Log in



Author: olddog

Member Since: 2010-10-07 20:17:54
Website: http://anationbeguiled.com

Posts by olddog:

The Police State Is Upon Us

January 31st, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/30/police-state-upon-us-paul-craig-roberts/

By Paul Craig Roberts

Anyone paying attention knows that 9/11 has been used to create a police/warfare state. Years ago NSA official William Binney warned Americans about the universal spying by the National Security Agency, to little effect. Recently Edward Snowden proved the all-inclusive NSA spying by releasing spy documents, enough of which have been made available by Glenn Greenwald to establish the fact of NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying, spying that has no legal, constitutional, or “national security” reasons. Yet, Americans are not up in arms. Americans have accepted the government’s offenses against them as necessary protection against “terrorists.”

Neither Congress, the White House, or the Judiciary has done anything about the wrongful spying, because the spying serves the government. Law and the Constitution are expendable when the few who control the government have their “more important agendas.”

Bradley Manning warned us of the militarization of US foreign policy and the murderous consequences, and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks posted leaked documents proving it.

Were these whistleblowers and honest journalists, who alerted us to the determined attack on our civil liberty, rewarded with invitations to the White House and given medals of honor in recognition of their service to American liberty?

No. Bradley Manning is in federal prison, and so would be Julian Assad and Edward Snowden if Washington could get its hands on them.

Binney escaped the Police State’s clutches, because he did not take any documents with which to prove his allegations, and thus could be dismissed as “disgruntled” and as a “conspiracy kook,” but not arrested as a “spy” who stole “national secrets.”

Greenwald, so far, is too prominent to be hung for reporting the truth. But he is in the crosshairs, and the Police State is using other cases to close in on him.

These are only five of the many people who have provided absolute total proof that the Bill of Rights has been overthrown. Washington continues to present itself to the world as the “home of the free,” the owner of the White Hat, while Washington demonstrates its lack of mercy by invading or bombing seven countries on false pretenses during the past 14 years, displacing, killing, and maiming millions of Muslims who never raised a fist against the US.

Many commentators have written articles and given interviews about government’s ever expanding police powers. The totality of the American Police State is demonstrated by its monument in Utah, where an enormous complex has been constructed in which to store every communication of every American. Somehow a son or daughter checking on an aged parent, a working mother checking on her children’s child care, a family ordering a pizza, and sweethearts planning a date are important matters of national security.

Some educated and intelligent people understand the consequences, but most Americans perceive no threat as they “have nothing to hide.”

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Bill of Rights and attached it to the US Constitution did not have anything to hide, but they clearly understood, unlike modern day Americans, that freedom depended completely on strictly limiting the ability of government to intrude upon the person.

Those limits provided by the Founding Fathers are gone. The hoax “war on terror” demolished them.

Today not even the relationships between husband and wife and parents and children have any protection from arbitrary intrusions by the state.

Essentially, government has destroyed the family along with civil liberty.

Those insouciant Americans who do not fear the police state because they “have nothing to hide” desperately need to read: Home-schooled Children Seized By Authorities Still In State Custody:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/01/gary-north/homeschool-children-kidnapped/

In Police State America, authorities can enter your home on the basis of an anonymous “tip” that you are, or might be, somehow, abusing your children, or exposing them to medicines that are not in containers with child-proof caps or to household bleach that is not under lock and key, and seize your children into state custody on the grounds that you present a danger to your children.

The government does not have to tell you who your accuser is. It can be your worst enemy or a disgruntled employee, but the tipster is protected. However, you and your family are not.

The authorities who receive these tips treat them as if they are valid. A multi-member goon squad shows up at your house. This is when the utterly stupid “I have nothing to hide” Americans discover that they have no rights, regardless of whether they have anything to hide.

We owe this police power over parents and children to “child advocates” who lobbied for laws based on their fantasies that all parents are serial rapists of children, and if not, are medieval torturers, trained by the CIA, who physically and psychologically abuse their children.

In the opinion of “child advocates,” children are brought into the world in order to be abused by parents. Dogs and cats and the fish in the fishbowl are not enough. Parents need children to abuse, too, just as the Police and the Police State need people to abuse.

Of course, sometimes real child abuse occurs. But it is not the routine event that the Child Protective Services Police assume. A sincere investigation, such as was missing in the report on the home-schooled children, would have had one polite person appear at the door to explain to the parents that there had been a complaint that their children were being exposed to a poisonous substance in the home. The person should have listened to the parents, had a look at the children, and if there was any doubt about the water purifier, ask that its use be discontinued until its safety could be verified.

But nothing sensible happened, because the Police State does not have to be sensible.

Instead, a half dozen goon thugs show up. The parents are put outside in the snow for 5 hours while the children are scared to death with questions and then carried away from their home, mother, and father.

In Police State America, this is called Protecting Children. We owe this tyranny to the idiot “child advocates.”

It is no longer important to protect children from homosexuals, unless the homosexuals are Catholic child pedophiles. But it is absolutely necessary to protect children from their parents.

So, yes, dear insouciant American fool, whether you have anything to hide or not, you are in grave danger, and so are your children, in Police State America.

You can no longer rely on the Constitution to protect you.

This is the only way that you can protect yourself: grovel before your neighbors, your co-workers, your employees and employers, and, most definitely, before “public authority” and your children, as your children can report you. Don’t complain about anything. Do not get involved in protests. Don’t make critical comments on the Internet or on your telephone calls. Don’t homeschool. Don’t resist vaccines. Turn your backs to leaders who could liberate you as it is too dangerous to risk the failure of liberation. Be an abject, cowardly, obedient, servile member of the enserfed, enslaved American population. Above all, be thankful to Big Brother who protects you from terrorists and Russians.

You, dear insouciant, stupid, American are back on the Plantation. Perhaps that is your natural home. In his masterful A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn documents that despite their best efforts the exploited and abused American people have never been able to prevail against the powerful private interests that control the government. Whenever in American history the people rise up they are struck down by brute force.

Zinn makes totally clear that “American freedom, democracy, liberty, blah-blah” are nothing but a disguise for the rule over America by money.

Wave the flag, sing patriot songs, see enemies where the government tells you to see them, and above all, never think. Just listen. The government and its presstitute media will tell you what you must believe.

More evidence of Police State America: http://www.globalresearch.ca/notes-on-police-violence-in-america-police-shoot-and-kill-two-teenage-girls-within-two-weeks/5428432

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Does it piss you off to read the truth? Maybe you should grow a set and do a little protesting to your local citizen elected representative; you know him/her, the ones that dine with the Banking Cartel.

10 13 11 flagbar

 

The Libertarian Principle of Secession

January 30th, 2015 by

http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/36042/Llewellyn-H-Rockwell-Jr-The-Libertarian-Principle-of-Secession/?uuid=6F80FACC-5056-9627-3C224900D5600C65

1-30-2015 12-27-30 PM

OLDDOGS COMMENTS

Although I have resisted attachment to libertarianism in the past, this article is the best first step to recovering our freedom. Here, you will find the most common sense method of governance possible if you will only read it with an open mind and consider the consequences of continuing like we presently are. We are not just being subjected to tyrannical governance, we are supporting it, which is as stupid as it gets. Open your mind to a better path to freedom. If the majority of the States and education were under our control, we could demand a better system of governance. The Banking Cartel cannot control our government if we don’t use their worthless paper, but we would probably have to defend our country from those Nations who do use it. Which suits me fine! I would much rather die fighting to support good governance than being subjected to one that claims the power to tell me which direction to wipe my ass!

Sam Adams told his fellow patriots in 1773 in the build-up to the Boston Tea Party, “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

The Libertarian Principle of Secession

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

For a century and a half, the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public. The government schools spin fairy tales about the “indivisible Union” and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it.

Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward, while nationalism and centralization are made to seem progressive and inevitable. When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one, its motives must be disreputable and base, while the motivations of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement it does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic, if they are considered at all.

As usual, disinformation campaigns are meant to make potentially liberating ideas appear toxic and dangerous, conveying the message that anyone who seeks acceptance and popularity ought to steer clear of whatever it is – in this case, secession – the regime has condemned. But when we set the propaganda aside, we discover that support for secession means simply this: it is morally illegitimate to employ state violence against individuals who choose to group themselves differently from how the existing regime chooses to group them. They prefer to live under a different jurisdiction. Libertarians consider it unacceptable to aggress against them for this.

The libertarian principle of secession is not exactly embraced with enthusiasm by the people and institutions I call “regime libertarians.” Although these people tend to be located in and around the Beltway, regime libertarianism transcends geographical location, which is why I coined this special term to describe it.

The regime libertarian believes in the market economy, more or less. But talk about the Federal Reserve or Austrian business cycle theory and he gets fidgety. His magazine or institute would rather invite Janet Yellen for an exclusive cocktail event than Ron Paul for a lecture.

The regime libertarian loves the idea of reform – whether it’s the Fed, the tax code, government schools, whatever. He flees from the idea of abolition. Why, that just isn’t respectable! He spends his time advocating this or that “tax reform” effort, instead of simply pushing for a lowering or repeal of existing taxes. It’s too tough to be a libertarian when it comes to antidiscrimination law, given how much flak he’s liable to get, so he’ll side with left-liberals on that, even though it’s completely incompatible with his stated principles.

He is antiwar – sometimes, but certainly not as a general principle. He can be counted on to support the wars that have practically defined the American regime, and which remain popular among the general public. He sups in happy concord with supporters of the most egregiously unjust wars, but his blood boils in moral outrage at someone who told an off-color joke 25 years ago.

I suppose you can guess where our regime libertarian stands on secession. Since the modern American regime emerged out of the violent suppression of the attempted secession of eleven states, he, too, is an opponent of secession. If cornered, he may grudgingly endorse secession at a theoretical level, but in practice he generally seems to support only those acts of secession that have the approval or connivance of the CIA.

Mention secession, and the subject immediately turns to the southern Confederacy, whose moral enormities the regime libertarian proceeds to denounce, insinuating that supporters of secession must be turning a blind eye to those enormities. But every libertarian worthy of the name opposes any government’s support for slavery, centralization, nationalism, inflation, conscription, taxation, or the suppression of speech and press. That goes without saying.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this kind of charge, though. Accusing libertarians of sympathy for slavery because they oppose wars of centralization is the intellectual cousin of the regime’s familiar claim that opponents of the war in Iraq must have supported Saddam Hussein, or that opponents of US intervention in World War I were just apologists for the Kaiser. We expect juvenile nonsense like this from neoconservatives and from the regime itself. When it emerges from the pens of alleged libertarians, it says far more about them and their own allegiances than it does about us.

The classical liberal, or libertarian, tradition of support for secession can boast such luminaries as Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Cobden, and Lord Acton, among many others. I’d like to add two more figures: in the 19th century, Lysander Spooner, and in the 20th, Frank Chodorov.

Spooner presents a real problem for the regime libertarians. Every libertarian acknowledges the greatness and importance of Spooner. The trouble is, he was an avowed secessionist.

Lysander Spooner was born in Massachusetts in 1808, and would go on to become a lawyer, an entrepreneur, and a political theorist. He believed that true justice was not so much a matter of compliance with man-made law, but a refusal to engage in aggression against peaceful individuals. His American Letter Mail Company competed successfully against the US Post Office, offering better service at lower prices, until the government forced him out of business in 1851.

His work No Treason, a collection of three essays, took the position that the Constitution, not having been agreed to by any living person and only ever expressly consented to by a small handful, cannot be binding on anyone.

In a work called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner had argued that the primary interpretive key in understanding the Constitution was what we now call “original meaning.” This is different from “original understanding,” the concept referred to by figures like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. According to that view, we should interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of those who drafted and ratified that document. Spooner rejected this.

What mattered, according to Spooner, was not the inscrutable “intention” behind this or that word or passage, but rather the plain meaning of the word or passage itself. Furthermore, given that human liberty was a mandate of the natural law, anytime constitutional language might appear to run contrary to the principle of liberty, we ought to prefer some other meaning of the words in question, even if we have to strain a bit to do so, and even if the anti-liberty interpretation is the more natural reading.

Thus Spooner could claim, contrary to the majority of abolitionists, that the Constitution was in fact an anti-slavery document, and that its oblique and fleeting references to slavery – a word never used in the Constitution – did not have to carry the meanings commonly attributed to them. Frederick Douglass, the celebrated former slave turned abolitionist writer and speaker, adopted Spooner’s approach in his own work.

Spooner’s anti-slavery work went well beyond this exercise in constitutional exegesis. He provided legal services, sometimes pro bono, for fugitive slaves, and advocated jury nullification as a means of defending escaped slaves in court. His 1858 “Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,” called for insurrection in the South, as well as such lesser measures as flogging slaveholders who themselves used the whip, and encouraging slaves to confiscate their masters’ property. Spooner’s approach was informed by four principles with which he introduced his plan:

  1. That the Slaves have a natural right to their liberty.
  2. That they have a natural right to compensation (so far as the property of the Slaveholders and their abettors can compensate them) for the wrongs they have suffered.
  3. That so long as the governments, under which they live, refuse to give them liberty or compensation, they have the right to take it by stratagem or force.
  4. That it is the duty of all, who can, to assist them in such an enterprise.

Spooner was also a supporter of John Brown, and in fact raised money and formulated a plan to kidnap the governor of Virginia until Brown was released.

In other words, it would be difficult to deny Spooner’s dedication to the anti-slavery cause.

And yet here is Spooner on the so-called Civil War:

“On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.”

Ludwig von Mises gave succinct expression to the libertarian view of secession when he said, “No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” Simple.

According to Spooner, the US regime waged the war on behalf of the opposite principle. “The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.”

Spooner continued:

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle – but only in degree – between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

Spooner was withering on the Lincoln regime and the northern mythology of the war and its allegedly noble origins. These were all “gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one,” he said.

By the logic of the regime libertarian, Spooner was a “neo-Confederate” defender of slavery – after all, he asserted the southern states’ right to withdraw from the Union! What other motivation could he have? But this is too preposterous even for them.

Spooner was correct about all of this, needless to say. The war was in fact launched not to free the slaves, as any historian must concede, but for purposes of mysticism – why, the sacred “Union” must be preserved! – and on behalf of economic interests. The regime libertarian expects us to believe that the analysis we apply to all other wars, in which we look beneath the official rationales to the true motivations, does not apply to this single, glorious exception to the catalogue of crimes that constitute the story of mankind’s experiences with military aggression.

Let’s turn now to the second libertarian figure I’ve chosen to discuss today. Frank Chodorov was one of the great writers of the Old Right. Liberty Fund published a collection of his writings, Fugitive Essays. The Mises Institute has brought four of his books back into print: Out of Step, Rise and Fall of Society, One Is a Crowd, and Income Tax Root of All Evil. Chodorov founded what was then called the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, and served as an editor of Human Events, where the early presence of Felix Morley ensured that noninterventionist voices, at least at the beginning, would get a hearing. Murray N. Rothbard considered Chodorov’s monthly publication analysis to be one of the greatest independent publications in American history.

Naturally, Chodorov supported both secession and “states’ rights.” In fact, he thought every schoolchild should “become familiar with the history and theory of what we call states’ rights, but which is really the doctrine of home rule.”

Ralph Raico, the great libertarian historian and senior fellow of the Mises Institute, has documented how the decentralized political order of Europe made possible the emergence of liberty. The lack of a single political authority uniting Europe, and to the contrary a vast multiplicity of small jurisdictions, placed a strict limit on the ambitions of any particular prince. The ability to move from one place to another meant that a prince would lose his tax base should his oppressions grow intolerable.

Chodorov made the same observation:

When the individual is free to move from one jurisdiction to another, a limit is put on the extent to which the government may use its monopoly power. Government is held in restraint by the fear of losing its taxpaying citizens, just as loss of customers tends to keep other monopolies from getting too arrogant.

Chodorov noted that in the years leading up to the New Deal in 1933, various states had embarked upon quasi-socialistic experiments. He referred to a Wisconsin law, passed early in the Depression, that required restaurants to serve two ounces of Wisconsin-made cheese with every meal, whether or not the patron wanted the cheese. He mentioned the platform of the Farm-Labor party, which emerged in several states. What caused these and other such schemes to fail was people’s ability to move their capital and their physical bodies across state lines. The federal government’s socialism, on the other hand, can (in Chodorov’s words) “be made to operate somehow only because there is no escape from its constabulary.”

No tyrant ever supports divided or decentralized power, which is why twentieth-century totalitarians were such opponents of federalism. The US regime, too, has devoted over two centuries to dismantling the barriers that the states once imposed to the untrammeled exercise of power. As Chodorov put it, “The unlikelihood of getting the states to vote themselves out of existence turned the centralizers to other means, such as bribing the state authorities with patronage, alienating the loyalty of the citizenry with federal subsidies, establishing within the states independent administrative bodies for the management of federal works programs.”

Here’s how Chodorov concluded:

There is no end of trouble the states can give the centralizers by merely refusing to cooperate. Such refusal would meet with popular acclaim if it were supplemented with a campaign of education on the meaning of states’ rights, in terms of human freedom. In fact, the educational part of such a secessionist movement should be given first importance. And those who are plumping for a “third party,” because both existing parties are centralist in character, would do well to nail to their masthead this banner: Secession of the 48 states from Washington.

Now that is a libertarian speaking.

Secession is not a popular idea among the political and media classes in America, to be sure, and regime libertarians may roll their eyes at it, but a recent poll found about a quarter of Americans sympathetic to the idea, despite the ceaseless barrage of nationalist propaganda emitted from all sides. A result like this confirms what we already suspected: that a substantial chunk of the public is willing to entertain unconventional thoughts. And that’s all to the good. Conventional American thoughts are war, centralization, redistribution, and inflation. The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty.

This talk was delivered at the Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on January 24, 2015.

10 13 11 flagbar

THE EMBEDDED AND INSTITUTIONALIZED CORRUPTION AT THE IRS

January 29th, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron188.htm

1-29-2015 10-52-38 AM

By Ron Ewart
NewsWithViews.com

“Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation.” —Atifete Jahjaga, President of Kosovo

As we continue our articles on corruption it has become readily apparent that there is almost nowhere to stop, in that waste, fraud, abuse and corruption are not ancillary to government, they are part and parcel of it. Most of the federal bureaucracies have not only grown into powers unto themselves with littleoversight, they embody this culture of waste, fraud, abuse and corruption. This is the peril that each new nation faces as it ages, especially if the citizenry is wholly apathetic, as most Americans are today.

None in the list of the ever-growing federal bureaucracies epitomizes this waste, fraud, abuse and corruption more than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Its power to collect or to incarcerate, by virtually any means is almost absolute. As many Americans have found out the hard way, challenges to IRS power are met with silence, or the intransigence, arrogance and corruption of America’s judicial system that have become pitch hitters and enablers of IRS corruption, overreach and abuse. We wrote about this judicial corruption in our last article entitled:

“Corruption, Collusion and Cronyism, America’s Judicial System”

The history of the IRS is checkered at best and much of the blame of what the IRS has become can be laid directly at the feet of the U. S. Congress. Since its creation out of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the IRS Act was reconstituted every two years by Congressional legislation. Then in 1939, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was codified into statute under 26 USC. Several machinations and revisions to the code took place in the 50’s, then again in the 80’s and once more in the 90’s. Congress has toyed with it, manipulated it, revised it and bastardized it at almost every Congressional session with new laws to placate some special interest group, advance some social goal, or enhance some business interest.

The Treasury Department and the IRS itself have added to this congressional injustice by piling rule on top of rule in the IRC with no attempt to remove the conflicts or the ambiguities. With Obama Care now being tied to it, the IRC has virtually made slaves of every single American that believes they must comply with its twisted, mangled, distorted, confusing and conflicting regulations.

The controversy surrounding the IRS and its underhanded tactics to collect the revenue needed to operate the government is never ending. Worse than that, the IRS is being used as a political weapon by this and past administrations. It’s not just the Lois Lerner’s in the IRS. It’s an embedded culture of corrupted power throughout the agency.

Attempts to get to the bottom of its corruption by Congressional oversight are stonewalled by the IRS, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the White House, thereby allowing the IRS to continue its illegal and abusive tactics unimpeded. No one is fined, fired, or sent to jail. As the IRS stonewalls, the questions surrounding the legality of the Internal Revenue Code rage on.

One of the big questions is, are you, an American citizen, a “taxpayer?” If, in the IRC, there is a specific and legal definition of a “taxpayer” and you do not fit that legal definition, then why are you obligated to pay “income” taxes? If, in the IRC, there is a legal, clear and concise definition of what is to be construed as “income” and your income does not meet that legal definition, why then should you pay any IRS taxes at all? If we are not a government of laws where those laws have unambiguous meanings, then we are a government and a people in chaos where those with the guns can make up the laws. That is not a Constitutional Republic ladies and gentlemen, that is a dictatorship.

Regarding the legal definition of “taxpayer” from the IRC: Only “taxpayers” made “liable” for the tax by statute are required by the IRC to be subject to the “income” tax. This fact has been clearly stated through the years in many court decisions including Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F.Supp. 236 (1922), Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Phoenix, 168 F.2d 712 (1948), First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. US, 161 F.Supp. 847 (1956), Botta v. Scanlon, 288 F.2d 509 (1961), and Economy Plumbing v. US, 470 F.2d 589 (1972).

“Taxpayer” is a legal term defined in 26USC7701(a)(14) which states, “The term ‘taxpayer’ means any person subject to an internal revenue tax.’” For a person to be subject to a tax there must be a provision in the law stating clearly that his or her activity makes him or her “liable” for the tax. There are only two things that create the presumption of “taxpayer” status and those are the signing of a W4 “withholding allowance” certificate, or voluntarily, with full knowledge and willful consent, executing an Income Tax Return Form 1040. Without the W4, or voluntarily filing a Form 1040, the IRS has no legal authority to demand that Americans pay taxes. To our knowledge there has been no determination by a court of competent jurisdiction declaring under oath or affirmation and under penalty of perjury that an American citizen is a legal term “taxpayer” without the citizen being clearly identified in the statutes, or having first volunteered into compliance.

Try to get the IRS to disclose the law which compels such a man or woman to voluntarily submit himself to the Code when the Code itself only compels “withholding agents” to pay the tax withheld from those made liable under Code sections 1441, 1442 and 1443 (See Exhibit 1, “Who is Liable…”). This conclusion is derived from the term “taxable year” defined in 26USC7701(a)(23) to mean “the calendar year . . . of which the taxable income is computed under subtitle A.”

So, who is included “under subtitle A.” This is disclosed in the term definition of “withholding agent”. This is the ONLY definition of “withholding agent” in Title 26. In unambiguous statutes of the United States, codified in 26USC7701(a)(16), “Withholding agent. — The term ‘withholding agent’ means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.” The limiting term definition of “withholding agent” “means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax” is conclusive and includes only “any [all] persons required to deduct and withhold” from any [all] tax, with no exceptions.

Thus, the ONLY parties “under Subtitle A” are listed in 7701(a)(16). These specific parties are identified in Subtitle A, i.e. section 1441 (non-resident aliens), section 1442 (foreign corporations) and section 1443 (foreign organizations) with the hold harmless clause for Subtitle A being section 1461. Only these Subtitle A parties can have money forcibly deducted and sent to the IRS. Therefore, it follows that only those parties mentioned in Subtitle A’s definition of “withholding agent” can be legally liable to file and pay income taxes, under Subtitle A.

It is clear that IRS has nearly everyone convinced that they are “required” to “voluntarily self-assess” their tax liability at least annually and pay to the IRS the amount they themselves have deemed they owe. This, despite the fact that the IRC only makes “Withholding Agents” liable for filing an Income Tax Return (Form 1040), or for paying a tax.

The income tax law (IRC), however, is the only instance where there is no clear liability provision defining just who is liable for the tax. Although partners are called “liable” for taxes on partnerships, that “liability” is only in their “individual capacity”, and there is no provision in the IRC making them liable in their “individual capacity”. That of course, is ambiguous. The only clear liability provision is section 1461, which specifically assigns liability for the tax to those required to withhold taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations. While 26USC3403 does require employers to withhold income tax from employees, there is no law that makes the employees liable for the tax in the first place. Thus, there is no law making the typical American liable for any income tax, unless he voluntarily agrees to be assessed by singing a W4 statement, or filing a Form 1040 and signing it under penalty of perjury.

Further, the fact is that the “income” tax is an indirect tax on franchised or privileged activities, not on everyone’s “income”. The “income” is merely a measure for the tax. The Congressional Record, Volume 89, Part 2, on Page 2580 for March 27, 1943, states:

“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by relevance to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, in discussing income tax as an excise tax, stated on page 165, ‘It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this Court that, when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax the legitimate subject of taxation, as an exercise of franchise or privilege, it is no objection if the foundation of the taxation is found in the income.’”

If any of the above statements are true, and there are many who believe they are, then the entire Income Tax Code is a fraud, irrespective of the fact that the IRS is hopelessly corrupt. But woe be to the person who acts on the alleged strength of these statements. The full force of the IRS, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department will come down on the fool who relies on the law, as legally codified in the IRC, to argue that he or she does not owe income taxes.

But remember, if the IRS is attempting to enforce laws (the IRC) on American citizens that do not exist, or are not authorized by statute, the IRS is acting under the “color of law”. Acting under the “color of law” is not only illegal, it amounts to corruption, collusion and conspiracy, if not open tyranny. The only remedy for the citizen is to sue the government for violation of his or her civil rights under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1985 in the corrupt judicial system. Good luck with that.

The U. S. Supreme Court made it clear in United States v. Lee, 106 US 196 (1882):

“It seems to be opposed to all the principles upon which the rights of the citizen, when brought in collision with the acts of the government, [106 U.S. 196, 219] must be determined. In such cases there is no safety for the citizen, except in the protection of the judicial tribunals, for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government, professing to act in its name. There remains to him or her the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.”

But if judicial tribunals (our Kangaroo courts) are also corrupt, as we wrote in the above referenced article, what recourse does that citizen have to defend against a government bureaucracy that is corrupt and has the power to confiscate or incarcerate …. or perhaps even make you disappear?

If Americans cannot root out this systemic corruption in our institutions of government, whether local, state, or federal, the jaws of the vice of unconstitutional legislation, rules, regulations and ordinances will close upon all of us until we will not be able to move in any direction without the permission of that same corrupt government. Make no mistake that permission will be issued at the point of a gun.

Those who do not have the vision to see this outcome as our only future without intervention by the people are doomed to one day find themselves in chains. Corruption is the internal enemy of a free nation. Who dare rise to expose it? We do! Our recent articles on corruption in government, we have written and continue to write, are our first attempt to do just that. We intend to build on these articles with specific actions.

See also:

  1. “Obama, Congress, Media on IRS – Feigned Outrage!”
    2.“Your Ignorance of the IRS is Their Weapon Against You”
    3. “The IRS On Trial for Corruption and High Crimes”
    4. “Why Congress Will Never Repeal the IRS”
    5. “Why Are Thousands of Americans Not Paying Taxes”

NOTE: We’d like to specifically thank Donald Sullivan for his research and contribution to some of the language (shown in italics) that has been presented in this article.

[NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]

© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

 10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

Reagan’s Administration Was Among the Most Corrupt

January 28th, 2015 by

 http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/+Reasonable/Reagan.html

 

 “By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.  In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.” from p. 184,Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years, by Haynes Johnson, (1991, Doubleday), as are the examples below:

  1. James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.  Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf.  In testifying before a House committee Watt said: “That’s what they offered and it sounded like a lot of money to me, and we settled on it.” Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.
  2. Although not convicted, Edwin Meese III, resigned as Reagan’s Attorney General after having been the subject of investigations by the United States Office of the Independent Counsel on two occasions (Wedtech and Iran-Contra), during the 3 short years he was in office.
  3. E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Attorney General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.
  4. Lyn Nofziger – Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.
  5. Michael Deaver received three years’ probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House.
  6. The Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras.  Secretary of State Schultz warned that it would be an “impeachable offense” if the U.S. government acted as conduit for such secret funding.  But that didn’t stop them.  That same day, Oliver North was seeking third-party aid for the contras.  But Reagan, the “teflon President” avoided serious charges or impeachment.
  7. Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra.  In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes.  The personal memoirs taken during high level meetings, detailed events in 1985 and 1986 involving the Iran-Contra affair.  Weinberger claimed he was being unfairly prosecuted because he would not provide information incriminating Ronald Reagan.  Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial January 5, 1993, where the contents of his notes would have come to light and may have implicated other, unindicted conspirators.  While Weinberger was never directly linked to the covert operations phase of the Iran-Contra affair, he is believed to have been involved in the cover-up of the ensuing scandal. According to Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Weinberger’s notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to congress and the American public.  Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial.
  8. Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million. { Republicans will point out that Donovan was acquitted.  And that really matters in Donovan’s case, because he was a Republican.  But it didn’t matter for Clinton or any of his cabinet, most all of whom were acquitted, because they were Democrats!}
  9. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department’s Latin American Bureau.  He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North’s covert movement to aid the Contras.  Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors.  Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors.  He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush.
  10. Robert C. McFarlane was appointed Ronald Reagan’s National Security Advisor in October 1983 and become well-known as a champion of the MX missile program in his role as White House liaison to congress.  In 1984, Mc Farlane initiated the review of U.S. policy towards Iran that led directly to the arms for hostages deal.  He also supervised early National Security Council efforts to support the Contras. Shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed in early 1987, McFarlane took an overdose of the tranquilizer Valium in an attempt to end his life.  In his own words: “What really drove me to despair was a sense of having failed the country.” McFarlane pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service.  He was also fined $20,000.  He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush.
  11. Oliver North – Convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress.  Conviction overturned on appeal due to legal technicalities.
  12. John Poindexter, Reagan’s national security advisor, – guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used “high national security” to mask deceit and wrong-doing.
  13. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra.
  14. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Central American Task Force.  Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North’s activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras.  He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service.  Fiers agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for having his felonies reduced to misdemeanors and his testimony gave a boost to the long standing criminal investigation of Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor.  Fiers testified that he and three CIA colleagues knew by mid-1986 that profits from the TOW and HAWK missile sales to Iran were being diverted to the Contras months before it became public knowledge.  Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush.
  15. Clair George was Chief of the CIA’s Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan.  In August 1992 a hung jury led U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to declare a mistrial in the case of Clair George who was accused of concealing from Congress his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair.  George had been named by Alan Fiers when Fiers turned state’s evidence for Lawrence Walsh’s investigation. In a second trial on charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986.  George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions.  Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury.  Those charges would have carried a mandatory 10 months in prison upon conviction.  Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush.
  16. Duane R. (Dewey) Clarridge was head of the CIA’s Western European Division under President Reagan.  He was indicted on November 29, 1991 for lying to congress and to the Tower Commission that investigated Iran- Contra.  Clarridge was charged with five counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements for covering up his knowledge of a November 25, 1985 shipment of HAWK missiles to Iran. Clarridge was also suspected of diverting to the Contras weapons that were originally intended for the Afghan mujahaddeen guerrillas.  Clarridge received a blanket pardon for his crimes on Christmas Eve 1992 from President George Bush.
  17. Environmental Protection Agency’s favoritism toward polluter.  Assistant administrator unduly influenced by chemical industry lobbyists.  Another administrator resigned after pressuring employees to tone down a critical report on a chemical company accused of illegal pollution in Michigan.  The deputy chief of federal activities was accused of compiling an interagency “hit” or “enemies” list, like those kept in the Nixon Watergate period, singling out career employees to be hired, fired or promoted according to political beliefs.
  18. Anne Gorscuh Burford resigned amid accusations she politically manipulated the Superfund money.
  19. Rita Lavelle was fired after accusing a senior EPA official of “systematically alienating the business community.” She was later indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence.  After an extensive investigation, in August 1984, a House of Representatives subcommittee concluded that top-level EPA appointees by Reagan for three years “violated their public trust by disregarding the public health and the environment, manipulating the Superfund program for political purposes, engaging in unethical conduct and participating in other abuses.”.
  20. Neglected nuclear safety. A critical situation involving nuclear safety had been allowed to develop during the Reagan era.  Immense sums, estimated at 200 billion or more, would be required in the 1990s to replace and make safe America’s neglected, aging, deteriorating, and dangerous nuclear facilities.
  21. Savings & Loan Bail-out. Hundreds of billions of dollars were needed to bail out savings and loan institutions that either had failed during the deregulation frenzy of the eighties or were in danger of bankruptcy.
  22. Reckless airline deregulation. Deregulation of airline industry took too broad a sweep, endangering public safety.     Additionally:
  23. Richard Allen, National Security adviser resigned amid controversy over an honorarium he received for arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan.
  24. Richard Beggs, chief administrator at NASA was indicted for defrauding the government while an executive at General Dynamics.
  25. Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, resigned after allegations of a conflict of interest in contract negotiations.
  26. Louis Glutfrida, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resigned amid allegations of misuses of government property.
  27. Edwin Gray, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank was charged with illegally repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs.
  28. Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations who resigned after allegations of fraudulent financial dealings.
  29. Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce resigned over charges of awarding federal grants to his personal friends’ firms.
  30. John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission resigned over charges of beating his wife.
  31. Arthur Hayes, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration resigned over illegal travel reimbursements.
  32. J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration resigned over a grand jury investigation of illegal business activities.
  33. Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources resigned over irregularities on her travel vouchers.
  34. Robert Nimmo, head of the Veterans Administration resigned when a report criticized him for improper use of government funds.
  35. J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney fired and fined for tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming Grand Jury investigation.
  36. Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council adviser resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trading.
  37. Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD resigned over assigning staff members to work on government time on a book that guilty to expense account fraud and accepting kickbacks on government contracts.
  38. Charles Wick, Director of the U.S. Information Agency investigated for taping conversations with public officials without their approval.

 

The Real Reagan Legacy

Debunking Myths About Reagan

 

 

by Mike Hersh

March 19, 2002 (Political Sanity/APJP) –

        Let’s begin our examination of the real Reagan Legacy by taking a look at myth number one:

Democrats dominated Congress all through Reagan’s terms,

and called all his budgets Dead On Arrival.

 

        That’s numerically and historically false.  Reagan’s people shoved his programs through the Congress during the early Reagan years.  James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O’Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote.  This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-“Boll Weevil” (or “Dixiecrat”) coalition in the House.  Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

        Only after the huge Reagan recession – made worse by utterly failed Reagan “Voodoo Economics” – did Democrats regain some control in Congress.  They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn’t do much on their own.  That was a time of gridlock.

        Six years into Reagan’s presidency, Democrats took back the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan’s horrendous policies.  By that time, Reaganomics had “accomplished” quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.

        Which brings us to myth number two :

Jimmy Carter (Reagan’s predecessor) wrecked the economy,

    and Reagan’s bold tax cuts saved it.

 

        This is utterly absurd.  Economic growth indices – GDP, jobs, revenues – were all positive when Carter left office.  All plunged after Reagan policies took effect. . . .

        Another major myth :

Reagan cut taxes on all Americans, and that led to a great expansion.

 

        Here’s the truth: the total federal tax burden increased during the Reagan years, and most Americans paid more in taxes after Reagan than before.  The “Reagan Recovery” was unremarkable.  It looks great only contrasted against the dismal Reagan Recession – but it had nothing to do with Supply Side voodoo.

        With a red ink explosion – $300 BILLION deficits looming as far as the eye could see – GOP Senators, notably including Bob Dole, led the way on tax hikes.  The economy enjoyed its recovery only after total tax increases larger than the total tax cuts were implemented.  Most importantly, average annual GDP growth during the Reagan 80s was lower than during the Clinton 90s or the JFK-LBJ 60s!

        Enough about the economy.  Here’s the biggest myth of them all :

Ronald Reagan won the “Cold War”.

 

        In reality, Reagan did nothing to bring down the Soviet Union.

        By 1980, the Soviet Union was trying to cut its own defense spending.  Reagan made it harder for them to do so.  In fact, Reagan increased the possibility of a nuclear war because he was – frankly, and sadly – senile.  He thought we could actually recall submarine-launched nuclear missiles (talk about a Reagan myth), and bullied the Soviets to highest alert several times.

        Critically, Reagan never even tried to bring down the Soviet Union.

        Wasteful overspending on defense didn’t end the Soviet Union.  In fact, it played into the hands of authoritarian “Communist” hard-liners in the Kremlin.  Reagan thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than we were.  He was trying to close what he called “the window of vulnerability.”

        This was sheer idiocy.

        No general in our military would trade our armed forces for theirs.  If it were to happen, none of the Soviet military command would turn down that deal.  We had better systems, better troops, and better morale.

        Here’s the truth: we’d already won the Cold War before Reagan took office.  All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed.  The Soviet Union was collapsing from within.  The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.

        Here’s an example: the Soviet Union military couldn’t deal with a weak state on its own border, the poor, undermanned Afghanistan.  Most of the Soviets’ military might had to make sure its “allies” in the Warsaw Pact and subjects along the South Asian front didn’t revolt.  Even Richard Nixon told Reagan he could balance the budget with big defense cuts.

        Reagan ignored this, and wrecked our budget.

        We didn’t have to increase weapons spending, but Reagan didn’t care.  He ran away from summits with the dying old-guard Soviets, and the new-style “glasnost” leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev baffled the witless Reagan and his closed-minded extremist advisors.

        Maggie Thatcher finally cajoled the Gipper into meeting Gorby, and Gorby cleaned Reagan’s clock.  Reagan’s hard-right “handlers” nearly had to drag Reagan out of the room before he signed away our entire nuclear deterrent.  Reagan – and the planet – was lucky Gorbachev sought genuine and stable peace.  Had Yuri Andropov’s health held, Reagan’s “jokes” and gaffes might have caused World War III.

        Eventually Reagan even gave Gorbachev his seal of approval.  Visiting Moscow before the August Coup, Reagan said the Soviet Union was no longer the “Evil Empire.” He predicted his friend Gorbachev would lead the Soviet Union for many years to come.

        As usual, Reagan was wrong.  A few months later, disgruntled military officers kidnapped Gorbachev, throwing him out of power forever.  Reagan remained disengaged: nothing he did caused the coup, and nothing he did made the Soviet military support Boris Yeltsin over their superiors.

        We’re all fortunate things happened as they did – but once again, Reagan did nothing to make this fluke more likely.

        All this is vintage Reagan.  Reagan took credit for others’ hard word and hard choices, and blamed them for his failures.  Reagan even blamed Jimmy Carter for Reagan’s foolish, fatal, and reckless decision to leave 243 Marines stationed in Beirut, helpless and unguarded.

        Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself.  His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair.

        Reagan was an actor playing the part of the president.  He was style over substance; lucky, not good.   And once the myths are stripped from the “legacy”, the truth becomes obvious:

Reagan was by far the most overrated man in American history.

Reagan’s betrayal of the Air Traffic Controllers :

 

        Most people who have any memory of the Reagan years remember that he caused almost 11,350 of the Air Traffic Controllers’ union (approximately 70 percent) to be fired and barred from ever working in their profession again. What most never knew is that in October 1980, candidate Reagan had met with the leaders of that same union and in response to their explaining their issues and concerns to him, he wrote them a letter putting in writing his promise to support them and address their concerns if elected.

        “You can rest assured that if I am elected president, I will take whatever steps are necessary to provide our air-traffic controllers with the most modern equipment available and to adjust staff levels and work days so that they are commensurate with achieving a maximum degree of public safety. I pledge to you that my administration will work very closely with you to bring about a spirit of cooperation between the air-traffic controllers. Such harmony can and must exist if we are to restore the people’s confidence in their government.”

 

[ Ronald Reagan’s letter to Robert Poli, president of PATCO, Oct. 20, 1980 ]

        Subsequently, PATCO was one of the very few labor unions that endorsed his candidacy (the others being the Teamsters and the Air Line Pilots Association).

        When candidate Reagan became President Reagan, however, that letter’s tone of cooperation and concern of only months before turned into dark threats and stern ultimatums.”

 

[ http://www.massnurses.org/labor/education/2006/sept/patco.htm ]

Shed No Tears for Reagan

 

 

Beyond Chron • ‘The Voice Of The Rest’ •

San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily

by Randy Shaw 07.JUN.04

“The media love celebrity politicians, and Reagan got the sort of media reverence now on display with Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This adoration of the B-movie actor-turned Governor-turned President enabled him to engage in conduct – -the illegal sending of weapons to the Nicaraguan contras-that should have brought his impeachment.

        Reagan’s legacy was the massive redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the rich, which he accomplished through massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

        Reagan all but killed off federal housing funding, paving the way for homelessness to remain a persistent problem in America two decades later

        Reagan refused to mention the word “AIDS,” and his delayed response to the epidemic caused tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.

        Reagan sent American weapons to thugs seeking to over the democratically-elected Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, despite a congressional ban of such weapon transfers.  He was directly responsible for the murder of thousands of Nicaraguans, and that nation’s continued poverty is a legacy of the Reagan.- backed wars.  Reagan sent weapons to prop up El Salvador’s phony “democratic” government, and indirectly supported the death squads that preyed on human rights activists and workers seeking to impose real democracy in that land.

        Reagan pushed for the destruction of federally-funded legal services, arts and humanities, and volunteer programs such as the then activist-oriented VISTA program.  What programs Reagan could not kill, he weakened.

        Reagan’s environmental record may actually have been worse than George W. Bush’s – -impossible as that seems.

        Reagan threw billions down the tubes in a failed attempt to create a Star Wars Missile Defense System.

        Reagan’s 1981 tax cut plan was the major force for gentrification and displacement in urban America during the 1980’s, as it provided unprecedented tax incentives for real estate speculation. In a not unrelated impact of the measure, saving and loan institutions faced collapse around America, resulting in a multi-billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the S & L industry.

        The list of Reagan wrongs could go on and on.  This is a man who held a press conference eating grapes during the UFW grape boycott-Reagan called the farmworkers “outside agitators.”

        This is a man who held his campaign kickoff for the Presidency in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960’s.  Reagan chose the site not to highlight the abuses of racism, but to send a message that he would do his best to bring the return of the old ways to the South.

        Ronald Reagan was responsible for more evil and destruction than any American of his generation.  May he rest in peace.”

 

        Here’s another very insightful article comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush :

Don’t cry for Reagan

 

by Paul Krugman

The New York Times

March 19, 2007

 

As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”

        But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.

        In 1993 Jonathan Cohn – the author, by the way, of a terrific new book on our dysfunctional health care system – published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words in that article makes it read as if it were written in 2007.

        Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands to industry and developers” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?

        Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds – demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!

        Not mentioned in Mr. Cohn’s article, but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, including the deputy attorney general and the chief of the criminal division, resigned in protest.

        Why is there such a strong family resemblance between the Reagan years and recent events? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives – people who built their careers by serving the alliance of wealthy individuals, corporate interests and the religious right that took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

        In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

        If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.”

        The movement’s apparatchik culture, in turn, explains much of its contempt for the rule of law. Someone who has risen through the ranks of a movement that prizes political loyalty above all isn’t likely to balk at, say, using bogus claims of voter fraud to disenfranchise Democrats, or suppressing potentially damaging investigations of Republicans. As Franklin Foer of The New Republic has pointed out, in College Republican elections, dirty tricks and double crosses are considered acceptable, even praiseworthy.

        Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as that of Bill Clinton, who, as we now realize with the benefit of hindsight, governed very well. But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

        Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress – and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

        Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

        But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr.Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed.”

 

Collective + or Collective Alzheimer’s :

America ‘Remembers’

Ronald Reagan

 

 

by Paul Douglas Newman

        To remember Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest Presidents of the twentieth century, to replace FDR on the dime with Reagan’s profile as Republicans wish to do, we are being asked to forget too much.

We are asked to forget Lebanon, where Reagan decided to “cut and run” after hundreds of Marines perished when a suicide bomber invaded their compound.

We are asked to forget El Salvador, where the right wing FMLN, armed with Reagan money, Reagan weapons, and Reagan military training from the School of the America’s at Fort Benning, Georgia slaughtered more than 80,000 civilians in the “War on Communism.”

We are asked to forget the Iran-Contra Scandal, an event that he evidently “could not recall” in response to more than one hundred questions during the Congressional hearings.

We are asked to forget the groundwork laid for nuclear disarmament by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon.

We are asked to forget the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties I and II.

We are asked to forget the re-freezing of the Cold War following the Nixon thaw, when Reagan bellicosely denounced the Soviets as the “Evil Empire,” and then joked on his weekly radio address that our missiles were ready to launch.

We are asked to forget the silly invasion of Grenada following the Lebanon disaster, and the reversal of goodwill gestures made to the Caribbean made by previous administrations, including the return of the Panama Canal.

We are asked to forget the Soviet Union’s internal move to Perestroika, a groundswell that occurred over decades resulting in a generation of new Communists by 1985 who were not manufactured by Reagan’s bravado, but were products of the “Evil Empire.”

We are asked to forget that Reagan presided over the worst recession since the Great Depression.

We are asked to forget the enormous cuts to social welfare programs and the Veterans Administration, moves that led to such an enormous rise in the homeless population, especially evident on the streets of Washington, D.C., that even comedians felt that they had to do something to stop the bleeding with “Comic Relief.”

We are asked to forget the policies that enriched agri-business at the expense of small farmers, continuing the decline of the family farm to the point that recording artists were the only ones left to uphold the Populists’ mantle with “Farm-Aid.”

We are asked to forget that he slashed taxes for the wealthiest, raised taxes on the poor, and then bailed out the corrupt Savings and Loan industry at taxpayer expense.

We are asked to forget that his SEC presided over such a corrupt and over-inflated stock market that the Dow saw the largest one-day crash in its history, greater than in 1929.

We are asked to forget that Reagan’s economic policies effected a reversal in the trend toward greater distribution of wealth begun by Progressive Republican, Democratic, and Socialist politicians in the early twentieth centuries, and have led us to the greatest concentration of wealth today since the days of Andrew Carnegie and James Pierpont Morgan.

We are asked to forget the enormous and outrageous military contracts, for which American taxpayers paid hundreds of dollars for nuts, bolts, and toilet seats, and the nation saw defense-spending rise to astronomical heights.

We are asked to forget the Reagan Administration’s opposition to the Civil Rights movement, their blocking of busing programs and cuts to Head Start, programs designed to bring educational equality of opportunity to all Americans .

We are asked to forget that Reagan considered ketchup to be a vegetable in federal school lunch programs.

We are asked to forget “government cheese.” (the program to buy surplus cheese from U.S. farmers to give away to the poor)

We are asked to forget jelly beans, splitting wood, bad B-movies, McCarthy-ite participation in Hollywood blacklisting.

We are asked to forget our history.

        We are asked to forget, and forget, and forget.

        And by the looks of the New York Times and Washington Post’s memorials to the “Great Communicator,”  it appears that what historian Studs Terkel has referred to as “America’s collective amnesia” is still acute.

Perhaps it is more serious than that.

Perhaps we have a national case of Alzheimer’s Disease.

Perhaps our ability to remember relatively recent events has eroded, and our capacity for rational thought has diminished as well.

Perhaps we are becoming a danger to ourselves and others.

Perhaps we need admittance into a managed care facility for nations.

Perhaps we are “riding off into the sunset.” How else do we explain our descent into Bushism?: our quick repetition of past economic and foreign policy blunders, our re-visitation of failed policies to solve current problems, our persistent dementia that results in trying the same things and expecting different results? As of now, there is no cure for Alzheimer’s Disease, only management of the symptoms and provision of comfort until death.

        Hopefully Studs Terkel is right, and we’ve just suffered another blow to the head from which the American people will recover, and remember, and remember, and remember.

        Paul Douglas Newman  (paulnewman52868@hotmail.com)  is Associate Professor of American History at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, PA .

An “Unbiased Reporter” wrote the following :

“For anyone who was there (the Reagan Years) and paying attention, :

        . . .  “However, I don’t want to be all negative, Reagan did conquer Grenada.  A proud moment in American Military history.  Well, actually, the invasion of Grenada was meant to distract the simple-minded Americans who just watched Reagan bungle his invasion of Beirut, Lebanon, where over 200 marines were murdered by Reagan’s trading partners, Hezbollah. 

        To the horror of the Republican Party, some of us remember.  The Joint Chiefs wanted our marines to be housed on our ships at sea, where they’d be safe.  But the Reagan White House thought it would “look better” if those brave men slept on land, instead.  This disastrous decision, made by political hacks at the White House and approved by the senile and confused president, over the objections of the Joint Chiefs, cost hundreds of brave men their lives.

        Can you imagine the years of endless hearings that Congressmen Dan Burton, Henry Hyde and the rest would have held if Bill Clinton had personally overruled the Joint Chiefs and gotten 220 marines killed because Sandy Berger thought it might “look better?”

 For much more on the horrendous policies of the Reagan administration, see

thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/ReaganRevolution_Stockwell.html &

this outstanding statistical analysis of Reagan policies, claims and results & this other great Reagan web site

10 13 11 flagbar.

 

 

Law Has Been Murdered

January 27th, 2015 by

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/23/law-murdered-paul-craig-roberts/

 By Paul Craig Roberts

Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly, and Bonny Mahoney are the kind of people who are imprisoned in America. It is not the perjurers and liars, the torturers, war criminals and mass murderers. It is the good people who peacefully protest the crimes of those who control the US government and its policies.

Since around 1990 I have studied and reported on cases that have resulted in the erosion of the protective features in law that made law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the government. Barrett Brown’s statement to the Judge in his show trial shows that the US Department of Justice has been successful in preventing the system from delivering any justice. The US Court system delivers support for the government’s crimes. That’s it.

Brown’s statement shows how the system works. The government brings false charges against you or they bring charges that are not illegal under law as understood. However, prosecutors invent new interpretations of laws and judges and juries accept legislation-by-prosecutor-to-fit-the-made-up-case. Almost never is a jury involved, not that jurors show any inclination to go against the government’s case. However, prosecutors only face that unlikely risk in 3 or 4 percent of the cases. All other cases are settled on the basis of self-incrimination. The prosecutor tells the defendant and his attorney, “you can admit to this and that and have a sentence of 5 or 10 years. Otherwise, we are indicting you with 105 offenses with imprisonment of at least one lifetime.

Read Brown’s statement to the judge. This young man describes perfectly how the so-called “criminal justice system” actually works. I have seen it time after time in cases I have investigated. Read The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/journalist-barrett-brown-sentenced-to-63-months-in-prison-for-linking-to-hacked-material-read-his-speech-here/5426421

Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney were sentenced to prison for stepping across the perimeters of Air Force bases in peaceful protests against murder-by-drone. There was no real reason for charges to be brought against them or for a judge to sentence them to prison except to continue to make it crystal clear that the US government tolerates no dissent.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2015/01/23/kathy-kelly-begins-her-three-month-federal-prison-sentence-t

http://warisacrime.org/content/hancock-drone-resister-convicted-unexpected-new-charge

A democracy protected by free speech would permit these demonstrations, but the US is not a democracy and does not have free speech. That is the fact that Barrett Brown, Kathy Kelly and Bonny Mahoney are proving.

In my opinion, protesting drone murders at Air Force bases that operate the killer drones is unlikely to be effective in stopping the murders. Suppose the protests resulted in a base commander having second thoughts. What can he possibly do about it? If he disobeys orders, he would face a court martial. If he expresses doubts or makes protests to higher ups, he would be removed and a worse murderer would be put in his place.

To be effective in halting the drone murders, the protests would have to be very large and persistent, and the protests would have to focus on Congress and the White House. They would need public support, but would get none from the presstitute media or from “law and order” conservatives, patriot organizations, neoconservatives, or liberals who have bought into the “war on terror.”

What Brown, Kelly, and Mahoney are in fact proving is that the US is lawless in the sense that law serves only the government and its agenda. In America law no longer has any other meaning. There is no rule of law. We are ruled by the government’s agenda.

 10 13 11 flagbar

Obamacare here come the toxic psychiatrists

January 26th, 2015 by

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/obamacare-here-come-the-toxic-psychiatrists/

By Jon Rappoport

www.nomorefakenews.com

The toxic psychiatrists are already here, but under Obamacare their mission will expand.

A recent Washington Post article parroted the usual unscientific statistic on numbers of people in America with mental disorders: 20% of all adults have “experienced a mental-health issue.”

Propaganda focuses heavily on children, with claims that “half of all mental-health disorders first show up before a person turns 14.”

“Three-quarters of mental-health disorders begin before 24. But less than 20% of children and adolescents with mental disorders receive the treatment they need.”

Obamacare has an “essential list” of services, and “mental-health treatment” is one of them. You can be sure the targeting of children will expand.

More and more children will be brought into the system and receive diagnoses of mental disorders and the toxic drugs psychiatrists routinely prescribe. More kids will be screened for depression and undergo “behavioral assessments.”

The influence of psychiatry in young children’s lives is going to expand beyond anything we’ve yet seen. America is going to experience another sea change: the medicalization of children’s behavior will blanket the country.

First of all, as I’ve established many times, NO so-called mental disorder is defined scientifically. There are no physical diagnostic tests: no blood tests, no urine tests, no saliva tests, no genetic tests, no brain-scan tests.

If there were, you would find them in the DSM, the bible of the psychiatric profession, which lists the, yes, 300 mental disorders.

Instead, disorders consist of menus of behaviors assembled by committees of psychiatrists, who decide which clusters of behaviors rate a disorder label.

In a PBS Frontline interview, during the episode called “Does ADHD Exist?”, Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Centerwas asked about the lack of a blood test for ADHD. He made this extraordinary statement:

“That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.That doesn’t make them invalid.”

Dr. Barkley has his own definition of science. If, say, physics surrendered the need for physical tests, it could claim the sun revolves around the Earth, all oceans end in steep cliffs, and unexplored forests automatically contain dragons.

But “psychiatry is different.” Committees of men can assemble lists of behaviors and call them disorders. 300 and counting.

This is why all assessments of numbers of people who have mental disorders are useless. The disorders themselves are arbitrarily concocted.

But there are very serious consequences: drugs and more drugs.

When it comes to their toxicity and behavioral effects, I recommend several sources. The website “SSRI stories” presents a number of studies of the SSRI antidepressants (e.g., Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft). Consult the work of Dr. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Robert Whitaker. Read Breggin’s essential book,Toxic Psychiatry.

Here is important information about one psychiatric drug: Ritalin.

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and prescribes other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium. (To see some of the toxic and dangerous effects of these two drugs, read my article, “The lying liars who lie about psychiatry.”)

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land. Under Obamacare, with psychiatry firmly placed on a par with other branches of medical practice, the plague is going to spread further, as previously uninsured people enter the system.

At the website, “SSRI stories”, you can also read numerous reports of antidepressants’ links to violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. The correlation is not meant to establish a perfect causative chain, but the shocking number of incidents is more than suggestive.

After commenting on some of the adverse effects of the antidepressant drug Prozac, psychiatrist Peter Breggin notes, “From the initial studies, it was also apparent that a small percentage of Prozac patients became psychotic.” Paxil and Zoloft are in the same class of drug as Prozac.

Prozac, in fact, endured a rocky road in the press for a time. Stories on it rarely appear now. The major media have backed off. But on February 7th, 1991, Amy Marcus’ Wall Street Journal article on the drug carried the headline, “Murder Trials Introduce Prozac Defense.” She wrote, “A spate of murder trials in which defendants claim they became violent when they took the antidepressant Prozac are imposing new problems for the drug’s maker, Eli Lilly and Co.”

Also on February 7, 1991, the New York Times ran a Prozac piece headlined, “Suicidal Behavior Tied Again to Drug: Does Antidepressant Prompt Violence?”

In his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Breggin mentions that the Donahueshow (Feb. 28, 1991) “put together a group of individuals who had become compulsively self-destructive and murderous after taking Prozac and the clamorous telephone and audience response confirmed the problem.”

Breggin also cites a troubling study from the February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) which reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”

An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”

The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”

When pressed, proponents of these SSRI drugs sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk,” or, “Maybe in one or two tragic cases the dosage prescribed was too high.” But the problem will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”

In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.

Under Obamacare, mental-health professionals are looking forward to a much larger piece of the “treatment pie.” Huge numbers of previously uninsured people, including vulnerable children, will now move under the psychiatric umbrella, and their futures are at extreme risk.

Psychiatry has deeply troubling similarities to the Surveillance State. It profiles people and labels them. However, it then treats them with highly toxic and dangerous drugs.

In the wake of recent mass killings, Obama has shown his preference for psychiatric treatment in a number of statements. He’s also launched the so-called “brain mapping project,” which aims to detect more “mental problems” that need fixing by drugs and other invasive methods, and he’s promised to establish new community mental-health centers across the nation.

This, taken together with Obamacare, signals a catastrophe, and spells out the need for public resistance.

Jon Rappoport

The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atwww.nomorefakenews.com

The lying liars who lie about psychiatry

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/the-lying-liars-who-lie-about-psychiatry/

By Jon Rappoport

May 7, 2013

www.nomorefakenews.com

These days, we are witnessing an acceleration in the use of psychiatry to target Americans, to label them as dangerous, to take away guns they own, to blame gun violence in the US on mentally ill people. (see also this story by Dan Roberts).

It’s a winning strategy, because most Americans don’t have a clue about the way psychiatry actually works or its pose of being a science.

The public hears techno-speak and nods and surrenders.

If psychiatrists are experts on the human mind, mice can navigate the Arctic in canoes. But psychiatrists are educated to be able to talk a good game.

And politicians are more than happy to mouth vagaries, and consign the problems of society to “mental-health professionals.”

It turns out that the phrase “mental health” was invented by psyops specialists, who needed to create an analogy to physical well-being.

The needed to, because the mind was (and is) a mystery to psychiatrists.

An open secret has been slowly bleeding out into public consciousness for the past ten years.

THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE LABORATORY TESTS FOR ANY SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDER.

And along with that:

ALL SO-CALLED MENTAL DISORDERS ARE CONCOCTED, NAMED, LABELED, DESCRIBED, AND CATEGORIZED by a committee of psychiatrists, from menus of human behaviors.

Their findings are published in periodically updated editions of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), printed by the American Psychiatric Association.

For years, even psychiatrists have been blowing the whistle on this hazy crazy process of “research.”

Of course, pharmaceutical companies, who manufacture highly toxic drugs to treat every one of these “disorders,” are leading the charge to invent more and more mental-health categories, so they can sell more drugs and make more money.

But we have a mind-boggling twist. Under the radar, one of the great psychiatric stars, who has been out in front inventing mental disorders, went public. He blew the whistle on himself and his colleagues. And for 2 years, almost no one noticed.

His name is Dr. Allen Frances, and he made VERY interesting statements to Gary Greenberg, author of a Wired article: “Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness.” (Dec.27, 2010).

Major media never picked up on the interview in any serious way. It never became a scandal.

Dr. Allen Frances is the man who, in 1994, headed up the project to write the latest edition of the psychiatric bible, the DSM-IV. This tome defines and labels and describes every official mental disorder. The DSM-IV eventually listed 297 of them.

In an April 19, 1994, New York Times piece, “Scientist At Work,” Daniel Goleman called Frances “Perhaps the most powerful psychiatrist in America at the moment…”

Well, sure. If you’re sculpting the entire canon of diagnosable mental disorders for your colleagues, for insurers, for the government, for Pharma (who will sell the drugs matched up to the 297 DSM-IV diagnoses), you’re right up there in the pantheon.

Long after the DSM-IV had been put into print, Dr. Frances talked to Wired’s Greenberg and said the following:

“There is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

BANG.

That’s on the order of the designer of the Hindenburg, looking at the burned rubble on the ground, remarking, “Well, I knew there would be a problem.”

After a suitable pause, Dr. Frances remarked to Greenberg, “These concepts [of distinct mental disorders] are virtually impossible to define precisely with bright lines at the borders.”

Frances might have been referring to the fact that his baby, the DSM-IV, had rearranged earlier definitions of ADHD and Bipolar to permit many MORE diagnoses, leading to a vast acceleration of drug-dosing with highly powerful and toxic compounds.

Finally, at the end of the Wired interview, Frances flew off into a bizarre fantasy:

“Diagnosis [as spelled out in the DSM-IV] is part of the magic…you know those medieval maps? In the places where they didn’t know what was going on, they wrote ‘Dragons live here’…we have a dragon’s world here. But you wouldn’t want to be without the map.”

Translation: Patients need hope for the healing of their troubles; so even if we psychiatrists are shooting blanks and pretending to know one kind of mental disorder from another, even if we’re inventing these mental-disorder definitions based on no biological or chemical diagnostic tests—it’s a good thing, because patients will then believe and have hope; they’ll believe it because psychiatrists place a name on their problems…

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with science.

If I were an editor at one of the big national newspapers, and one of my reporters walked in and told me, “The most powerful psychiatrist in America just said the DSM is sheer b.s. but it’s still important,” I think I’d make room on the front page.

If the reporter then added, “This shrink was in charge of creating the DSM-IV,” I’d clear more room above the fold.

If the reporter went on to explain that the whole profession of psychiatry would collapse overnight if the DSM was discredited, I’d call for a special section of the paper to be printed.

I’d tell the reporter to get ready to pound on this story day after day for months. I’d tell him to track down all the implications of Dr. Frances’ statements.

I’d open a bottle of champagne to toast the soon-to-be-soaring sales of my newspaper.

And then, of course, the next day I’d be fired.

Because there are powerful multi-billion-dollar interests at stake, and those people don’t like their deepest secrets exposed in the press.

And as I walked out of my job, I’d see a bevy of blank-eyed pharmaceutical executives marching into the office of the paper’s publisher, ready to read the riot act to him.

Dr. Frances’ work on the DSM-IV allowed for MORE toxic drugs to be prescribed, because the definition of Bipolar was expanded to include more people.

Adverse effects of Valproate (given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

acute, life-threatening, and even fatal liver toxicity;

life-threatening inflammation of the pancreas;

brain damage.

Adverse effects of Lithium (also given for a Bipolar diagnosis) include:

intercranial pressure leading to blindness;

peripheral circulatory collapse;

stupor and coma.

Adverse effects of Risperdal (given for “Bipolar” and “irritability stemming from autism”) include:

serious impairment of cognitive function;

fainting;

restless muscles in neck or face, tremors (may be indicative of motor brain damage).

Dr. Frances’ label-juggling act also permitted the definition of ADHD to expand, thereby opening the door for greater and greater use of toxic Ritalin (and other similar compounds) as the treatment of choice.

So what about Ritalin?

In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published a most important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].

Scarnati listed a large number of adverse affects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.

For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:

Paranoid delusions
Paranoid psychosis
Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
Activation of psychotic symptoms
Toxic psychosis
Visual hallucinations
Auditory hallucinations
Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
Effects pathological thought processes
Extreme withdrawal
Terrified affect
Started screaming
Aggressiveness
Insomnia
Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
Psychic dependence
High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
Decreased REM sleep
When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
Convulsions
Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.

A recent survey revealed that a high percentage of children diagnosed with bipolar had first received a diagnosis of ADHD. This is informative, because Ritalin and other speed-type drugs are given to kids who are slapped with the ADHD label. Speed, sooner or later, produces a crash. This is easy to call “clinical depression.”

Then comes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. These drugs can produce temporary highs, followed by more crashes. The psychiatrist notices the up and down pattern—and then produces a new diagnosis of Bipolar (manic-depression) and other drugs, including Valproate and Lithium.

In the US alone, there are at least 300,000 cases of motor brain damage incurred by people who have been prescribed so-called anti-psychotic drugs (aka “major tranquilizers”). Risperdal (mentioned above as a drug given to people diagnosed with Bipolar) is one of those major tranquilizers. (source: Toxic Psychiatry, Dr. Peter Breggin, St. Martin’s Press, 1991)

This psychiatric drug plague is accelerating across the land.

Where are the mainstream reporters and editors and newspapers and TV anchors who should be breaking this story and mercilessly hammering on it week after week? They are in harness.

And Dr. Frances is somehow let off the hook. He’s admitted in print that the whole basis of his profession is throwing darts at labels on a wall, and implies the “effort” is rather heroic—when, in fact, the effort leads to more and more poisonous drugs being dispensed to adults and children, to say nothing of the effect of being diagnosed with “a mental disorder.”

I’m not talking about “the mental-disease stigma,” the removal of which is one of Hillary Clinton’s missions in life. No, I’m talking about MOVING A HUMAN INTO THE SYSTEM, the medical apparatus, where the essence of the game is trapping that person to harvest his money, his time, his energy, and of course his health—as one new diagnosis follows on another, and one new toxic treatment after another is undertaken, from cradle to grave.

The result is a severely debilitated human being (if he survives), whose major claim to fame is his list of diseases and disorders.

Thank you, Dr. Frances.

Here is a smoking-gun statement made by another prominent psychiatrist, on an episode of PBS’ Frontline series. The episode was: “Does ADHD Exist?”

PBS FRONTLINE INTERVIEWER: Skeptics say that there’s no biological marker—that it [ADHD] is the one condition out there where there is no blood test, and that no one knows what causes it.

BARKLEY (Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center): That’s tremendously naïve, and it shows a great deal of illiteracy about science and about the mental health professions. A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science. That doesn’t make them invalid. [Emphasis added]

Without intending to, Dr. Barkley blows the whistle on his own profession.

So let’s take Dr. Barkley to school. Medical science, and disease-research in particular, rests on the notion that you can make a diagnosis backed up by lab tests. If you can’t produce lab tests, you’re spinning fantasies.

These fantasies might be hopeful, they might be “educated guesses,” they might be launched from traditional centers of learning, they might be backed up by billions of dollars of grant money…but they’re still fantasies.

If I said the moon was made of green cheese, even if I were a Harvard professor, sooner or later someone would ask me to produce a sample of moon rock to be tested for “cheese qualities.” I might begin to feel nervous, I might want to tap dance around the issue, but I would have to submit the rock to a lab.

Dr. Barkley employs a version of logical analysis in his statement to the PBS Frontline interviewer. Barkley is essentially saying, “There is no lab test for any mental disorder. But if a test were the standard of proof, we wouldn’t have science at all, and that would mean our whole profession rests on nothing—and that is absurd, so therefore a test doesn’t matter.”

That logic is no logic at all. Barkley is proving the case against himself. He just doesn’t want to admit it.

Close to 50 years ago, psychiatry was dying out as a profession. Fewer and fewer people wanted to see a psychiatrist for help, for talk therapy. All sorts of new therapies were popping up. The competition was leaving medical psychiatry in the dust.

As Dr. Peter Breggin describes it in his landmark book, Toxic Psychiatry, a deal was struck. Drug companies would bankroll psychiatry and rescue it. These companies would pour money into professional conferences, journals, research. In return, they wanted “science” that would promote mental disease as a biological fact, a gateway into the drugs. Everyone would win—except the patient.

So the studies were rolled out, and the list of mental disorders expanded. The FDA was in on the deal as well, as evidenced by their drug “safety” approvals, in the face of the obvious damage these drugs were doing.

So this is how we arrived at where we are. This was the plan, and it worked.

Under the cover story, it was all fraud all the time. Without much of a stretch, you could say psychiatry has been the most widespread profiling operation in the history of the human race. Its goal has been to bring humans everywhere into its system. It hardly matters which label a person is painted with, as long as it adds up to a diagnosis and a prescription of drugs.

And now, in the wake of the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings, it matters even less who or how many people are labeled with mental disorders. The more the better, as far as government is concerned.

Just as in the old USSR, psychiatry becomes an instrument of oppression, a way to discredit any person the State wants to silence and destroy.

“…in the disputes between the East and West concerning the Russian opponents of the Soviet regime… [m]any dissidents went to lunatic asylums and were treated as mentally sick. Western doctors and the press accused Soviet doctors of being blind instruments of the regime and of having broken the solemn oath of their calling. The Russian doctors thought the West had gone mad in reproaching their behavior. For them, anyone who opposed such an efficient police power must be mentally disturbed. In their view, only those who had what Seneca called Libido morienti (the death wish) would dare to provoke the State. The Russian doctors were convinced that they were undertaking a humanitarian mission by placing the opponents of the regime in asylums and thereby reducing their aggression–the only hope for their survival. To reduce the outstanding to mediocrity was always a medical and human duty in a state where mediocrity had the better chance of survival.” — “Man: The Fallen Ape” by Branko Bokun

 10 13 11 flagbar

“If You Question Authority, You Are Mentally Ill”, Report Finds

January 23rd, 2015 by

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-21/if-you-question-authority-you-are-mentally-ill-report-finds

By Tyler Durden via Zerohedge

Submitted by Pater Tenebrarum via Acting-Man blog,

Only the Sheeple Are Sane

This post is about an issue that is by now a bit dated (though the topic as such certainly isn’t), but we have only just become aware of it and it seemed to us worth rescuing it from the memory hole. In late 2013, the then newest issue of the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM for short) defined a new mental illness, the so-called“oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD.

As TheMindUnleashed.org informs us, the definition of this new mental illness essentially amounts to declaring any non-conformity and questioning of authority as a form of insanity. According to the manual, ODD is defined as:

[…] an “ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile and defiant behavior,” symptoms include questioning authority, negativity, defiance, argumentativeness, and being easily annoyed.

In short, as Natural News put it: According to US psychiatrists, only the sheeple are sane.

Every time a new issue of the DSM appears, the number of mental disorders grows – and this growth is exponential. A century ago there were essentially 7 disorders, 80 years ago there were 59, 50 years ago there were 130, and by 2010 there were 374 (77 of which were “found” in just seven years). A prominent critic of this over-diagnosing (and the associated over-medication trend) is psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan. Here is an interview with her:

Allen Gregg in conversation with psychologist Dr. Paula Caplan

As MindUnleashed notes:

“Are we becoming sicker? Is it getting harder to be mentally healthy? Authors of the DSM-IV say that it’s because they’re better able to identify these illnesses today. Critics charge that it’s because they have too much time on their hands.

New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior. In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re diseases. And there are treatments available.”

1-23-2015 11-56-36 AM

Edward Abbey on what happens when no-one ever stirs things up

 There is an obvious danger involved with such loose definitions such as the one employed in identifying the alleged illness of “ODD”. A chilling example was provided by the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In a 1959 speech, Nikita Khrushchev made the following remark:

“Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. To those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this ‘basis,’ we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communism, but clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.”

Obviously, questioning the best socio-economic system ever devised had to be a sign of insanity, and after Khrushchev’s speech Soviet psychiatrists immediately went to work to discover and institutionalize all those mentally ill “communism deniers”.

The road to what followed had already been paved in 1951, when in a joint session of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences and the Board of the All-Union Neurological and Psychiatric Association, several leading neurologists and psychiatrists were accused of pursuing an “anti-Marxist and reactionary” deviation from the teachings of Pavlov. The session took place on Stalin’s behest so as to “free Soviet psychiatry of Western influences”.

The psychiatrist who wrote the policy report associated with this purge was Andrei Snezhnevsky, who invented (err, “discovered”) a new mental illness, which he termed “sluggish schizophrenia”. After Khrushchev’s 1959 speech, the term was widely adopted and the illness was diagnosed throughout the Eastern Bloc. The symptoms of the alleged “illness” were such that even the slightest change in behavior patterns could henceforth be interpreted as a sign of mental derangement. Political dissent was for instance considered to by a symptom of “sluggish schizophrenia with delusions of reform”.

Snezhnevsky personally signed a decision declaring several prominent dissidents legally insane – among them also neurophysiologist Vladimir Bukovsky, who was the first to expose and criticize the abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union and spent altogether 12 years in prisons, forced labor camps and locked up in psychiatric hospitals for his efforts.

Snezhnevsky’s theories became the only ones acceptable in Soviet psychiatry, and it was obviously held to be quite dangerous to oppose them. Ironically, in 1970, one year before Vladimir Bukovsky managed to smuggle out 150 pages that documented the silencing of political dissenters with the aid of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, the American Psychiatric Association named Snezhnevsky a “distinguished fellow” for his “outstanding contribution to psychiatry and related sciences” at its annual meeting in San Francisco.

 1-23-2015 11-57-48 AM

Soviet psychiatrist Andrei Snezhnevsky, hero of socialist labor, owner of two Orders of Lenin as well as four Orders of the Red Star and USSR state prize.

Photo credit: tapemark.narod.ru

 Money and the Invention of new Categories of Disease

There is a basic problem with psychiatry and psychology: they are largely thymological, as opposed to natural sciences. If you break your arm and visit 10 different medical doctors, you will get the same diagnosis from every single one of them – they will all tell you that your arm is broken. A standardized treatment exists for dealing with a broken arm.

Make a list of psychological problems you are experiencing and visit ten different psychiatrists, and chances are very good that you will receive 10 different diagnoses coupled with 10 different proposals for treatment (including prescriptions for very powerful psychotropic drugs). Genuine severe mental disorders may be connected with chemical imbalances in the brain to some extent (no conclusive proof for this actually exists), but by and large there is little that can be objectively “measured”. The psychologist or psychiatrist must largely rely on the same ability that also characterizes the work of the historian – i.e., what Mises called “understanding”. They can only judge behavior.

So why have so many former “personality traits” been transformed into symptoms of mental illness? One major reason is money. Here are a few data points that shed light on the monetary side of the psychiatry business; the data are by now slightly dated, but they suffice to get the point across. As of 2010:

Global sales of anti-depressants, stimulants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs had reached more than $76 billion per year.

Globally, 54 million people were taking anti-depressants that are known to cause addiction, and often violent and homicidal behavior.

In the US, 20% of all women were taking mental health medication in 2010. Essentially every fourth female is prozac’d into quietude.

20 million children worldwide had been diagnosed with mental disorders and were prescribed stimulants and/or powerful anti-depressants.

In 2002, more than 100 million prescriptions were written for anti-depressants alone (cost: $19.5 billion nominal)

In France, one in seven prescriptions is for a psychotropic drug and more than 50% of the employed were taking such drugs (as of 2010, 1.8 million people).

Between 1986 and 2004, combined spending on anti-psychotic drugs and anti-depressants jumped from $500 million to $20 billion.

In the US, the mental health budget, adjusted for inflation, has soared from $33 billion in 1994 to $ 80 billion in 2010 (similar increases have occurred elsewhere).

(data via Stefan Molyneux)

Stefan Molyneux whom we got the above data from also reports that according to the US National Institute of Mental Health (in 2010) “26% of Americans suffer from mental illness” and “nearly 58 million Americans will suffer from an episode of mental illness in any given year”. There you have it – we’re literally surrounded by lunatics. As Molyneux rightly points out: if there is a disease for which we have effective cures, then application of this cure should reduce the prevalence of the disease.

For instance, a number of infectious diseases have been nearly, or completely exterminated by effective vaccines. We should therefore expect that with the arrival of psychiatric medications that allegedly “correct chemical imbalances in the brain”, there should be a decline in the number of mentally ill people. The first such medications were introduced in the mid 1950s. So what happened? In 1955, there were 355,000 adults confined to mental hospitals all over the US on account of being diagnosed as mentally ill by psychiatrists. After 50 years of medical treatment with anti-psychotic drugs, that number has risen to more than 4 million patients (as of 2007). Some success!

While the prescription of psychiatric medications to children soared from the mid 1980s to today, so did the number of youth receiving disability payments from the government for mental disability. It rose from 16,200 in 1986 to 561,569 in 2007 (a 35 fold increase). It appears that all those meds prescribed to “ODD” and “ADHD” children have had the exact opposite effect from that advertised.

 1-23-2015 11-59-17 AM

Again, there exists no convincing proof as of yet for any chemical, biological or genetic causes of mental illness. The categorizations found in the DSM are arrived at by “peer consensus”, not by any objective measurements. And yet, drugs that alter chemical balances in the brain are prescribed as treatment. The greater the number of new diseases manufactured by said consensus, the more treatments can be prescribed. As Dr. Thomas Dorman, internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians of the UK, and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada, put it:

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease,’ formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.”

It is not too difficult to see the enormous monetary incentives that are driving this business of declaring as many people as possible to be mentally ill. There no longer is such a thing as a harmless “eccentric”. Any deviation from the norms laid out by the psychiatric profession mean one is in need of treatment. Only the sheeple are sane.

Stefan Molyneux’s podcast on mental illness from which we have taken most of the statistics presented above can be seen here:

 Stefan Molyneux on mental illness.

 Freethinkers Medicated Into Silence by Good Serfs

However, there may be another reason why anti-authoritarianism specifically has made it onto the list of behaviors held to be symptomatic of mental illness. Psychologist Dr. Bruce Levine has laid the problem out in an article entitled “Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill”. A few pertinent excerpts follow below. First Dr. Levine explains why there seem so few anti-authoritarians in the US. The reason in his opinion is that many have been medicated into silence:

“Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.

Some activists lament how few anti-authoritarians there appear to be in the United States. One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psycho-pathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities.”

(emphasis added)

But why does this happen, apart from the monetary incentives discussed above? Why are psychiatrists so eager to medicate anti-authoritarians into a stupor? In Dr. Levine’s opinion, the reason is that the career of most psychiatrists involves an extraordinary degree of compliance with authorities, to the point where they are not even aware anymore of how obedient they have become. When confronted with patients who aren’t exhibiting a similar degree of obedient behavior, they immediately suspect that there is something to diagnose and treat:

“The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another world—a diagnosable one.

I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and othermental health professionals are not only extraordinarily compliant with authorities but also unaware of the magnitude of their obedience. And it also has become clear to me that the anti-authoritarianism of their patients creates enormous anxiety for these professionals, and their anxiety fuels diagnoses and treatments.  (emphasis added)

1-23-2015 12-01-30 PM

1-23-2015 12-02-58 PM

It is probably a good bet that a Haldol-addled Einstein wouldn’t have excelled at much. Well, he even looked crazy: theoretical physicist and reputed anti-authoritarian Albert Einstein, who invented a few unimportant little formulas like E=mc2. Rumor has it he also invented gravity, which we have been struggling against ever since.

Photo credit: Getty Images

As Dr. Levine points out, once they are diagnosed as mentally ill, anti-authoritarians are especially likely to become victims of a vicious cycle:

“Many anti-authoritarians who earlier in their lives were diagnosed with mental illness tell me that once they were labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis, they got caught in a dilemma.

Authoritarians, by definition, demand unquestioning obedienceand so any resistance to their diagnosis and treatment created enormous anxiety for authoritarian mental health professionalsand professionals, feeling out of control, labeled them “noncompliant with treatment,” increased the severity of their diagnosis, and jacked up their medications.”

(emphasis added)

Dr. Levine then concludes that the direction in which the system has evolved is indeed reminiscent of a “Sovietization”; just as the ruling classes once employed an authoritarian religious establishment to enforce compliance with the status quo, they can nowadays rely on psychiatry to do the job:

“What better way to maintain the status quo than to view inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as biochemical problems of those who are mentally ill rather than normal reactions to an increasingly authoritarian society.

So authoritarians financially marginalize those who buck the system, they criminalize anti-authoritarianism, they psychopathologize anti-authoritarians, and they market drugs for their “cure.”

(emphasis added)

Evidently the system provides ample scope for both intentional and unintentional abuse.

Conclusion:

In order to prevent misunderstandings, we should point out that we don’t want to assert here that there exists no such thing as mental illness, or that psychiatry is completely useless in diagnosing it or providing effective treatment. The same holds for psychotropic medication: there certainly exist medications that can be helpful in alleviating symptoms of severe mental conditions and allow people to lead fairly normal lives that would otherwise be out of reach for them (i.e., we don’t fully agree with Stefan Molyneux’s conclusions; this is simply based on the fact that we personally know of two cases in which appropriate medication helped people exhibiting severe symptoms associated with schizophrenia).

However, it is important to realize that the sciences dealing with the human mind are thymological in nature and cannot make claims based on objectively measurable physical quantities. And yet, the field has turned into a “growth industry” in every respect; the number of behaviors regarded as “abnormal”, as well as the number of medications prescribed for treating such behaviors has grown exponentially. This is a dangerous development and the fact that almost every quirky personality trait is suddenly deemed a sign of disease is certainly giving one pause (it is dangerous in several respects: consider for instance the great number of mass murderers who were prescribed psychotropic drugs. Correlation is not always causation of course, but still…)

The psychopathologizing of anti-authoritarian behavior is yet another step on what looks like an increasingly slippery slope and it strikes us as especially harmful. As Dr. Levine inter alia points out: “It has been my experience that many anti-authoritarians labeled with psychiatric diagnoses usually don’t reject all authorities, simply those they’ve assessed to be illegitimate ones.”

In other words, the term “anti-authoritarian” does not necessarily stand for a blanket rejection of all authorities, but rather a healthy questioning of the legitimacy of existing authorities. This seems all the more necessary today, when governments in the name of providing all-encompassing security (a task at which they are predictably failing) are seeing fit to let individual liberty die a death of a thousand cuts.

1-23-2015 12-04-24 PMOLDDOGS COMMENTS 

YOU CAN COUNT ME AMONG THE INSANE, AND I’M KEEPING DAMN GOOD COMPANY THESE LAST DAYS

CORRUPTION IN EDUCATION THAT BRAINWASHES YOUR KIDS

January 22nd, 2015 by

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ewart/ron187.htm

1-22-2015 1-09-28 PM

By Ron Ewart
January 21, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

Plank” satire) covered racketeering in the federal government and corruption in the American judicial system. We understand how there might be a Ho Hum response to the information we presented in those two articles because there is so little that the average citizen can do about either one of these issues individually. But when it comes to your children, we hope that what we present here gathers a little more interest.

The greatest gift we can give to our children is not just our undying love and reasonable discipline, but what we teach them and how we oversee what others are teaching them. If you are not interested in how your children are being manipulated, molded and indoctrinated by the public education system, at the behest of government, unions and special interest groups, you are not interested in your children’s long-term well being and future.

There are three major influences on your children’s public education. The unions that control the teachers, the colleges that teach the teachers and those individuals and entities that control the curriculum and the textbooks from which your children will learn. Although most teachers are basically devoted to teaching their students, they are still controlled by the unions and most unions are hopelessly corrupt. The teachers are also a product of what they are taught in teaching colleges. Both the teaching colleges and the individuals and entities that control the curriculum and the textbooks are equally corrupt because they are fundamentally controlled by a single, distorted and flawed ideology that has become embedded in every one of our institutions. This ideology is tantamount to a cult like religion where the ideology is an absolute (like Islam), at the exclusion of all other ideologies, ideas and concepts. That is not only corrupt it is collusion between government, unions and colleges. Obama’s brand of socialism and national and international radical environmentalism are examples of cult-like ideologies.

In a previous article we wrote:

“Several years ago and based on knowledge, experience and observations, we developed a theory about mental processes, biases and deep-seated beliefs of the general population. We called this theory, the “Little Black Box” theory. This theory applies across the board to almost everything we believe in and everything we do in our lives. It is inescapable and what is in the “Little Black Box” determines, to a large margin, how our lives will turn out. It determines our thoughts, religious beliefs, sexual proclivities, our fears, our strengths, our weaknesses, our successes or failures and even our political persuasions. The content of the “Little Black Box” and thus a person’s point of reference, begins to fill up at a very early age and the person is not aware, nor do they have any control of what is going into it, because it is determined by their early environment, along with a dash of their biological parent’s genetics.”

“People behave in direct proportion to the content of the “Little Black Box” and in most cases they are not aware that they are behaving in this manner. To them it is perfectly normal. In fact, what is in the “Little Black Box” defines who they are early on in their lives. Changes to the content of the “Little Black Box” rarely occur throughout a person’s lifetime. When they do occur, it is almost always the result of some revelation, a violent act or accident, overpowering new information, (true or false) or an epiphany.”

Your children, as they progress in age, are filling up their “Little Black Boxes” at an alarming rate. What they learn in public education will have a profound effect on the rest of their lives. It would seem that a parent’s primary duty and obligation is to make sure that what goes into their “Little Black Boxes” is essentially fundamental truths on which their children can rely, in their adult lives. That is not happening in America’s public school system today. Just the opposite is true.

The corruption of unions is easy. Unions are driven strictly by money and how to preserve or increase the money coming in to their own coffers, or to the teacher’s paychecks. Political power is the means to that end. Their cozy relationship with government in negotiating teacher contracts, especially Democrat politicians, is a self-fulfilling prophecy of government run amok, corruption and collusion. K-12 public education is mandated by law and public education requires teachers to teach. Unions represent those teachers and with the threat of strike, the unions can cut just about any deal they want with government. It’s that simple.

In 2013 the cost per student in the U. S. was $12,608 and bloated union contracts are responsible for a good portion of that cost. Unfortunately, in spite of the vast sums of taxpayer money being spent on public education per student, the U. S. ranks 13th in the developed countries of the world. That is appalling.

So how do you fight this cozy and corrupt relationship that unions have with government? First, the people must elect tough politicians, like Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, to conduct the negotiations from the side of government because government represents the taxpayer. Second, the average citizen must take up the sword of freedom and expose the corruption in teacher’s unions and government ….. that is if they truly care about their children and their bank accounts.

However, the systemic and embedded corruption in public education resulting from an institutionalized ideology, is much more problematic. The same dilemma can be applied to the peaceful Muslim vs. the radical Muslim problem. How do you convince the radical Muslim that gets his kicks out of brutality, murder and mayhem, to become a peaceful Muslim? Although the problems are similar, the solutions are totally different.

America has the most powerful, well-trained and well-equipped military on the planet. Our power to destroy or defeat an enemy militarily is unmatched. But with all this military might, that same military is powerless against an embedded and institutionalized ideology, whether that ideology is abroad (Islam), or right here at home. The Romans learned this the hard way when they were confronted by the ideology of Christianity. First, Christianity was little more than wispy smoke that smoldered in the far reaches of the empire. But then it became a raging fire that burned its way across all of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean and beyond. There is nothing more powerful than an idea that becomes a mindset in the general population. Sadly, a powerful but flawed ideology has become a mindset in the general population of America and if that ideology is not defeated, America has no future as a free nation.

You must kill the radical Muslim, but to change the hearts and minds of those who believe in the flawed ideology that now rules all of our American institutions, it requires constant and repeated education and re-programming over decades, if not generations. It is not a problem that can be fixed in a single election cycle. It took over 100 years to get where we are today.

This flawed ideology that has infiltrated all of our institutions and is teaching your children, contains elements of social justice, multi-culturalism, political correctness, irrational compassion and radical environmentalism.

Social justice is based on the rationale that every man should be equal in outcomes, not equal in opportunity and “equal” is defined and implemented by government, either by force of law, or force of arms. That rationale is in direct conflict with the U. S. Constitution.

Multi-culturalism has never worked because a nation’s survival and continued success is based on a single language and assimilation to its morality, laws and ingrained culture. Just ask Europe about multi-culturalism. It is tearing at the very heart of the European nations and their cultures, with the influx of immigrants from the Middle East that do not assimilate, nor do they intend to.

Multi-culturalism will eventually consume America, if the people let it. The white and black cultures are not melding as hoped and the divide grows, fueled by charges of White racism and White privilege from the left ….. for votes. The massive influx of the brown-skinned socialist cultures from south of our border have not and will not assimilate into the American culture of one language, self-reliance and the unalienable right of individual freedom. The ideology that promotes and enables government dependency, unchecked immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens, is the same ideology used to teach your children in public schools.

Political correctness is based on the rationale that no person or group of persons should suffer insults or be offended. That of course is impossible and robs people of learning how to deal with the differences in people and in cultures. Political correctness is also a deadly policy and gets people killed because it precludes determining the origins of a particular threat to life, liberty and property and rooting it out.

Irrational compassion is based on the philosophy that any suffering by any one or more persons, regardless of circumstances, requires assistance from government, whether the government can afford it or not. It is also a political strategy, primarily by the left, to buy votes. It is this policy of irrational compassion that has essentially led America into virtual bankruptcy, the ever-weakening core of its people from dependency and the destruction of individual freedom and our constitution.

We have written volumes about radical environmentalism. Once again, radical environmentalism is a policy implemented by the ruling class and built on human guilt for having the audacity to harm the planet just by living. Your children are being taught that Americans are the worst offenders of environmental degradation and they must pay the price for their transgressions. But it is not about protecting the environment ladies and gentlemen, it is however, about control.

This is what is being taught to your children in public schools, merged in with math, English and history. It is all about control of the masses through social and environmental propaganda. The federal government hijacked Common Core State Standards (Common Core) to implement its social agenda. (See: “Common Core Standards – Suspicions Confirmed”) Now, Obama wants to make a college education free …. once again to buy the votes from the millennials. Since nothing is free, guess who gets to pay?

Schools are no longer objective arenas of learning. They have become political classrooms to promote a political agenda. That political agenda is Progressivism, which is pure socialism by any other name. Promoting a political agenda isn’t learning, it is indoctrination. Hitler would be proud of what the federal government, the unions and teaching colleges have done to education in America, as compared to what he did with Hitler’s Youth. Your children are being schooled in the art of mob mentality, loyalty to the collective and strict compliance to government rule. They are not being schooled in individual thought, how to solve problems with inductive and deductive reasoning and the fundamentals of liberty where individual, unalienable rights are natural rights, not government legislated or approved rights.

Ladies and gentlemen, you may not be able to change government racketeering or the corruption in the American judicial system right away, but you sure can change how your children are being taught at the local level, that is if you really care about what is being spoon fed into your children’s “Little Black Boxes.”

Trust in government and most of our institutions has all but evaporated. People now just endure the corruption in our institutions but they don’t do anything about it. Consequently, the corruption grows more and more every day. It is our intent through processes that we will reveal at a later date, to combat that corruption by exposing and disclosing it at the county level all across America and communicating that information to a national audience, with the goal of restoring trust and integrity in our institutions. With a relatively small group of dedicated individuals, it can be done.

© 2015 Ron Ewart — All Rights Reserved

 Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property issues and author of his weekly column, “In Defense of Rural America”, is the President of the National Association of Rural Landowners, (NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org) a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.

Website: www.narlo.org

E-Mail: info@narlo.org

  [NOTE: The forgoing article represents the opinion of the author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives, or agents of the publisher.]

10 13 11 flagbar

 

 

ReSet Has Already Begun

January 21st, 2015 by

http://www.dinarrecaps.com/our-blog/the-reset-has-already-begun-by-bill-holter

 By Bill Holter

For several years there has been talk of a financial and economic “re set” coming, this is no longer speculation as the reset has already begun!  The Swiss have suppressed the price of their currency, the franc, since late 2011.  They pegged the franc versus the euro with a “floor” versus the euro at 1.20.

After confirming this floor publicly on Monday, they abandoned it Thursday only to see the euro depreciate through the par level.  What you saw on Thursday and Friday was the work of Mother Nature as the Swiss decided they would be better served by no longer battling her.

The ramifications of this move by the Swiss are almost infinite when you consider the chain reactions they have now started.  Several large FOREX firms including the largest retail firm in the U.S., FXCM, were rendered bankrupt overnight.  
~~~

Even Goldman Sachs and Citi admitted to being offside and sustained large losses.  As of right now, we have no idea who “won” and who “lost”, nor do we know “how much?”

We heard almost nothing from Swiss or European banks on Friday, “who what and how much?” will begin to surface this coming week.  As I have written for years now, if the loser goes bankrupt, the winner does not get paid…thus turning the winner into a loser.

This is a very big problem the markets ignored on Friday but will not be able to ignore as the dead bodies begin to surface.

Think about this point very seriously, many investors (and firms) went to bed Wednesday evening with no stress at all on their portfolios (or their business), in just five minutes Thursday morning they were insolvent.  Just FIVE MINUTES!  We are only talking about “investments” here, how many other real businesses in the import and export area are now broke?

Broke because they hold euros but need francs or they export from Switzerland or import to Europe and now their business model makes no sense?  How is this even possible in just five minutes time?

Another aspect to what and how the Swiss moved on Thursday is that of “central banks” themselves.  Did the Swiss not know they were going to float the franc on Monday when they confirmed the peg publicly?

Did they or did they not inform the IMF prior their actions?  What about the BIS which is headquartered within their borders in Basel, surely they tipped them off?  Christine LaGarde claimed in an interview with CNBC that she had no prior notice, really?

If this is true then it shows the Swiss central bank has moved in an “every man for himself” type of action.  It also shows the “united front” of central banks is not so “united” anymore!  If Ms. LaGarde is not telling the truth and in fact the IMF did have prior knowledge, what would this mean?

It would mean the central banks are finally losing control of the rig
.  It would also mean the central banks have distorted currencies, interest rates etc. so badly that once Mother Nature takes over, we can expect repeat performances all over the world and amongst all assets and currencies.  How can I say this?

I would simply ask if it is “normal” for two trading currencies to revalue 30% in five minutes or if it is not normal, what was the cause?  We of course know, the cause was the actions of the ECB and SNB over these last three+ years.

We have already speculated the Swiss made this move for one of two reasons.  First, they may have decided the amount of euros necessary to purchase (and thus the amount of francs created) will go exponential this coming week when the ECB goes full on QE (printing).

We also know that euros already make up more than half of their balance sheet.  The other possibility is they know the Greek election is coming up, (the Greek banks are already experiencing bank runs) and they see the very real possibility of the Eurozone fracturing or even dissolving.

Another possibility is maybe they just decided “their first loss is their best loss”?  Maybe they have watched as the core of Europe has asked for their gold back and understand that “trust” amongst central bankers is waning?

Maybe they simply decided to front run the obvious and necessary re set and do it on their own terms?  It is very hard to say what exactly the motivation was, the important thing to understand is their action has started are set in motion which will not be stopped!  In plain English, the Swiss just yelled FIRE …while standing in the exit!

I have several other questions but first I want to point out the obvious.  Oil was cut in more than half in dollars over 6 months, could you say the price of oil was “re set”?  How about copper?  How about other foreign currencies?  Could the huge moves in so many assets qualify as being “re set”?

The collapse in oil and copper prices are black swans pointing to a rapidly slowing global economy.  The Swiss removing their currency peg is another black swan event and in reaction to the ECB moving toward hyperinflating their currency.

My biggest question now is this, what will happen when China allows their currency to float?  The Swiss are one thing, China is whole different story!  Think of the ramifications when it comes to trade? 

Another, maybe even more important question is what will happen when the Chinese “force” the price of gold and silver to trade freely?  Let me explain this further.

The Chinese know full well that gold IS money, otherwise they would not have spent the last several years buying almost every single ounce that came from the ground.  They know it is artificially priced by New York and London.

They can “float” gold in several manners.  First, they can simply bust the COMEX and LBMA by bidding for and purchasing both their entire inventories within a 24 hour window.

Another possibility would be to simply put out a “global bid” and state some price (much higher than current) they are willing to buy any and all gold, presto, COMEX and LBMA would be busted without them doing it directly!

I recently wrote of a “Global Margin Call” where because oil and other assets, currencies, etc. have moved so rapidly, many derivatives traders have surely been thrown “offside”.  This move by the Swiss is nothing different except it was done “officially”.

Actually, the funny thing is they moved to suspend what they were “officially” (and artificially!) doing.  The move by the Swiss has only made the global margin call that much bigger!  The global re set which was already in the works is now publicly and officially happening before your very eyes.

You can close your eyes or not believe this fact, it will not make it go away, nor will it insulate you financially from what is coming.

To finish, and I plan to follow up maybe even tomorrow, the most important re set will be that of gold and silver prices.  I say “most important” because these are the only “tools” available to you as an individual to protect your wealth.

If the Swiss franc and the euro can change in value by 30% within five minutes, what do you think the revaluation of gold and silver will be when the 100 ounces of “paper metal” come looking for the real thing?  At what price will the market clear?  Add a zero?  Two zero’s?

Please understand this, when the margin call is issued worldwide, there is only one money where the call will work in reverse, precious metals.  The “call” will be for real, yet non existent metal.

Gold had already sniffed this margin call and re set out a couple of months ago.  No matter how much paper was thrown at it, it simply stopped going down.  Even while the dollar strengthened synthetically, gold went higher versus the dollar.

Gold has clearly been THE best money, what do you think will happen to real metal when it turns out that 99% of the supposed global supply is proven as counterfeit?

We will soon witness the greatest margin call in all of history.  We will also witness the greatest transfer of wealth and re set in all of history!  My only question is whether what so far has been “rolling re sets” becomes an official market/bank/finance closure and announced …or, do the markets continue to trade and force re sets in market after market.

As an additional note, we have one last question to ponder which may or may not be connected.  Koos Jansen put forth a “mystery guest’s” theory that the Swiss went short gold in Sept. 2011 which marked the top in gold.  He asks in the following link, “did Switzerland just cover their short“?   LINK

https://www.bullionstar.com/blog/koos-jansen/guest-post-i-have-a-theory-on-the-swiss-franc/

I believe there may be some credence to this theory but would go one step further.  Zerohedge asks the question and speculates Japan may be the next “Switzerland” and pull the plug on Abenomics.  

Personally I see it a little differently, more importantly, what if the Chinese were to react to the coming QE4 by doing two things?  What if China just walked away and sold their dollar holdings …and at the same time revoked their current peg of the yuan to the dollar?

Will China some day ratio back their yuan with gold?  I think this is likely.  Would the dollar collapse 30%  like the euro just did versus the franc or will the re set be much larger?

Of course the next question would be “how high would gold be marked up”?  An unpegging of the yuan by China would be more important and (current) system ending than nearly anything else I can imagine.

 For China to break their peg, the paper short positions in gold and silver would finally be exposed for what they are, counterfeits!

Regards,  Bill Holter

BILL HOLTER, Associate Writer, Miles Franklin Precious Metal Specialists Website: www.milesfranklin.com

Prior to joining Miles Franklin in 2012, Bill Holter Worked as a retail stockbroker for 23 years, including 12 as a branch manager at A.G. Edwards.  Later, he left Wall Street to avoid potential liabilities related to management of paper assets.  In 2006 he retired and moved to Costa Rica where he lived until 2011 when he moved back to the United States.  Bill was a well-known contributor to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA)

http://blog.milesfranklin.com/the-reset-has-already-begun

 10 13 11 flagbar

THE BATTLE FOR YOUR MIND

January 20th, 2015 by

http://personalliberty.com/battle-mind/

1-20-2015 11-47-40 AM

Who rules America? Not the people, but they believe that they do.

It is far easier for the establishment to rule as long as they can keep the people thinking that they rule themselves. U.S. elections are a sham, and U.S. politicians are a disgrace. But as long as people can vote, they feel convinced that they can influence government.

The recent win by the establishment in the vote to retain Weeper John Boehner as speaker, the revised proposal by Republican senators to bring in millions of immigrants for science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) jobs that do not exist, and the touting of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush in the mainstream media as front-runners for the GOP presidential nomination should have put that lie to bed. But people don’t think for themselves. They think what the controlled media tells them to think.

We are imprisoned by our thoughts as they are prescribed by the elites. And sadly, most people have no clue that they don’t know or what they don’t know and believe they know far more than others in the crowd around them. They live their whole lives believing they make choices as they are free to do when they are making choices only as prescribed by the system and to the benefit of the state.

People often question my claim that the mass media is equally responsible for mass manipulation, together with the politicians and ecumenical religious leaders. What you may or may not know, however, is this simple fact: One-world government and one-world religion (this is something I will deal with in future articles) requires one-world propaganda. Until one understands this fact, one cannot read between the lines or otherwise decipher mass media reports, and thus begin to make sense of the “global loonies” and their “globaloney.”

Six mega-corporations control 90 percent of all that you read, watch or hear. This is down from more than 50 companies 30 years ago. Here is a graphic that shows how it works.

The so-called “journalists” from those organizations operate in an echo chamber founded by a left-wing activist, Billy Wimsatt.

More than 1,000 of these front-line “journalists” and editorialists from such organizations as CNNThe Huffington PostThe New York TimesThe Washington PostThomson ReutersThe NationAl Jazeera AmericaU.S. News & World Report, among others — along with members of progressive (i.e., socialist/communist) think tanks and activist organizations like the Center for Media and Democracy, the American Legislative Issue Campaign Exchange and the American Sustainable Business Council — are members of a secretive and closed Google group called Gamechanger Salon in which they meet online to exchange information, ideas and strategy to promote progressive ideas, policies and candidates.

Almost all major television media currently have strong ties to the Obama administration and government agencies. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood both have siblings employed by Obama’s National Security Council working on policy issues. CNN’s Virginia Moseley is married to Tom Nides, former deputy secretary of State who worked under Hillary Clinton at the time of the Benghazi attacks. Former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is married to ABC reporter Claire Shipman. Carney is now a contributor for CNN. NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to Michael Gottlieb, who works in the White House counsel’s office. Vice President Joe Biden’s communications director is Shailigh Murray, a former reporter for The Washington Post who is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal’s top political reporters.

But it’s not confined to the Obama administration. George Stephanopoulos, the chief anchor and chief political reporter at ABC News, is a former Democrat operative and Bill Clinton communications director and senior policy adviser. He’s also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The CFR, according to the late Carroll Quigley (himself a CFR member) in his book “Tragedy and Hope,” “… is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established.”

For more than eight decades, most cabinet posts for both Republican and Democrat presidents, as well as past presidents, vice presidents and presidential candidates are/were CFR members. These include Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jack Kemp, Geraldine Ferraro, George H.W. Bush (who was also CIA), Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Newt Gingrich, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. The CFR’s membership list is a Who’s Who of the heads of the State Departments and senior presidential advisers past and present.

In the media, Fox News star Charles Krauthammer is a CFR member, as is Tom Brokaw, Katie Couric, Charlie Rose, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Paula Zahn, Bill Moyers, James Zogby (of the Zogby poll) and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes.

Former George W. Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino is a Fox News co-host and political commentator. Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine and a frequent Fox News contributor is married to Russell Schriefer, a Republican operative who was Mitt Romney’s senior adviser in 2012.

The late Tim Russert, who hosted NBC’s “Meet the Press” for 17 years until his death in 2008, was a former Democrat operative and worked previously for Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

Under the Bush regime, we learned that syndicated broadcast host Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. In 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services disseminated a propaganda video promoting the Medicare prescription drug law that ended with the tagline “In Washington, I’m Karen Ryan reporting.” This video and several like it were run by local television stations as news clips without disclosing its source. This was blatant government propaganda that violated U.S. law, and it was shut down by an inspector general.

In October, a German reporter revealed in a book titled “Gekaufte Journalisten” (translates to “Bought Journalism”) that most of the national journalists work for intelligence agencies like the CIA, Germany’s Bundasnachrichtendienst (BND), Israel’s Mossad and Great Britain’s MI6.

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte told American Free Press that “typically, intelligence agencies use ‘unofficial covers’ — people working for the agency but not actually on its payroll as agents. It is a broad, loose network of ‘friends,’ doing one another favors. Many are lead journalists from numerous countries. This informality provides plausible deniability for both sides, but it means an ‘unofficial cover,’ as Ulfkotte became, is on his own if captured.”

Reporters get large sums of money, gifts, public recognition, significant career advancement and open doors to the elite policymakers in the Trilateral Commission (an arm of the CFR), Atlantik-Brücke, the Aspen Institute and German Marshall Fund of the United States in exchange for information obtained through spying. Those who don’t cooperate are fired.

Utfkottee told RT: “We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets… I’m ashamed I was part of it. Unfortunately I cannot reverse this. Although my superiors at the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung approved of what I did, I’m still to blame. But yes, to my knowledge I am the first to accuse myself and to prove many others are to blame.”

James Foley, the journalist allegedly beheaded by ISIS, was likely CIA and definitely had ties to the CIA front group USAID. If indeed he was beheaded, he learned firsthand what “on his own if captured” really means.

It is common knowledge that CNN’s Anderson Cooper was (is? It’s conventional wisdom that once one is CIA he is always CIA) CIA before he took his CNN gig. National Review founder William F. Buckley was also CIA (and a CFR member), and it’s likely the CIA funded the startup of his neocon publication, National Review. His son Christopher revealed in a book that Buckley maintained CIA ties after he began running the magazine.

So-called “feminist icon,” political activist and founder of Ms. magazine Gloria Steinem is also CIA — and a communist.

Fox News, the go-to site for most conservatives looking for “news” that is “fair and balanced,” is partially owned (7 percent stake) by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Talal has claimed in speeches that he’s made calls to Fox majority owner Rupert Murdock, a member of the CFR (who is Australian and whose British news agencies were involved in an illegal phone hacking scandal), to influence the network’s reporting on Muslim affairs.

The talking head commentators you see on television spinning the various pro-state, pro-war memes — particularly on Fox — are neocons and decepticons who earn paychecks from various think tanks funded by various corporations, co-ops and foreign governments, as are the “experts”testifying before Congressional committees and lobbyists buying favors from Congressweasels and government agencies.

Foreign relations, the key aim of the CFR, was the entry for globalism to destroy American sovereignty and independence.

Globalism as a permanent aspect of American government was enshrined in the 1920s, beginning with the Wilson administration and World War I and culminating in an irrevocable, imperialistic, military presence all over the world. Globalism is the ultimate form of collectivism.

This should help you to better understand why politicians and their media enablers continue to advocate for policies contrary to the best interests of America and its people.

The globalists plan to import great masses of Third World people to take American jobs at starvation wages and thus finish off the middle class once and for all. As part of the implementation, all sorts of Third World diseases are being introduced to the U.S., from West Nile virus to Ebola to the norovirus.

Also, as the Democrats discovered, and as the establishment branch of the Republicans seeks to take advantage of, Third Worlders make a wonderful voter base for the expansion of national collectivism. Coming from socialist hellholes, they clamor for nanny-state socialist programs and anti-gun legislation that are anathema to conservative Americans.

Unlimited immigration is phase two of the “free trade” movement, the first phase of which exported American manufacturing jobs and companies to Third World nations. By this method the globalists circumvent the American political process (another notorious CFR “end run around national sovereignty,” as CFR member Richard Gardner described it in 1974), for certainly very few Americans would vote to revolutionize America to create a nation that doesn’t speak English or embrace American values of hard work, independence and self-reliance.

The globalist mass media must be decoded on our terms — on the basis of our original politics, our original culture, our original beliefs and our original traditions. Unless one approaches the mass media in this way, one does not have the tools to keep from being brainwashed by globalism, even if it is called “democratic” globalism.

The need to conceal evil is becoming less necessary as the American people themselves continue to become more perverted. Democracy is all about the transformation of human beings to the animal farm of mass mental brutalization where they are conditioned to defend their worst betrayers.

There is a battle for your mind over who will control America. The truth is in plain sight for those who seek it. But none do inside the MSM because that is their death knell (see Helen Thomas and Sharyl Attkisson). That is why the elites want to control the Internet and shut down alternative media.

 10 13 11 flagbar


SEO Powered By SEOPressor