. Edsall (“The Lobbyist in the Gray Flannel Suit,” New York Times, May 14, 2012), this title came to mind in a totally different context. The context is the lobbying maze in Washington and the convergence of dozens of noxious weeds in the garden of government into a handful of giant predator thornbushes now devouring that garden.

Of this handful, the largest by far is WPP (originally called Wire and Plastic Products; is there a metaphor here?), which has its headquarters in London and more than 150,000 employees in 2,500 offices spread around 107 countries. It, together with one or two conglomerating competitors, represents a fourth branch of government, vacuuming up former senators and House members and their spouses and families, key committee staff, former senior administration officials of both parties and several administrations, and ambassadors, diplomats, and retired senior military officers.

WPP has swallowed giant public relations, advertising, and lobbying outfits such as Hill & Knowlton and BursonMarsteller, along with dozens of smaller members of the highly lucrative special interest and influence-manipulation world. Close behind WPP is the Orwellian-named Omnicom Group and another converger vaguely called the Interpublic Group of Companies. According to Mr. Edsall, WPP had billings last year of $72.3 billion, larger than the budgets of quite a number of countries.

With a budget so astronomical, think how much good WPP can do in the campaign finance arena, especially since the Citizens United decision. The possibilities are almost limitless. Why pay for a senator or congresswoman here or there when you can buy an entire committee? Think of the banks that can be bailed out, the range of elaborate weapons systems that can be sold to the government, the protection from congressional scrutiny that can be paid for, the economic policies that can be manipulated.

The lobbying business is no longer about votes up or down on particular measures that may emerge in Congress or policies made in the White House. It is about setting agendas, deciding what should and should not be brought up for hearings and legislation. We have gone way beyond mere vote buying now. The converging Influence World represents nothing less than an unofficial but enormously powerful fourth branch of government.

To whom is this branch of government accountable? Who sets the agenda for its rising army of influence marketers? How easy will it be to not only go from office to a lucrative lobbying job but, more important, from lucrative lobbying job to holding office? Where are its loyalties if it is manipulating and influencing governments around the world? Other than as a trough of money of gigantic proportions, how does it view the government of the United States?

America’s founders knew one thing: The republics of history all died when narrow interests overwhelmed the common good and the interests of the commonwealth...

Read the rest:

"Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats."

Supreme Court Disasters

By Thomas Sowell

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raise the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the United States says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both this year’s Obamacare decision and last year’s ObamaCare decision, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the actual words of the law, and decided that the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare Exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those federal subsidies to be paid anyway, to Exchanges up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next President of the United States more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court.

Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief Justices appointed by Republican presidents have made landmark decisions for which there was neither Constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Chief Justice Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance they want us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?

Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?


Tuesday, June 30, 2015

"Marriage isn't the government's business. Did you know that marriage licenses were first issued in the late 1800s to keep inter racial marriages from occurring? Sounds like a good reason for the government to get involved in marriage, don't you think? Sounds like an even better reason for governments to get out of it."

The Confederate Flag, Gay Marriage, & the Death of Liberty
By Shane Kastler

Liberty in America isn't dead yet, but rest assured she's on life support. She has been for awhile, but now she's near the end. And if you think a little you can see how it's happening. There is a gargantuan link between the recent vitriolic witch hunt conducted across the South to find people possessing or selling Confederate flags; and the Supreme Court ruling which takes the debate out of the hands of the people and forces “gay marriage” on the nation carte blanche. What do gays and rednecks have in common you ask? They are opposite sides of a raging cultural war that will soon explode out of control. First the flag.

I've written repeatedly about the tragic events in Charleston earlier this month. Dylann Roof is a first rate devil who should pay severely for his senseless, thoughtless, brainless, spineless, and heartless crime. I might say he is an embarrassment to the white race, but it goes much deeper. He's an embarrassment to the human race. Of course the same is true of Barack Hussein Obama. A shameless political huckster has never slithered through the American electorate like this creature from the Hawaiian lagoon. He issues orders like he's Caesar himself, then gets ticked off when the country doesn't jump at his command. Obama, as politicians are want to do, attended the funeral service for Clementa Pinckney and promptly made himself the star of the show. So much for Rev. Pinckney. But of course, he probably would have wanted it that way, as he was a loyal supporter of the Egomaniac-in-Chief.

The Charleston tragedy quickly became a Confederate witch hunt for no good reason whatsoever. Roof owned a flag. Big whoop. I own one too. It is a piece of history. America did split up at one time and fight a war when the North unconstitutionally invaded the free and sovereign states of the South. What would you expect the Southerners to do? Run and hide or stand and fight? They fought valiantly against superior arms and outnumbered armies. They fought for four years when most thought it wouldn't last four weeks. They fought, NOT for slavery primarily; but for their own freedom. Roughly 95 percent of Southerners did not own slaves. Many were dirt poor farmers and sharecroppers. Eking out a living off the land in a place far less industrialized than the North. The late historian Shelby Foote once told the story of an arrogant Yankee soldier who mocked a poor Confederate by pointing out that he obviously wasn't rich enough to own slaves or even land; he asked him, “Why are you out here fighting this war anyway?” The Confederate replied, “I'm OUT here, because you are DOWN here.” His home had been invaded by a hostile army. What else was a brave man to do?

After all those years of brutal heartache and war, the North's numbers were eventually too much. The South fought bravely for a culture they loved and for the freedom that they didn't have from Washington D.C. As much as this irks most Americans, slavery wasn't really the major point. State's rights, Federal overreaching, an unfair tariff system against the South, and other economic measures led to secession. (I suggest reading Thomas DiLorenzo's"The Real Lincoln" for more on this). Today even the word “secession” is considered racist for reasons I am apparently still too blind to see. America exists because the colonies seceded from Britain. It wasn't a Civil War because they didn't try to seize an existing government. Likewise the War Between the States. The South seceded, they didn't try to take over Washington. Basic historical facts about the war. Almost no on in America today knows them. That's why most people think the Civil War (which wasn't really a Civil War) was about slavery. Ask the average "Joe" on the street, he'll tell you Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. But Lincoln would have told you otherwise. In his first inaugural address Lincoln said he had “no desire” to free the slaves and no constitutional right to do so. The second part of that might be debated; but it is refreshing to hear a President actually reference Constitutional restraint once in a while. Even though he routinely ignored the Constitution. Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.....TWO YEARS AFTER THE WAR STARTED! What took him so long, you ask? The answer is quite easy. He thought he could win the war without freeing slaves. And if he had, bondage would have remained. The “Great Emancipator” didn't give two hoots about freeing the blacks. But he was hell bent on winning the war. “Preserving the Union” was his mantra, which translated to lining the government's pockets with continued Southern tax revenues. History is never as squeaky clean as most American robots think it is.

So it turns out that evil, wicked, racist Confederate flag wasn't so evil, wicked and racist after all. Poor men fought to defend their homes. Most didn't own slaves. Many of them, in fact, opposed slavery. These were my ancestors and I'm proud of their bravery and service. But I'm banned from doing so. I'm the only ethnic group in America that would be charged with a hate crime, or sent to mandatory sensitivity training if I sought a “Heritage Month” for my people group. Even though every other group gets one. But that's OK, I don't want one. But I would like the chance to at least speak of my Confederate ancestors and go visit their graves and maybe place a flag they fought for on it; without it becoming a national news story.

The government hasn't “banned” the symbol.....yet. But they will. And even if they don't a bully White House and a blathering lap dog media have done the “banning” for them. Businesses, who cowardly fear bad press have pulled anything remotely Confederate from the shelves. Not just flags either. Chess sets. Civil War artifacts. Handkerchiefs. You name it. If it's Southern....its gone. Even NASCAR is checking with their legal team to see how far they can go in banning the flag at races. NASCAR president, Brian Whats-His-Name, sounded like he would gladly have public crucifixions if he could get away with it. And he might. That's how insane the witch hunt has gotten. What is happening to Southern culture would rival any third world attempt at “ethnic cleansing.” It's not enough to win the war. They want utter subjugation and the erasure of all proof that a certain group of people ever existed. Now THAT should fit the Feds definition of a “hate crime.” Except for, it's the only group you can legally hate. White men.

Like most things in the Totalitarian States of America, this isn't really about a flag. It's about control. Its about the right to re-write history and ignore any aspects we don't like. And ignore the aspects that we would like, but we're just too stubborn to admit were true. For example, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the hated Confederate slave-owner, KKK leader, and general eventually became a Christian after the war, and (are you ready for this....) He SPOKE OUT IN FAVOR of Black Civil Rights!!!! Right after he called for the KKK to disband! Those are historical facts that you can read about in my book “Nathan Bedford Forrest's Redemption.” Far from seeking to tear down statues of him, the civil rights community should be raising money to build more of them. What greater poster child could they have than a former slave-owning Klansman who renounced his views and defended the freed slaves publicly? But don't bother 21st century race baiters with 19th century facts. If the truth got out the financial contributions to the NAACP might plummet. And we wouldn't want to see that would we?

The South is imploding. Not because of itself but because of attacks that began in 1861 and never really stopped. It wasn't enough to win the war, the South had to be destroyed. William Sherman's army promised to “make Georgia howl” and THE YANKEES did more damage to South Carolina than anyone else could have ever conceived of. Raping and pillaging was commonplace. And the blacks meant nothing to the Northern Army. Sherman despised them. Many freed slaves chose to voluntarily stay in the South with their masters rather than suffer at the hands of the heartless Yankees. Again, history is a little more nuanced than the Yankee-written drivel textbooks will tell you.

Reconstruction was nothing more than a fleecing and humiliation of the South. Yankees got rich. While Southerners struggled to make ends meet. Eventually some economic progress was made, but it took forever. Both blacks and whites suffered financially in the South; as many still do to this day. Is it because of racism? No, it really has more to do with the Federal government keeping them poor and in their place. According to Thomas Sowell, a systematic attack on the black family has done what slavery and Jim Crow laws never could. Welfare destroyed the black family; and many white ones as well. The Feds solution killed the family. But the Feds aren't done yet. They have another trick up their sleeve, which is to destroy marriage altogether.

Why would two gays want a government marriage anyway? For that matter why would two heterosexuals want one? I got married in a church with the blessing of a pastor. What does that have to do with the government? Or rather, what SHOULD it have to do with the government? Answer nothing. Marriage isn't the government's business. Did you know that marriage licenses were first issued in the late 1800s to keep inter racial marriages from occurring? Sounds like a good reason for the government to get involved in marriage, don't you think? Sounds like an even better reason for governments to get out of it.

The goal of the gays is not to be included in marriage, but rather to destroy it all together. In most cases, its not really an institution they seek. But all the sudden, they want to live “happily ever after” with government sanction. The Supreme Court has determined this to be a Constitutional right they have. Again, its a power play. The government wants to play God and define marriage. They want to tell you who can and cannot get married. They want to force you to accept a marriage that you consider a depraved joke. And eventually, they'll seek to punish you if you don't toe the line.

Most “Confederate flag” types are straight. And most gays hate their guts. Perhaps the feeling is often mutual. Southern Heritage went down in smoke this month. The witch hunt is almost complete. And homosexuals are giddy over a right that they shouldn't even really care about. But both groups, the anti-flag group and the pro-gay group want control. They want their enemies squelched. They want all dissension silenced and even outlawed. And the courts, the press, and the President are on their side. Dixie's burning once again, while rainbow clad sodomites are dancing in the streets. Whatever vestiges of honor that remained in America are soon to be no more. The rabid dogs of society are now calling the shots and they'll continue to chip away at every other issue they want. Health care, gun control, environmental extremism, you name it. They'll get it. And we'll suffer. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to sit in my easy chair and whistle Dixie while I read what the Bible says about homosexuality. Today I can still do that. Tomorrow it might be outlawed. “Oh I wish I were in the land of cotton......”


"...cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation."

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows

(Douglas Main)

If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.

Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk ofimpaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.

Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”

You might think, then, that fluoridated water’s efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.

The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975.

The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either.

The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).

“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)

“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 studycovered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.

Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.

“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.

The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.

“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Tilland Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.

Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.

It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there’s no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.

Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.

Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children’s permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to 26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.

The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality.

Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity.

When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn’t seem to be well-known.

“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.

The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.