I was listening to a rerun of Dennis Prager early this morning, and he was referring to a recent Peggy Noonan column in the Wall Street Journal in which Noonan characterized two types of citizens: the protected and the unprotected.
The protected ones, according to Noonan, are the elites, the powerful, such as those in the DC area who have money and live in safe neighborhoods and whose kids go to good schools. Many of the protected make the policies (“laws”) that the rest of us must obey. The protected ones are even protected from the results of their own policies. I already don’t like them.
And many of the unprotected are the ones who are attracted to Donald Trump, who is exploiting the betrayal that many Americans are experiencing by their elected and appointed “protectors.” The protected class are not doing their job, they are not protecting the rest of us as they are supposed to do.
But many of the protected have their own security, so they don’t have to worry about being unprotected.
Trump is exploiting the “immigration problem” and national security and terrorism fears that those elected and appointed bureaucrats are themselves creating. Trump is exploiting the people’s fears and insecurity as well as the nationalistic emotions that are instilled into many people by their upbringing and by 12 years of government-controlled schooling.
Now, I would say that this could be a major fork in the road for America. We could continue to veer off into the direction of totalitarianism that our government has directed us, especially after 9/11. Continue rearranging the deck chairs of an inherently flawed system of central planning and socialism, being in denial of the reality of such a system and that government-monopolized protection is an irrational and unrealistic ideal.
Or we could go the other way, and somehow the people might be waking up and realizing just that: the protectors are not and cannot protect us, from invaders, from criminals. Because instead what the government protectors have been doing is attempting to protect us from ourselves, from drugs to raw milk, from guns, from low wages, from making too much money, etc., etc. And in the process the government protectors and the protectors wannabe have been exploiting the current system of monopoly, compulsion and involuntary wealth extraction.
They have themselves become the criminals, stealing from us, threatening us with violence and imprisonment, disarming us and making us defenseless, and using the government armed apparatus to intentionally provoke foreigners to act against us to justify those government protectors’ existence (and their fat paychecks).
But these are the natural results of centralization of power, especially when the population are compelled to use such a centralized regime for its protection “services.” Such monopolization of protection and empowerment of bureaucrats is what naturally attracts those who seek power over others, those who are bent on aggression, coercion, violence, theft and covetousness, and parasitism. Taking a good look at Donald Trump you will see an extreme narcissistic bully, someone who just wants to have a lot power to order a lot of people around, someone who already is threatening the Press with “libel” if they criticize him or publish accurate facts about him that make him look bad.
So it appears as though the more totalitarian-sounding Trump is the more the sheeple like him. Like they want it, “good and hard,” apparently. And those talk radio people who don’t like Trump, such as Prager and Michael Medved, say that if Trump is the Republican nominee they will vote for him, as they will vote for whomever is the Republican nominee. Like a Republican President will change anything. Like Bush changed anything, like he made government less powerful and intrusive. Or his father. And like Ronald Reagan changed anything. Like Richard Nixon changed anything. Like Eisenhower changed anything (for the better).
…first, left-liberals, in power, make a Great Leap Forward toward collectivism; then, when, in the course of the political cycle, four or eight years later, conservatives come to power, they of course are horrified at the very idea of repealing anything; they simply slow down the rate of growth of statism, consolidating the previous gains of the Left, and providing a bit of R&R for the next liberal Great Leap Forward….
So Republicans and conservatives are useless, and they continue to increase the size and power of the federal government. That will not change. And now we have Donald Trump who is openly threatening totalitarian controls, building big walls to keep the people in, no escaping, and he isn’t even a Republican or a conservative. We know he’s a liberal Democrat who wants nationalized medical care and single payer, and all the rest. And it’s all out in the open. As Robert Wenzel has written several times now, a President Hillary might be preferable because she will be hated by the masses, and will thus be ineffective. Donald Trump, however, seems to be much beloved by the adoring, unthinking, obedient sheeple. Dangerous.
So as we have now seen for an over-200-year period, the Anti-Federalists were right to be very skeptical about the formation of a centralized regime to have power over the people of the states. We would be better off without a centralized power, and with what would now be 50 separate, independent states. And when that would be achieved, the 50 could themselves decentralize into independent cities and towns, etc, etc.. And I know, a lot of people scoff at such a suggestion. That is because, despite the utter destruction and tyranny that the centralized regime in Washington has wrought, most of the people are still brainwashed to believe that we need such a centralized regime. Many people have that kind of authoritarianism instilled into them, that kind of dependence on centralized bureaucrats, but they really need to be deprogrammed.
Because of collectivism and centralization, America is right now descending into chaos and self-destruction. The only way to prevent a full, complete collapse is by decentralizing and de-monopolizing, disempowering the ruling class so there can’t be a ruling class.
But there are many of those who are resisting, who really believe that such an inherently flawed system can be made to work. No, it can’t. If you want protection, it needs to be done voluntarily, not compulsorily. People can be their own protectors by making use of their unalienable rights of self-defense, their right to keep and bear arms. Or hiring private or volunteer protection contractors.
People need to realize that the real causes of the “terrorism threat” in our modern times are mainly government, government provocations of foreigners. When our government starts a war of aggression and invades another country (such as Iraq and Afghanistan) that was of no threat to us and then destroys that country, that is a “provocation.” Imposing sickening and starvation sanctions against whole populations (such as Iraq and Iran), that’s a “provocation.” Supporting a regime that terrorizes and imprisons its people (such as Saudi Arabia or Iran), that’s a “provocation.” Of course, most people have different perceptions of what has been going on all these decades, based on heavy doses of government propaganda as repeated word for word by its lapdog stenographers of the mainstream media. That is what you will get with the empowerment of government monopolies and centralization of power.
I know that most people dismiss such ideas of rejecting centralized states as “absurd” (because they are brainwashed to love the centralized State), but if you find these ideas interesting, here are some articles to read for further insight:
It was yet another GOP debate last night between neocons and neocons, and the sort-of neocon Donald. A lot of insults, apparently, including Trump insulting CNN panelist Hugh Hewitt. (I’m surprised CNN is still functioning as a “news” network.) I heard quite a lot of excerpts now, on Steve Deace and Mike Gallagher, and “Jim and Margery.” It’s good entertainment. It was a lot of
One caller to the Bill Bennett-Mark Davis talk show this morning was bringing up the candidates’ Pledge of Allegiance and that Ted Cruz instead of having his hand on his heart on the outside of his jacket like the others he had his hand tucked inside the jacket or vest or whatever. And Mark Davis cut him off when the caller was suggesting some kind of secret code language, as in “Freemasons,” or “Illuminati,” etc., etc. Apparently sticking your hand in the jacket like that, like Napoleon Bonaparte, has some kind of association with “Freemasonry,” and so on. I saw some info on the Internet, and apparently there is some sort of connection there. However, there are some items of information on the Internet which suggest that someone sticking his hand inside the jacket like that is “hiding something,” or any act of hiding the hand is hiding something. Like maybe Ted Cruz is crossing his fingers during the Pledge of Allegiance. Anyway, there is not one Presidential candidate in this whole campaign that I could trust as far as I could throw him/her. So they can all cross their fingers, and it wouldn’t matter as far as I’m concerned.
But the talk shows now, I know there was just a debate last night and you want to talk about that. But did anyone talk about Ben Shapiro’s act of civil disobedience yesterday in his going ahead with his speech at CSULA, whose President William Covino canceled Shapiro’s speech to be rescheduled at a later time that would include those with other points of view at the same event. Those college politically correct morons can have lone speakers as long as they promote politically correct nonsense, but they can’t have a lone speaker who promotes a different (i.e. non-Left) point of view. That would be “triggering,” and is considered “microaggression.”
Well, at Shapiro’s speech which he gave anyway, the college fascists blocked the doors to the auditorium and set off the fire alarm as well. That’s their view of “tolerance” and “diversity.” The government elementary and high schools and the colleges are literally making the next generations of people crazy. They are literally loony-tunes, totally irrational beings now.
But the talk shows are obsessed with discussing, fisking, and arguing over last night’s GOP debate, a circus-like spectacle that has no relevance to the real world. Oh, well.
FBI bureaucrats do not seem to be the most honest people around. Last year they were already trying to get tech companies to provide backdoor access into the iPhones and other devices of all Americans, innocent people who are not suspects.
Last October, two months before the San Bernardino shootings, the Freedom of the Press Foundation’s Trevor Timm wrote:
FBI director James Comey wants a US government-mandated backdoor into your iPhone and your Google account. But Comey doesn’t want to call his proposed privacy invasion a backdoor. He doesn’t understand how it would work. And he expects everyone who has been horrified by the NSA’s mass surveillance to just sit back, weaken their personal security and trust that the government will never abuse it.
Comey is currently on a media blitz, decrying Apple and Google’s long overdue decision that enables encryption by default on updated iPhone and Android devices. Apple and Google have made it so that everyone’s phone is encrypted by the passcode each user sets up, so that when someone steals your phone (or the cops seize it), no one will be able to open the contents besides you. Not even Apple or Google will have the key – or, in other words, a backdoor to access information you’ve encrypted.
…
The fact is, even if we trust the FBI 100% (and who would at this point?), there is no doubt that this type of “lawful intercept system” will be found and exploited by foreign governments and criminal hackers. This isn’t a hypothetical; as Bruce Schneier recently wrote, we know from experience that “backdoor access built for the good guys is routinely used by the bad guys”. He described at least three major incidents where government backdoors have been exploited by hackers in the past few years:
*In 2005, some unknown group surreptitiously used the lawful-intercept capabilities built into the Greek cell phone system.
*In 2010, Chinese hackers subverted an intercept system Google had put into Gmail to comply with U.S. government surveillance requests. Backdoors in our cell phone system are currently being exploited by the FBI and unknown others.
Journalists: Crucial details in the FBI vs. Apple case are being obscured by officials. Skepticism here is fair:
1) The FBI already has all of the suspect’s communications records — who they talked to and how — as these are stored by service providers, not the phone itself.
2) The FBI has received comprehensive backups of all the suspect’s data until 6 weeks before the crime.
3) Copies of the suspect’s contacts with co-workers — the FBI’s claimed interests — are available in duplicate from those co-workers’ phones.
4) The phone in controversy is a government-issued work phone, subjected to consent-to-monitoring, not a secret terrorist communications device. The “operational” phones believed to be hiding incriminating information, recovered by the FBI during a search, were physically destroyed, not “shielded by Apple.”
5) Alternative means for gaining access to this device — and others — exist that do not require the manufacturer’s assistance.
Now, I am sure that there are still many defenders of the FBI and NSA spying and breaking in, those who believe the government’s propaganda as repeated endlessly without question by the mainstream media, and who still will not be convinced that the FBI’s case here is “BS.” But I hope those people, mainly conservatives, the nationalists who love the government and the national security state, the neocons, and so on, will try to have an open mind here. Apple is clearly in the right.
Justina Pelletier Sues Boston Children’s Hospital and Alice Newton for Civil Rights Violations and Medical Malpractice
Contact: Rev. Patrick Mahoney, [see ChristianNewsWire link]
BOSTON, Feb. 24, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ — Justina, the Pelletier family and Justina’s legal team will hold a news conference to discuss the lawsuit on Thursday, February 25, at 11:00 A.M.
The news conference will be held in the Massachusetts State House in room 437.
At the news conference, Justina Pelletier and her family will be sharing as well as members of her legal team.
Justina was wrongfully and unjustly removed from her family by Boston Children’s Hospital and the State of Massachusetts in 2013 which ignited a national debate as well as a media and political firestorm concerning parental rights, medical abuse and the overreach of courts and governmental agencies.
Justina is being represented by the KJC Law Firm in Boston, Massachusetts.
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, spiritual advisor and spokesperson for the Pelletier family, states;
“For almost 18 months, Justina Pelletier and her family had to endure emotional, physical, spiritual and psychological suffering and pain along with major civil rights violations because of the incompetence, neglect and malpractice of Boston Children’s Hospital.
“This lawsuit holds Boston Children’s hospital accountable for their mistreatment of Justina and will ensure that no child or family ever has to endure again the nightmare the Pelletier family experienced.”
Lou Pelletier, the father of Justina comments;
“It’s time for parents and children not to be fearful of going to a hospital with a complicated medical history and worrying that their children might be taken because they don’t agree with the diagnosis.”
Justina Pelletier adds:
“This should never happen to another family or child ever again.”
The KJC Law Firm states;
“Lou, Linda, and Justina Pelletier, who ignited national debate and a media firestorm when Justina was, at age fourteen, wrongfully taken from her family by Boston Children’s Hospital and officials from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have served a 35 page complaint on Boston Children’s Hospital.
“The law suit alleges that Alice Newton, M.D., Jurriaan Peters, M.D. and Simona Bujourneau, M.D. committed medical malpractice and violated Justina’s and her parents’ civil rights when they sought to have her parents’ custody rights terminated after the parents refused to agree to Children’s Hospital’s radical ‘treatment plan’ for their child.”
Dr. Mercola has this lengthy exposé on PBS’s apparent collusions with FDA and other bureaucrats to smear the nutritional supplement industry, via the Frontline program. This is a very informative refutation of the anti-nutrition propaganda that consumers are bombarded with every day from the corporate drug-shills of the mainstream media.
I have had my share of medical problems either worsened or caused by either bad advice or bad prescription drugs from “doctors,” and I hope to some day be able to write about my experiences, although I am not sure I want to do that (but I probably will). The doctors are very influenced by the freebies they get from the drug makers, not just free drug samples themselves but other goodies such as coffee mugs and clipboards with the drug makers’ names on them. I’ve seen it with my own damn eyes, everyone. Many of today’s doctors are marketing reps for the drug makers to the point that they intentionally withhold information regarding nutritional benefits not as much from nutritional supplements but just from actual foods themselves. And I know that from personal experience as well as having read others’ experiences on various forums in recent years now.
In addition to Dr. Mercola’s article linked above, I would like to reprint here my posts regarding an NPR interview and a PBS interview on these issues, the harm that Big Pharma has done to people and continues to do, for the sake of greed and profits. And I will also repost my more recent post on the relationship between psychiatric drugs and violence.
I really don’t have time to do a regular post today, but I felt I just had to write this, especially because of the flu outbreak hysteria and media hype. Yes, the flu that’s going around has caused several deaths. But it’s hardly an epidemic.
Yesterday I happened to hear about 20 minutes of the Diane Rehm Show, discussing this issue. I didn’t hear the whole thing, so maybe I missed something, although I have seen the transcript. Here is the transcript. The panel of doctors and government bureaucrats discussed the current flu outbreak.
They talked about the “importance” of the flu vaccine, but didn’t really address preventative health measures, except for “hand washing,” which is a good idea, and wearing surgical masks, etc. But no one seemed to suggest taking vitamins, anti-oxidant supplements and probiotics, and eating healthy foods (and refraining from unhealthy activities such as smoking and drinking, which reduce one’s healthiness and can compromise the immune system).
They didn’t exactly invite a nutritionist or alternative medicine practitioner on the panel.
But they did have someone on from GlaxoSmithKline. (Hmmm….)
Well, one caller observed and asked, “to me, it just feels like the flu vaccine — well, I know that it’s legitimate for, you know, a certain population. It just does feel like it’s being force-fed on us and, you know, pharmaceutical companies are going to make billions of dollars. And why is the government not encouraging us to eat right and sleep well and…”
After then interrupting the caller, Ms. Rehm had the hack from GlaxoSmithKline answer that question, but NOT one of the actual MD physicians on the panel. The GlaxoSmithKline person began by repeating the caller’s suggestion of staying healthy for prevention, but then he goes on with the importance of seeing a doctor, and stressed the importance of the vaccines. No one on the panel mentioned vitamins, probiotics or supplements, or avoiding behaviors which compromise the immune system!
I really don’t want to accuse NPR of being a “shill for Big Pharma,” but … if the shoe fits ….
Anyway, I’ve posted these before, but here are some articles about the flu vaccine. People have a right to see alternative information, research and recommendations in order to make truly informed choices about their health and prevention.
As usual, the State-stenographer news media are jumping up and down like dogs as the CDC promotes more profits for Big Pharma, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline in this case. That’s the bottom line. If you want to take the CDC’s word for it and believe that a purported anti-HPV vaccine will actually prevent cervical cancer, then that’s up to you.
In this PBS MacNeil-Lehrer NewsHour interview, Margaret Warner and the CDC’s Dr. Anne Schuchat neglected to mention the severe health problems and several deaths directly related to the vaccine Gardasil, which is produced by Merck. Gardasil and Glaxo’s Cervarix were the vaccines used in the study.
Nor did they mention any other ways toward cancer prevention such as avoiding certain risky things such as smoking or the importance of nutritional support.
A few months ago, I wrote about NPR host Diane Rehm who seemed to be promoting the pharmaceutical industry when discussing the flu vaccine, but not promoting prevention and staying healthy. I wrote that
no one [on the discussion panel] seemed to suggest taking vitamins, anti-oxidant supplements and probiotics, and eating healthy foods (and refraining from unhealthy activities such as smoking and drinking, which reduce one’s healthiness and can compromise the immune system).
They didn’t exactly invite a nutritionist or alternative medicine practitioner on the panel.
But they did have someone on from GlaxoSmithKline. (Hmmm….)
It seems that in the mainstream media news coverage of this recent CDC study, almost no one is bringing up the harm (and lawsuits) caused by these dangerous vaccines.
Now, regarding the HPV vaccine preventing cervical cancer issue, I think it’s a stretch to conclude that because the vaccine supposedly prevents the spread of HPV, and, despite the fact that most people diagnosed with HPV do not develop cancer, because HPV has in certain cases been associated with cervical cancer, that therefore, the HPV vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.
According to the CDC itself, 90% of cases of HPV go away on their own within just two years. So, the hype regarding all this is really questionable.
And there are other factors involved in developing cancer, cervical or otherwise.
Just recently, Bill Sardi had an article on LewRockwell.com on a Japanese study which showed how natural cancer treatments led to the total disappearance of cancer in several hundred patients in the study.
The treatment team at the Saisei Mirai Clinic uses a combination of therapies that include (a) weekly Gc-MAF injections; (b) high-dose intravenous vitamin C therapy twice a week; (c) oral alpha lipoic antioxidant supplementation 600 mg/day; (d) oral vitamin D3, 5000-10,000 IU/day.
“All of these therapies aim to strengthen and activate the immune system and take a holistic approach to fighting cancer rather than a localized approach that is common with conventional therapies such as radiation and surgery,” their report says.
Sadly, there seems to be some sort of short-sighted fascination in our society with instant fixes, and the enmeshment of the big pharmaceutical corporations with the State has promoted such a fascination, and the mainstream media just follow the lead of government bureaucrats.
On Merck’s Gardasil vaccine, Karen De Coster did this post in September of 2009 on the Tyranny of the Pharmaceutical-Congressional-Medical Complex. She cited a 2007 Judicial Watch analysis which found over 3,000 complaints about adverse reactions from the vaccine, within the first year of its availability, information obtained only through FOIA requests.
In that post, Karen De Coster linked to several articles, including regarding the Judicial Watch findings, and the possible link between Gardasil and ALS, As of that 2009 post there had already been 32 reported deaths associated with the Gardasil vaccine.
And in 2011 Judicial Watch had again obtained information through further FOIA requests, and reported that, between September 2010 and September 2011 28 new deaths had been reported, “as well as incidents of seizures, paralysis, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss and Guillain-Barré Syndrome.”
Glaxo’s Cervarix vaccine, the other vaccine used in the recent CDC study with Merck’s Gardasil, has also been linked to several thousand reported adverse reactions.
Anthony Gucciardi of NaturalSociety.com in 2011 provided this Gardasil timeline that also included a link to a CalWatchdog.com article. Cal Watchdog showed how Merck’s financial contributions to California state legislators helped Merck to gain its treasured mandatory Gardasil vaccination program in California. I guess Merck had to go that route after in 2007 they discontinued their intensive lobbying efforts to make their vaccine mandatory, based on so many complaints about it already by that time.
And Sibel Edmonds wrote in 2011 how California not only made such vaccines mandatory, but removes the right of parents to even be informed that such a vaccination would be taking place.
I am absolutely furious. There is steam coming out of my ears now. Must I continue taking time to write about this stuff, again? First, we have a mainstream media intentionally not reporting on the psychiatric drugs aspect behind most of the mass shootings, because many of the media outlets’ corporate sponsors include the pharmaceutical companies. And then we have the government criminals whose main goal with gun control is to disarm the civilian population to make them vulnerable and disable the civilians’ means of protecting their lives and liberty.
Once again, there was yet another mass shooting, this time on a college campus in Oregon. So far, we haven’t heard whether or not the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, was taking any psychiatric drugs, or had been taking them and stopped. But already there are indications that he was. The mainstream media do not cover the fact that most of these modern day mass shooters were either on those SSRI anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, anti-psychotics (and often mixed with prescription pain-killers), or had been taking them but stopped and were in a withdrawal phase.
A Los Angeles Times article gives us a preliminary indication of the probability of psychiatric drugs in this case:
Mercer was among five students listed in the 2009 graduating class at Switzer Learning Center, … (which) teaches students with special needs, emotional disturbances, autism, Asperger’s syndrome, and other health issues.
Oftentimes, the young people, even at a very early age, are diagnosed or misdiagnosed, really labeled, as having “autism,” “Asperger’s,” “ADHD,” or with “depression,” etc. and they are given those powerful psychiatric drugs. The drugs themselves have been shown to exacerbate emotional problems including depression. Some of the side effects include aggressive and violent behavior, as well as having an effect on the individual’s sense of conscience and self-control.
The Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes was taking the SSRI antidepressant Zoloft and the anti-anxiety drug Clonazepam. (Other SSRI drugs include Prozac and Paxil.)
The Germanwings Airlines co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who took down his plane and mass-murdered 144 people had been on Lorazepam, an anti-anxiety drug, as well as an unnamed antidepressant.
And Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had been on Luvox, an SSRI anti-depressant also used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders.
While it was not officially confirmed that Sandy Hook School shooter Adam Lanza had been on psychiatric drugs, a parents rights organization sued the state of Connecticut to release Lanza’s medical records, but the request was denied “because ‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications’.” I guess that answers that question.
And Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who has testified several times before Congress on these issues, speculates that Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter who apparently was a military psychiatrist, was in all likelihood “self-medicating” with psychiatric drugs. Dr. Breggin observes:
I’ve given seminars to the staff at both hospitals where Hasan was trained, Walter Reed in DC and the national military medical center in Bethesda, Maryland. The psychiatrists had no interest in anything except medicating their patients.
Modern psychiatry is not about counseling and empowering people. It’s about controlling and suppressing them, and that’s a dismal affair for patients and doctors alike. The armed forces have been taken in by the false claims of modern psychiatry.
By contrast, it’s not depressing to do psychotherapy or counseling. As therapists, it’s inspiring when people entrust their feelings and their life stories to us. There is no burn out when therapists feel concern and empathy for their patients and help them to find the strength and direction to reclaim their lives.
But being an ordinary psychiatrist is deadly depressing. Psychiatrists routinely commit spiritual murder by disregarding and suppressing their patients’ feelings and even their cognitive functions, making it impossible for them to conquer to their emotional struggles. It’s no wonder my colleagues have such high suicide and drug addiction rates.
Before Hasan became a murderer, he was a toxic agent stifling the morale of his patients by empathizing with their enemies rather than with them. The army needs to investigate the evil impact that this man must have had on the hundreds of soldiers he discouraged and drugged. He probably made his own personal contribution to the rising suicide rate among soldiers.
…
Psychiatrists are notorious for treating themselves with psychiatric drugs. They have them freely available and they simply don’t know anything different. The odds are that Dr. Hasan was self-medicating with antidepressants and tranquilizers that were causing his increasing disinhibition, at least in his pronouncements, until his final Allahu Akbar before he began shooting.
Yes, Hasan was motivated by Islamic religious fanaticism, as was, allegedly, the recent Oregon college shooter. And the South Carolina church shooter apparently was motivated by racism. Yet, had these bad people not been taking those very powerful psychiatric drugs they probably would have controlled their emotions and aggression and not committed acts of murderous violence against others.
Here is a recent interview of Dr. Breggin by Lew Rockwell. Breggin gets into the connection between these mass shootings and the psychiatric drugs at about 21:00 into the interview.
Will the mainstream media zombies ever begin to report on these important aspects of the mass shootings of the past 20 years or so? When I was growing up, there were no school shootings. At least, none that I can remember ever hearing about. There was the Kent State massacre, but that was the government shooting and murdering innocent students. Government goons don’t need psychiatric drugs to make it easier for them to kill people. They’re the government!
And when I was growing up, there was no “ADHD” or “Asperger’s,” i.e. made-up labels to stick to kids just for acting like normal kids. And there was no Adderall, no Ritalin, no Xanax. The top 12 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history begin in 1966.
Besides these mass killers not controlling their emotions and aggression as normal people do, there is also the cultural aspect to this violence. American culture is now one of immediacy, distraction, and narcissism. And as Butler Shaffer and Jacob Hornberger observed, perhaps one reason why these mass shootings happen more in the United States and not in most other countries is that our government is the one government mainly that starts wars of aggression against other countries, occupies foreign lands and acts with impunity against foreigners. The American government police are also notorious now for their criminal violence against innocents. These criminal acts of aggression by government goons against foreigners and against the bureaucrats’ own fellow Americans are now being seen, especially by the young, as implicit acceptance of violence.
But rather than looking at these actual causes of these shootings, especially the psychiatric drugs, the mainstream media instead promote the government-imposed gun control agenda!
Yeah, how’s that “Gun Free Zone” stuff working out at Sandy Hook, and this week in Oregon, and at Fort Hood? You see, all you gun control robots out there, when you impose legal restrictions on guns, those who actually obey the law will obey those laws. The criminals, however, who don’t obey laws against murder, rape, robbery, and assault, obviously will not obey the gun laws! Why can’t the anti-gun people understand that? I wonder if they really just like the idea of disarming innocent people, and making innocent people defenseless. Including people deemed “mentally ill.” (But who is to decide who has “mental illness“? All those mentally ill bureaucrats in Washington? All those idiot psychiatrists and primary care “doctors” prescribing those life-destroying drugs like candy? But I digress.) Eventually, those people who disagree with the Regime and criticize the Bureaucracy will be diagnosed by the government psychiatrists as “mentally ill”!
No, it just makes the gun-grabbers feel good to see that they are taking away guns from peaceful, law-abiding people. But one thing the emotion-driven control freaks don’t like to acknowledge is that all tyrannical government regimes disarm the population as a way to strengthen and expand the bureaucrats’ own power and control. The Nazis disarmed the Jews to make it easier to murder them, by the way, as discussed in this book on Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen Halbrook. Yet, when we who understand history bring up these points against gun control, the gun-grabbing fanatics scoff at it, like we’re the irrational ones!
These talk radio shows I listen to are making me pull my hair out. I can’t believe the people calling for Apple’s Tim Cook to not only follow orders to get Apple to do extra labor and create a way for FBI to hack into people’s private information, but that Cook should be arrested if he doesn’t comply with the orders. With the authoritarian talk hosts and their ignorant and gullible callers, you would think that living in America requires the individual to do investigative work for the government when they demand it.
And no, if FBI wants to find a way to break encryption codes, they have plenty of computer and technology specialists working or contracting for them, people who don’t mind violating privacy laws and eavesdropping laws, so I’m sure they can get it themselves (as criminal as that would be) without Apple’s help! Shame on all the dupes who really believe that FBI will only use such a code for the one San Bernardino murderer’s phone!
Just listening to the talk radio people and the “If You See Something, Say Something” ignorant callers reminds me of the work of historian Robert Gellately, who wrote a book on the compliance of the people of Nazi Germany in turning in their neighbors to the regime and their support of Der Führer. From his research, Gellately stated, “There were relatively few secret police, and most were just processing the information coming in. I had found a shocking fact. It wasn’t the secret police who were doing this wide-scale surveillance and hiding on every street corner. It was the ordinary German people who were informing on their neighbors.”
In fact, just the other day I happened to hear Michael Medved discussing the “Pledge of Allegiance.” (That was on Feb. 18th during the :15 to :45 part of his last hour.) The “Pledge of Allegiance” is really a pledge of loyalty to the government. No, not to the “country,” or to one’s fellow Americans but to the government. That is the way many people think now.
Medved was responding to a caller comparing the Pledge to the way the German people were loyal to the Hitler regime. And Medved was trying to say that no, the Pledge here is pledging loyalty to “an ideal,” like to freedom or American values or apple pie, or whatever the hell it was he was saying. He was saying that the difference between the U.S. now and Nazi Germany then was that the Nazi regime was “evil,” and that America is good and all that.
Well sure, America is good, but our government is “evil.” Sadly, many people are brainwashed to actually believe that the government is “good.” How sick is that?
Medved and other naïve authoritarian conservatives like to sweep under the rug all the criminal, evil acts that the U.S. government has committed over a period of many decades. And he has said that the two Bush Presidents are “good” people. Ugh!
I keep bringing this up, but George Bush in 1991 sent the U.S. military over to attack and bomb the hell out of Iraq, a country that was of no threat to us. The U.S. military bombed civilian infrastructure including water and sewage treatment areas, and they did it intentionally, and then the Bush regime and the UN imposed sanctions and no-fly zones to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure and to block medical supplies and food from being imported. The Iraqis had to use untreated water and by the year 2000 there were hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians, many children, from disease, cholera, infant mortality, cancer.
Those acts by President George Bush the elder and the U.S. military were “evil,” despicable, criminal acts against innocent human beings. Some people argue that given the Middle Eastern and Islamic groups’ complaints specifically on the ongoing crimes against Iraq throughout the 1990s, that there probably wouldn’t have been a 9/11 were it not for the elder Bush’s war of aggression that he started for no good reason. In fact, Ron Paul actually warned that such terrorist attacks could happen in America because of all that.
And then after 9/11, rather than recognizing the stupid, criminal sanctions and the blowback effects of attacking other countries and murdering masses of innocent human beings, and then ending such aggressions and violence, instead the younger Bush and the morons in Washington escalated the hostilities by starting a whole new war, based on lies, against Iraq, and one against Afghanistan. More murdered innocents, poisoned and crippled children. And more poisoned American soldiers and their crippled children. And now drones with bombs that target funerals, target weddings, killing mostly innocent civilians. Surprise. The murderers even target rescuers of drone victims. And that’s worse now in Afghanistan than it was before Obama became President.
And we can talk about Vietnam and the Gulf of Tonkin lies and the hundreds of thousands slaughtered there for no good reason, and the 58,000 young Americans forced to go there and die for no good reason, by a U.S. government who, the Pentagon Papers showed, knew by 1967 that the war was not winnable but they continued with it anyway. Now, is that not “evil”?
We have all these war criminals in Washington for decades, murdering innocent people and sending their fellow Americans to their deaths for nothing. And the American sheeple defend the actions, they defend the wars since 9/11, and they support the police state that these power-lusting criminals have built up. But the U.S. military intentionally trains its troops in such a way to deaden their consciences so that murdering innocent people can be acceptable in their minds. Apparently, the rest of the population has deadened consciences, too, given their support of such government criminality.
And I’ll bet that most people in America still defend President Harry Truman’s targeting of tens of thousands of civilians in Japan with atomic bombs, nothing but a criminal act of evil, murdering innocent human beings. And what made it especially evil and indefensible was that Truman knew that Japan was already surrendering and that he committed such an evil act because he wanted to make a statement. And there were the bombings and murders of civilians in Tokyo and in Germany as well. All evil.
Nothing justifies deliberately harming or endangering one innocent human being. Nothing.
“Oh, but we had to do that to prevent the further deaths of a million more American soldiers.” Please. You’re saying that murdering innocent men, women and children in Hiroshima was necessary to save a soldier? A child is a threat to a soldier? You see, millions of authoritarian government-worshipers have been fed such collectivistic nonsense and propaganda to justify the government’s evil crimes, and the sheeple swallow it all up.
And we have all these Presidential candidates who want to continue doing more of the same and worse. Oh, we better pledge our allegiance to them. Yeah, right. Everyone from the crazed theocratic carpet-bomber and possible psy-op Ted Cruz to a former pothead-coke dealer Jeb! to the crazed narcissistic ignoramus Donald Trump, yeah, I’ll pledge my allegiance to them. And Michael Medved, by the way, said that despite how “awful” (his word) Donald Trump is, if Trump is the Republican nominee Medved will obediently vote for him just as he’s loyally voted for the Republican nominee regardless how terrible he’s been. Now that’s a sheeple.
In Amerika now, people who refuse to blindly worship the criminal bureaucrats will be reported on by all the neighborhood Stasi who like the government deciding everything for them.
And sooner or later when that mandatory depression screening is forced on all Americans, the bureaucrats will be labeling as “depressed” those who are critics of evil bureaucrat murderers in Washington and sentence them to the psychiatric ward. Those who do not say the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which is really a Pledge of Obedience to the government, will be seen as “mentally ill” and drugged up and involuntarily incarcerated.
To those who say that’s just being paranoid, obviously they haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going in Amerika, and they do not recognize the psychopaths and degenerates who are drawn to government power.
But right now, Apple’s Tim Cook is being quite heroic, showing allegiance to his paying customers and to their liberty and security, and not to criminal government bureaucrats. Cook is protecting the people of Amerika from the real parasitic predators of our modern totalitarian society.
This political year has been perhaps the most revealing of people’s true nature that I’ve ever seen. The Republicans react to Antonin Scalia’s death by saying that the next Supreme Bureaucrat should be chosen by the next President (even if that’s a Democrat, you morons?), next year. So the Republicans are showing themselves to be the unprincipled characters they are. They only care about the Constitution when it suits their personal agendas. Politicians are so consumed with their ambitions and their power-grabbing cravings that they can’t see how hypocritical and unprincipled they might appear to their prospective voters.
And we are seeing that the debate-goers of South Carolina haven’t changed at all. In the previous Presidential campaign they booed Ron Paul when he said that the Golden Rule should also apply to U.S. foreign policy, and this time they booed Donald Trump in his criticism of George W. Bush’s handling of 9/11 and the Iraq War, but they cheered Bush’s little brother Jeb! in his praising his war criminal brother George and his war criminal father the older George Bush who started the first war of aggression against Iraq in 1991 which greatly and criminally escalated this ongoing Islamic terrorism stuff in the first place, in my view. So, the South Carolina neanderthals cheer immoral wars of aggression and they “boooo” someone who tells the truth about it.
And then there are the many Republicans and others who are attracted to Donald Trump’s “non-politically correct” rhetoric and his “telling it like it is,” even though he won’t say anything of actual substance, and has shown little or no knowledge of economics, history, or the pro-freedom philosophy of the Founders. But no matter, the sheeple respond to Trump emotionally, because that’s mainly all it is, emotional. But that’s the way the general population is now, not very much thinking involved.
Trump says, “We’re going to do this, and we’re going to do that,” and “We’ll make America great again,” and “Everything will be better,” and the audiences love such positive rhetoric. But when you point out to the “conservatives” that Trump favors nationalized health care and single payer, and that he likes eminent domain, and so on, that essentially he’s a socialist because the policies he supports are socialist policies, the sheeple say, “We don’t care, we like what he says, because he makes us feeeeeel good,” because as I said it’s all emotional. He makes them feel good in the same way that Barack Obama made his audiences feel good with his “Hope” and “Change” rhetoric. Trump says, “Build a wall on the border” and his collectivist-minded Pavlovian nationalist followers cheer wildly.
Even some libertarians are pushing Trump, as though his “non-politically correct” rhetoric, as inconsistent as it is, is “refreshing,” and if he’s elected “he’ll throw a wrench in the machine,” when NO he WON’T throw a wrench into anything, he will reinforce and strengthen the statist quo and go right along with the Establishment in pushing more socialism and fascism. (Did Trump ever contribute financially to a Libertarian candidate? Hmmm?) So Trump is totally clueless of the actual principles of civil liberty and economic freedom, private property rights, etc. that were what actually made America great and unique in its earlier years. Trump is not saying that to make America great he will make America free (or at least much freer) again, which is what will be required to “make America great again.” In fact just the opposite. He wants to impose more restrictions, more burdens, more intrusions, and make America even less free! Therefore, less “great”!
Regarding his “against political correctness,” and his allegedly supporting freedom of speech, sure he is good at insulting whole groups of people based on their ethnicity or race, and targeting specific individuals such as Megyn Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell, but when the tables are turned, he sues people!! Who the hell does that? It’s not even hypocrisy, it’s worse than that. The reason that he has no problem with himself calling people names or “telling the truth” about 9/11 or the Bush Iraq War, but cries like a baby when a debate moderator asks him a tough question or when Ted Cruz uses Trump’s own words in a campaign ad, is that Trump is an extreme narcissist and a bully, just like Obama and most pols, in fact. Trump was “born with a silver foot in his mouth,” as Ann Richards might say, and that’s the truth. In fact, if he were not born into such a wealthy family, and had not inherited his father’s business, Trump would probably not have become such a “successful businessman.” I don’t think he has the intelligence and ability to have actually done it from scratch, like many others have done. And by the way, many of those others who have started from nothing and pulled themselves “up from the projects,” as Walter Williams puts it, really were capitalists. They had something to sell and were able to sell it, without the help of their family’s wealth or political connections.
Speaking of capitalism, regardless of the fact that while Donald Trump may be a businessman he is no capitalist. I mentioned his support for single payer and nationalized health care. He says that “everybody’s got to be covered.” He means “covered” by forcing everyone into the same, government-controlled, one-size-fits-all system, and forcing workers and producers to fund it involuntarily. Sorry, that’s not capitalism. In actual free market capitalism there is a … free market, and if any business or insurance company attempted to force, coerce or compel someone to be a customer, that “businessman” would be thrown in jail! Only gangsters and racketeers behave with criminal aggression like that! And by the way, no Donald, not everyone should be “covered” (i.e. have the power to force insurers or doctors to care for them), including those who drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney or eat like a pig. I understand that some people have their weaknesses, but if you choose to not take care of yourself, then you should not have a “right” to force others to care for you. Am I alone in that view? Am I being too politically incorrect or insensitive? You see, most if not all the Republican candidates for President probably agree with me, but they dare not speak the truth on THAT one!
Oh, and let’s “Build A Wall” along the southern border! Let’s build a government wall. Talk about coming from an anti-capitalistic mentality! So not only do the conservatives want to bureaucratically ban foreigners from exercising their right to freedom of movement and to migrate and sell their labor to a willing buyer, the “nationalists” also want to put up a physical structure as though that will prevent the bad guys, the actual criminals from entering the territory. They want government guards, government-employed snipers, and so on. Yes, that kind of crap is “anti-capitalism.” That is actually a socialist scheme, it is anti-market.
No, let everyone have the freedom to trade with others, as long as they don’t trespass on private property, or initiate aggression against others. Having the government interfere with that is a part of socialism. Free-market capitalism consists of freedom and free markets, not restricted ones. Just don’t steal, don’t violate private property or use aggression, and that’s it. But nationalists and collectivists don’t seem to get that.
And actual free-market capitalist freedom applies not only to “American citizens,” as the anti-foreigners seem to think, but to all human beings. Conservatives such as Ted Cruz speak of our unalienable rights that are natural rights, rights which preexist the formation of any government. We can cite the Declaration of Independence, which states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So, by “all men,” I believe that applies to all of humankind, not just “men.” I am sure that Cruz et al. would agree with me on that. But “unalienable rights” are rights that are inherent in ALL of us as human beings, so therefore it obviously doesn’t apply to “only American citizens,” but to ALL human beings. What, you want to say that only “American citizens” have unalienable rights, like granted to us by the U.S. government? Some people actually believe that. No, if rights are unalienable and human beings have them naturally and inherently, then obviously ALL human beings have them. And they include the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In my view, that also includes self-ownership, which includes one’s labor as well as one’s person, one’s life. And part of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the right to freedom of movement and to relocate where there are better opportunities, and the right to sell your labor, the right to buy property from a willing seller, the right to run a business with one’s own labor and capital and wealth, etc. Those who interfere with those rights are the real criminal aggressors, in my view.
Now, if you are worried about the foreigners coming into America to get on the government dole, then get rid of the government dole. That’s one thing we won’t hear from the dishonest conservatives, most of whom know that the welfare state is immoral because it involves government theft of private wealth and property to be redistributed to others. They won’t say that the entire Social Security System and Medicare should be completely dismantled root and branch and let the people have their freedom once again, because “Well, my mother gets Social Security and I don’t think we should do that to people, and so on and so forth,” even though the whole system will eventually collapse on its own weight like the Soviet Union did.
But elderly and retired people can survive quite well if we can get rid of all the other criminal governmental intrusions and usurpations, especially the income tax, which for 100 years has been the prime enabler of the massive racket of theft and plunder that has been taking America into ruin.
So besides the Democrats, the sick and coughing Hillary and the faux antiwar hypocrite communist Bernie, and besides Donald Trump (the socialist erroneously called a “capitalist”), there are the other political hacks, sleazebags, weasels, pricks, liars, corruptocrats, fools, buffoons, and gangsters. Including Ted Cruz. This Ted Cruz guy, someone who has spent much of his adult life on the public payroll, is currently polling better than Trump in today’s news. But Cruz is a moral crusader who speaks of “morality” and “protecting life” out of one side of his mouth and speaks of “carpet bombing” whole areas (and thus murdering innocent human beings) out of the other side of his mouth, and refers to innocent people trying to make a better life as “criminal aliens” out of yet another side of his mouth.
On the talk radio shows, the ultra-nationalists and “American Exceptionalists” such as Jeff Kuhner and Steve Deace love Ted Cruz, and the other ultra-nationalists and “American Exceptionalists” such as Howie Carr and Michael Savage love Donald Trump. I don’t know what it is with this nationalism stuff. The nationalists such as those in South Carolina who “booo” Ron Paul and cheer on war criminals seem to not have any real moral scruples, as they don’t want to hear about what the U.S. government did to Iraq during the 1990s leading up to 9/11. They don’t want to hear the possibility that America is not an exceptional nation. Perhaps it once was, when there was freedom, when there were private property rights respected, and when there wasn’t a federal government and President sending the military overseas to start wars or engage in hostilities for no good reason. But America is now like other dictatorships and “People’s Republics,” with a dumbed down public who gullibly and sheepishly worship authority especially men in uniforms, and who accept that they must report their private financial and medical matters to the bureaucrats, or else.
Many nationalists say that they believe that “authority” must be with the family, with churches, and local neighborhoods. But in reality, nationalists believe in the authority of the government (whether they want to admit it or not), and the more big and powerful and centralized, like the DC rulers, the better. They believe in government authority. And government power. That is why they “booo” Ron Paul and cheer on the Bushes, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
So, we have a lot of people in America glued to their iPhones and their TV sets like zombies, many of them graduates of the public schools and the PC universities, many of whom believe that the Bible should be the law of the land, many of whom are extremely naive and gullible sheeple who believe what their government bureaucrats tell them, people who don’t think, challenge or question, and they like what they are hearing in Cruz, Trump, Rubio, and Hillary and Bernie. And sadly that is what Amerika has become.
The Grammy Awards also have Classical Music categories, you know. The winners of the “Orchestral Performance” category were Andris Nelsons and the Boston Symphony Orchestra, in their recording of Dmitri Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 10, with the album title, “Under Stalin’s Shadow.” Nelsons is the Music Director of the BSO since September, 2014, through at least 2022. He has also signed on to be the Music Director of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra in Germany, a position which begins in a year or two. I have written about that and wondered whether he is yet another workaholic orchestral conductor. But whatever.
Here is an excerpt of Andris Nelsons and the BSO (not from the album but from their Carnegie Hall performance last year) of the Shostakovich 10th provided by the Carnegie Hall YouTube channel:
Coincidentally, a former BSO Music Director has also won a Grammy this week for the Opera category. The 80-year-old Seiji Ozawa, for his recording with his Saito Kinen Orchestra of Japan, of the opera, L’Enfant Et Les Sortilèges by Maurice Ravel. The recording also includes Ravel’s Shéhérazade and Alborada del Gracioso. After his 29 seasons with the BSO, Seiji Ozawa was the Music Director of the Vienna State Opera for 8 years. I have written about Ozawa’s health matters, and noted how he had been very ill with several illnesses but seems to have made a big comeback in recent years.
Universal Music Group has uploaded several excerpts onto YouTube. Here is one of them:
There were a few other Classical categories. One other one to note is the Classical Solo Vocal Album, which went to mezzo-soprano Joyce DiDonato with accompanist Antonio Pappano for their album, Joyce & Tony — Live From Wigmore Hall.
Here is an excerpt of that recital, uploaded to YouTube by Warner Classics:
Besides the cases I mentioned in this post, there was another case in which the late Antonin Scalia was not an “originalist,” in which he did not seem to take seriously the views of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In 2012 Scalia joined the majority giving their thumbs up to law enforcement (sic) strip-searching people who were arrested for any “offense,” no matter how harmless. This includes people the officials have no reasonable suspicion for possessing drugs or weapons. This includes people arrested for walking a dog and violating leash laws, driving with a “noisy muffler” or not using a turn signal. The specific case involved a guy who was arrested for an unpaid fine that had actually been paid, it turned out. So people who are the victims of wrongful arrests can also be violated, raped and humiliated by the government.
So Scalia voted for that kind of criminality being inflicted by government tyrants against innocent people. Let’s face it, most of the laws on the books are not laws to protect the people from the aggression, theft or fraud of others. They are mainly trivial, revenue-collecting devices for the government to fatten its coffers. Would the Founders have agreed to all this?
The other purpose for the strip-searches is for intimidation and humiliation. We have seen this with the TSA, whose sexual assaults, child molestations and outright rape continue to this day.
As civil liberties activist Naomi Wolf has written, “The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness.”
In that column, after reviewing the various parts of the national security police state apparatus, the NDAA and so forth, Wolf points out:
With that Big Brother eye in place, working alongside these strip-search laws, – between the all-seeing data-mining technology and the terrifying police powers to sexually abuse and humiliate you at will – no one will need a formal coup to have a cowed and compliant citizenry. If you say anything controversial online or on the phone, will you face arrest and sexual humiliation?
…
I was told by an NYPD sergeant that “safety” issues allow the NYPD to make arrests at will. So nothing prevents thousands of Occupy protesters – if there will be any left after these laws start to bite – from being rounded up and stripped naked under intimidating conditions.
You see, in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and his fellow signers complained that “the King has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,” which can be applied to today’s tyrannical harassment, humiliations and thefts against the people.
I can’t believe that the so-called “originalist” Scalia actually thought that Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, and the others who fought a Revolution to free themselves from the intrusions and crimes of the British King, would have approved of strip-searching innocent people without reasonable suspicion, or even that they would have approved of any of the damn petty laws currently on the books now.
I listened to some of Coast to Coast early this morning with Richard Syrett, who interviewed Jon Rappoport on the Zika virus panic/hysteria. Rappoport noted that in Brazil there have been many documented cases of Microcephaly, the disease or condition that causes birth defects including the baby’s smaller than normal head and brain damage. However, Rappoport refers to a study which found 404 confirmed cases of Microcephaly, and of those 404 cases there were only 17 confirmed with Zika virus present. That should lead one to eliminate Zika as the actual cause of the Microcephaly birth defects. Rappoport also points out that Brazil allows many different toxic pesticides that have been banned in 22 other countries, and that may be having a negative effect on people. Rappoport has been discussing the issue on his blog, most recently here. The Coast to Coastpage for that show linked to his earlier article on that.
Rappoport also made references to the medical cartel, the medical establishment who tend to push these kinds of things hysterically because there are lucrative government grants for the research involved, as well as giving Big Pharma a boost in developing more poisonous drugs to cause people even more problems. Another issue is the damn doctors, many of whom are indoctrinated to act subserviently to the Pharma Gods and established medical orthodoxy.
Now, I don’t know if there is any intentional “population control” agenda going on, as Rappoport suggests there might be, but it is sad that ladies are either aborting pregnancies out of fear because of this, or delaying pregnancies or deciding not to have babies, caused by this panic and hysteria. But to me this is like the 2009 H1N1 panic and yet another opportunity for Big Pharma to exploit for the sake of additional drug sales and profits.
Rappoport also notes that as long as people’s immune systems are strong, then they can fight off these kinds of things and not develop the illnesses and disforming or disabling conditions, and one important factor to strengthening the immune system is good nutritional support. Rappoport concluded his recent post:
Cleaning up contaminated water supplies, improving sanitation, eliminating overcrowding, introducing nutritious food to replace no-food or junk food—these and other non-medical measures would make people healthier and drastically reduce their need for any medical intervention at all.
That’s called a clue. What medical organization wants to take that route, thereby committing suicide?
In Brazil, an upsurge of microcephaly (if it is actually happening) is the tip of the iceberg. Other babies are being born with other severe neurological problems. Immune systems of pregnant women and mothers are compromised, which leads to numerous, serious, life-threatening infections in mothers and babies. The germs involved in the infections would never cause any harm in persons whose immune-defenses were strong.
Now you are seeing a rounded and true picture. The medical-cartel picture is a hysterical fiction, distorted and surreal. It is painted by a monopoly intent on protecting its territory, without any real concern for humans. Of course, the foot-soldiers in this conquest—the doctors—are mostly unaware of the role they are actually playing, since they’ve been indoctrinated to within an inch of their lives by false and self-serving science.
Over the years, I’ve spoken to several of these doctors. When I detail the transparently absurd “proof” that a virus is causing a particular condition, they blink. They blink a few times. There is a pause. Their proprietary mind-control engine stalls for a moment. Then they pick up as if nothing has happened.
And for them, nothing has.
High IQ and clueless, in the valley of robots.
Given my own medical issues especially during the late 1990s through mid 2000s, I have sure had my share of those damn robots. Eventually I would like to write about all that, but I don’t know.
Well, another bureaucrat bites the dust. And yes, U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” (sic) Antonin Scalia was just another bureaucrat. He claimed to be an “originalist,” basing his opinions on the “original intent” of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently that does not include the writers of the Bill of Rights (which he seemed to have long forgotten was also a part of the Constitution).
For instance, Scalia agreed that if police smell marijuana from outside your door, they may then violently break into your home, without a search warrant. Oooh, “marijuana,” Justice (sic) Scalia! Look out! There’s someone who has marijuana in his home! Time to act like a neanderthal and criminally break in and arrest those druggies!
So no, Scalia did NOT take the Framers’ passion for liberty and private property rights seriously. Thomas Jefferson would NOT agree with such police state tactics. Especially when the purpose of such State criminality is because someone has some damn DRUGS! Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al. would even oppose your police state laws prohibiting drugs in the first place if they were around today.
No, Scalia was not an “originalist.”
And here is the late Supreme Bureaucrat slicing and dicing the Second Amendment and the right to “keep and bear arms.”
Of course the Founders would include the right of the people to have cannons, and to shoot down planes* (if they knew about planes then). Their main purpose of protecting the people’s right to keep and bear arms was to do with the people’s right to resist tyranny. Which is why they, or most of them anyway, opposed the government’s having a standing army. If they were to return to life today, the Founders would agree with me that to preserve the people’s liberty it would be preferable that the people possess the armaments, not the agents of the government. Resisting tyranny is what many Jews attempted to do during Nazi Germany, but many were not able to do because of their rulers’ restrictions on them.
*Note: By “the right to shoot down planes,” I am referring to the right of the people to shoot down their tyrannical government’s planes that may be attacking the people, in their own country. I am also referring to ANY planes operated by any people that may be attacking or bombing innocent people, anywhere.
Regarding the Founders’ belief in the people’s right to keep and bear arms as a means of protecting themselves from their own government’s tyranny: In Federalist No. 46, James Madison wrote, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Did Scalia agree with that way of thinking? No, of course he didn’t. He was like the typical government bureaucrat: preserve the power of the government, restrict the people’s liberty. (We’re all going to be taken to the FEMA camps anyway, as Scalia believed. Oh, well.)
Now, the Republicans are saying that Obama shouldn’t appoint a replacement “Justice,” but the Democrats want a replacement. Does it really matter? Nope. We saw from the Kelo decision and Chief Bureaucrat John Roberts’s just making stuff up to defend ObamaCare, that that’s what they will do to preserve the power of the Regime in Washington at the expense of our liberty: make stuff up.
Scalia was supposedly good on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, but in some cases not so much. Will the replacement Supreme Bureaucrat be worse on freedom of speech, especially where it pertains to this faux “War on Terrorism”? Probably, regardless of whether it is an Obama appointee or a Trump or Bush appointee.
Question: Did Obama have Scalia “taken out” so that Obama can better ram his climate agenda through? The main purpose of the climate agenda is to raise taxes or impose new ones and steal even more from the workers and producers. Given what we saw with Andrew Breitbart and Michael Hastings, and Obama’s war on journalists, whistleblowers and drugs, his drone murder spree and Obama’s belief in assassination of those whose views he dislikes, I would not be shocked by it. (However, I am not accusing him or anyone of foul play, I’m merely asking the question.)
Prediction: Obama will pick Cass Sunstein as the next Supreme Bureaucrat.
The “social justice” warriors are out there. Many of them now, it seems, are not on the side of peace, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, and freedom of contract. No, these “social justice” activists are on the side of force, compulsion, intrusion, aggression, intimidation and involuntary servitude. They are punks, in my view, and they are acting criminally against innocents. However, the moralists on the other side in their crusades against marriage contract rights also do not have an understanding of the rights of private property and contracts. Sadly, there are innocent victims on all sides of these cases.
In one of the latest cases, the anti-civil liberties ACLU and the state of Washington are persecuting a florist because she refused to do extra labor creating floral arrangements for a same-sex couple’s wedding. Her reason was that such an activity “would not honor Christ,” which is her right to believe that and act accordingly. Morally, she should not be forced to do extra labor in service of those she believes go against her religious or moral beliefs. The case isn’t just about the florist’s freedom of religious expression but her freedom of artistic expression as well.
But it’s really all about contract rights. This concept is rarely discussed, even though that’s perhaps the most important part of it. Contracts must be voluntary in order to be morally legitimate, and that should be in order to be legally legitimate as well. If a couple goes into a florist shop and asks for a flower arrangement for their wedding, and if the florist doesn’t want to serve them, then she actually has no moral obligation to do that or even tell them why. Her right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is her right. If the prospective customers don’t like it, they can go to her competition. In her case, she did refer them to several florists in the area who would serve them. But that was not good enough for the activist “social justice” warriors. When people attempt to make someone serve them involuntarily, or to use the armed powers of government to punish her for not serving them involuntarily, they are punks and criminals, in my view.
And it doesn’t matter what the businessperson’s reasons are. She may feel that homosexuality goes against her religion. She may not like homosexuals. Or he may be a homosexual who doesn’t like heterosexuals. Or she may be a black lady who doesn’t like white people. People have a right to not associate with or do work for, or allow onto their property, anyone they don’t want to. As I have written before, the problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is that it included privately owned businesses. That Act then abolished the idea of freedom of association, contract rights and private property rights, and the society is now suffering because of it.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 got rid of Jim Crow laws, in which local governments enforced laws against private business owners from serving mixed races together. However, those Jim Crow laws actually violated the business owners’ rights of freedom of association and contract. There was rampant racism especially continuing in the South, but some white business owners nevertheless wanted to invite ALL customers into their stores, restaurants, and other businesses. Those business owners were acting in civil disobedience as they violated the Jim Crow laws. So then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “desegregated” by abolishing those Jim Crow laws, and it desegregated the government run schools, parks, schools, and so on.
The problem with the Civil Rights Act, however, was that it went beyond its moral mission, by including privately owned businesses mandatorily, not just public areas and government-run functions. And the “protected” classes of people are now well beyond race and gender, but including sexual orientation and other more controversial areas such as transgenders.
You see, morally if I have the right to not allow particular people into my home, for whatever reason, then I have the same private property right to not allow someone into my business. The law should not distinguish between different kinds of private property, residential or commercial. And the florist has a private property right in her person, her labor and resources, to refuse to do extra labor to serve someone she doesn’t want to serve. If you are saying that her reasons for refusal are relevant, then you are talking about thought crimes, and there goes the right to freedom of thought and conscience.
Private property rights are key in a civilized and free society. If the business owner tells a consumer she doesn’t want to associate with him, that should be the end of that. He can go get his business taken care of somewhere else. That’s the civilized way. But how civilized is it when social activists use force and the government courts and police against those who don’t want to associate with them? How civilized is it when the narcissists of “social justice” actively harass others who say “No”?
And given the fact that many of those same-sex couples who are being refused service by private business owners and artists, photographers, etc., have plenty of others available working in the field in which they need some service provided, but choose nevertheless to actively harass and persecute the ones who wouldn’t serve them, that tells us what these activists’ true intentions really are.
So now we have all these court cases, all that harassment by social activists who really just want to force their ways onto others, and let’s face it, that’s really what we’re talking about.
And in another case, a T-shirt producer is being sued for discrimination by a “Gay and Lesbian Services Organization” in Kentucky because he didn’t want to make T-shirts with a “Gay Pride” message. So here is another example of activists attempting to force, through the aggression of the State and its armed enforcement apparatus, a private businessman to do extra labor to serve them to promote their message that he opposes.
Now, if I actually owned some sort of small business and didn’t want to bake a cake for or photograph a wedding or otherwise provide a service to people, and they then took me to court, I’d probably immediately seek criminal charges against them for harassment and extortion, and sue them financially for emotional distress. You see, that actually is what “justice” is all about. Innocent people fighting back to defend themselves against criminal aggressors. And yes, I believe that what the activists are doing to innocent people in these cases is criminal.
But as bad as the “social justice” intruders of the Left are — and I wanted to include this here as well — the self-righteous moral crusaders on the other side are just as bad. They also don’t understand the concept of private property and contract rights. This Ted Cruz person running for President is one of them. Honestly, when I hear Cruz speak it sounds like I’m listening to Jimmy Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Yech.
These so-called “Christian” moral crusaders want to use the power of government to interfere with the marital contract rights of others. Ted Cruz says he wants the states to control people’s marriages, as opposed to the federal government. But state governments (and local governments as well) also should not interfere with the people’s contract rights. And yes, marriage is a private matter, it is a matter of private associations and contracts, and the terms of those contracts and who may participate in those contracts are morally only the business of the parties to those contracts and no one else. There should be no marriage license, or other government-controlled or authoritarian intrusions into such private matters.
But the moralists such as Ted Cruz do not understand this. They really seem to want to use the armed power of government and the law to force their and the majority’s ways of life onto those who want to live their private lives differently than the majority. The “conservatives” are the same way in their opposition to immigration and labor freedom and contract as well, but that’s for a different discussion.
Scott Lazarowitz's Blog 