Home

Do Good and Don’t Be Suckered

1 Comment

new-logo25 James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization

_____________________________________________________

“There is something in us that refuses to be treated as less than human. We are created for freedom.” – Archbishop Desmond Tutu

___________________________________________________

There is so much hate in this current world and so much deception. Yesterday, I responded to an over-sized card I got in the mail from the phone giant Cyberlink inviting me, in effect, to change my satellite TV provider from DISH, which I presently have bundled with them, back to DIRECT, which I had bundled with back before their own dramatic price rise. I was invited to lock in the lowest price for three years. So, I called and got this people-friendly guy who told me right off that if I really wanted the lowest price, then the three-year stable-price deal was out the window. But he could save me $35 a month (big money for me, by the way) for the first year, and then I’d be free to scrum month-by-month for continued lower rates via whatever promotion they had on offer at the time.

He also explained he could throw in a $150 Visa card (bearing what interest he neglected to say), and could waive the supposedly usual deposit and give me $50 off the first payment, with no connection fee. I took his word on it, because no choice and it sounded substantially better than what I had, so I gave him my “physical address”, SS #, blood type, etc., and he locked me in and assigned me a new registration number, and then he told me I had to give him two months payment in advance immediately plus rent on the box. Stipulations, reservations, and numbers flying in every direction! And then, when I told him – well, I won’t tell you what I told him – and that the deal was off, he informed me I was already on the hook for it and cast me into what turned out to be permanent purgatory hold to try and explain the whole sequence to a different operative and cancel if I could remember enough or any of it – doubtful. Lucy and the football again!

I know that their agents, or (excuse me!) “independent contractors” are rewarded with so close to zilch by these humongous interlocking conglomerates of interlocking conglomerates, most or all owned by or through Vanguard as most likely a mere sideline to central banking and issuing earth-shaking directives and playing paymaster to countless millions, if not billions, of working stiffs globally, while posing as the American and beyond economy, that the minions all feel that they have to pass along as much of the misery, scripted chicanery, and petty disinformation as they can just to survive it themselves. And they are probably correct in that bitterly-inculcated assumption. (It’s a lot like, “if the WTC asbestos is going to cost us billions to extricate, sure, we’ll conspire.”) All of a seamless piece – this niggling deceit, state violence and boundless intrigue, shaped fiction as news, financial manipulation, theft of popular and national control.

So, with this, one wonders, just mightn’t it be better to go back to locally-based phone companies with equipment and connections that actually work and TV programming that’s all paid for by advertising – which we have to endure being thoroughly brainwashed by anyway? And, what’s it to us if the interlocking directorates don’t get their tidy per diems? Let them live on crackers and cheese off their piddling mercenaries, bombs, and our beggaring interest and debt! I’m beginning to think that “free enterprise” ain’t really all that free!

A recent theme is that the Internet can rescue humankind from government and establishment lies and deceptions. Wish that it were true! First, the percentage of people who search for the truth of things online must be in the low single digits at best. And even these oddest of folks (i.e., we) are quite effectively neutralized up to now by demonization, humiliation, threats, dire threats, and more effective and more rapid-fire lies, try as we might.

Also, nothing, and I mean nothing! on the Internet is authoritative at all in the sense that Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley once were. Even today, all of the authority that there is is on the other side. What do we have that anyone should believe us? Grit and truth alone. Probably, not even time.

But no standard for believability exists, so we in the Truth Community all end up suspecting each other of shill-dom, troll-dom, or possibly something worse if we don’t agree on absolutely everything. Hardly inspiring credence!

So, let’s instead all try living by the tried, true and for the most part abandoned standard of absolute ethical/moral purity, so that people will have no cause to want to disbelieve us. We must literally be the society we seek to birth. Or else, we can cast no aspersions. No more ad hominems or unsubstantiated charges based on little more than 360-degree suspicion (a character flaw usually stuck with a less-flattering name). Stick to the verified and verifiable facts and extend courtesy and withhold final judgment even where doing so may not be deserved. Going forward, we must stand out for forbearance, not quick-triggered-ness, because there’s more than we can handle that we can prove.

In discourse, never lose sight of justice; but we must strive our utmost to resemble the extraordinary forgivers of the church in Charleston. And we will probably lose some points in so doing, but gradually gain a whole lot more, I believe, than we ever dreamed.

One more motto we can proudly place on our banners for all to see and repeat – “DO GOOD AND DON’T BE SUCKERED!”

JH: 6/28/15

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

2 Comments

RutherfordHeader_2
By John W. Whitehead
June 29, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and whitehad bokcompliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

WC: 1909

 

TS Radio: w/ Joe Roubicek on Criminal law applied in corrupt probate cases

2 Comments

link sizeJoin us Sunday evening June 28, 2015 at 6:00 pm CST!

10468201_687314554677465_9114756285200928886_n

A professional guardian at lunch???

4:00 pm PST … 5:00 pm MST … 6:00 pm CST … 7:00 pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Callin # 917-388-4520

Hosted By Marti Oakley & Debbie Dahmer

Our guest this evening is Joe Roubicek, a detective who has dealt directly with the targeting of the elderly by predators in the probate system.

We are exposed to the criminal activity facilitated by corrupt probate courts and those who depend on them for access and protection, every day of the week.  While the elderly are systematically targeted, kidnapped, isolated and neglected so that their estate can be siphoned off by the court appointed predators, a growing movement is underway to charge those responsible, criminally.

The corruption associated with probate courts across the country with the corresponding theft of estates perpetrated by predatory guardians, unethical attorneys and others who have interjected themselves into the case, has become a hot button topic. How to deal with these people in a so-called “justice system” that routinely works to protect the predators has also become the focus of many efforts.

Joe will be speakiing about what can be applied to criminal law in probate cases.

____________________________________________________

**TS Radio is now also heard on AMFM247 Broadcasting Network now heard in 5 cities across the US. These cities include:

Tampa, FL (102.1 FM and 1630 AM),

Las Vegas, NV (1520 AM and 107.1 FM),

Lancaster, PA (102.1 FM & 1640 AM),

Macon, GA (98.3 FM & 810 AM) and now

Boulder, CO (100.7 FM).

___________________

To contact us:  ppj1@hush.com

TS Radio: Bruce Wiseman on the Criminal Marketing of Psychotropic Drugs

Leave a comment

link sizeJoin us Thursday evening at 6:00 pm CST!

california-foster-kids4:00 pm PST … 5:00 pm MST … 6:00 pm CST … 7:00 pm EST

Listen live HERE!

Call in # 917-388-4520

_____________________________________________

Hosted Marti Oakley

Guest: Bruce Wiseman
Bruce Wiseman is the U.S. President of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. He has testified before bodies of both houses of the United States Congress, as well as state legislative and judicial bodies in Colorado, Arkansas, New Jersey, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Florida.  He has also testified before the Food and Drug Administration; the President’s Commission on Mental Health; the President’s Commission to Reform Special Education; and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Consensus Conference on ADHD. He has made more than 800 radio and television appearances including CNN, Fox National News, NBC’s Dateline and The Montel Williams show, and has been quoted in print media across the country, including The New York Times. He has a Master’s Degree, Summa Cum Laude, in American History from the California State University at San Jose, and is the former Chairman of the Department of History of John F. Kennedy University.  Mr. Wiseman is the author of the compelling book, Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal and for five years hosted the acclaimed, nationally syndicated radio show, Take America Back.

Federal Law Could Allow Once Criminal Marketing of Psychotropic Drugs to Now Occur With Impunity—Increase Drug Risks Especially to Children & the Elderly

Here’s the link to the story: http://www.cchrint.org/2015/06/15/federal-law-criminal-marketing-psych-drugs/

____________________________________________________

**TS Radio is now also heard on AMFM247 Broadcasting Network now heard in 5 cities across the US. These cities include:

Tampa, FL (102.1 FM and 1630 AM),

Las Vegas, NV (1520 AM and 107.1 FM),

Lancaster, PA (102.1 FM & 1640 AM),

Macon, GA (98.3 FM & 810 AM) and now

Boulder, CO (100.7 FM).

___________________

To contact us:  ppj1@hush.com

No to Christian Soldiers

Leave a comment

by WENDELL H. WOODMAN
June 23, 2015

Op-Ed

_________________________________________________

The anti-gun lobby has to share responsibility for the nine people shot to death at a Bible study in the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina on June 17.

Why?

1620385_620302828018437_1618545578_nBecause thanks to the disarmament brigade, the government of South Carolina assured Dylann Roof, or whoever the triggerman was, that once the shooter was inside the church, nobody would be shooting back.
South Carolina, you see, has a concealed-carry law that expressly forbids anyone bringing a gun into a church.

If you have a license to carry a gun except in certain places — like churches — then those certain places become government-sanctioned shooting galleries. Churches in South Carolina are free-fire zones.

The goody-two-shoes lobby that wrote that caveat into the state’s restrictive firearms law set those nine victims up for target practice.
They probably argued at the time it was enacted that they were protecting parishioners from anyone wielding a gun.

All the evidence shows how wrong they were. The only one protected by that law was the shooter. That means nobody else had a chance.
Disarmament is high on the agenda of National Socialism, just as it was when the Nazi scourge ran the table in Europe. Make sure the oppressed can’t fight back so they’ll all trudge off happily to Auschwitz.
It might escape attention elsewhere, but the massacre in Charleston occurred on what is celebrated as Bunker Hill Day in Massachusetts.
That provides us an opportunity to mention the gun control laws that were in effect in colonial times.

In 17th century Massachusetts, everyone was taxed to support the Congregational Society (the state church) and everyone was required to attend Sunday worship services at the meeting house. All able-bodied inhabitants were required to bring their weapons to church. That was the law.

Take your time to chew on that.

Families were required to bring their guns to church. Sentinels were posted at the doors. The manufacture of gun powder was a staple industry at the time. Journeys from home to Sunday services could be arduous and dangerous. They had to deal with hostile Indians. Wild beasts still prowled the wilderness the way deranged killers stalk gathering places today.
The message was simple: for your own sake and the sake of others, make sure you are armed. That was the law.

The progressives — the Nazis of today passing as Democrats — are a thousand times dumber than those who settled America 400 years ago.
Two days after the Charleston massacre, MSNBC used its Ed Schultz Show to let Democrat activist Bob Shrum put his party’s malarkey on parade.
It is Shrum’s considered opinion that the carnage was kept to a minimum because the black parishioners were unarmed.

He said,

“Now I cannot imagine the horror that could have occurred if people were sitting around with concealed weapons, this thing started, and you have a full-scale gunfight. You might not even have three survivors.”

There you have the liberal mind in a nutshell: it would have been worse if somebody had shot the shooter. Well actually, that is what President Obama and his cadre of lying toadies are going to peddle to the legislatures so they can exterminate worshipper’s the way South Carolina does.

One shooter killed 12 people and injured 70 others because the audience at a midnight screening of a movie in Aurora, Colorado was unarmed.

With one day to live, mayflies enjoy a higher I.Q. than Democrats.
All the proof lawmakers need that their thinking is ass-end-to can be found in Kennesaw, Georgia. It passed an ordinance in 1982 that says,

In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor.

The first year it was in effect, crimes against persons dropped by 74 percent. The next year it fell by another 45 percent. Murders in Kennesaw are nonexistent. Burglaries barely appear on the charts.

The mainstream news media will not share this new gospel with you because they favor the agenda crafted by your political leaders. That is, your right to keep and bear arms is too precious to be put to use when you and your neighbors only believe it is needed.

Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

5 Comments

For Immediate Release: June 24, 2015

RutherfordHeader_2

Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

This press release is also available at  www.rutherford.org.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. —Pointing to statistics showing that the number of vaccinated schoolchildren has not reached levels which would pose a significant danger of disease outbreaks, The Rutherford Institute is warning the California State Assembly against adopting legislation that would deny families with religious and/or “personal” beliefs an exemption from certain childhood vaccinations required for attendance in public or private schools.

If enacted, SB No. 277 would eliminate a provision of California law that currently allows families to be exempted from certain childhood vaccinations due to religious and/or “personal” beliefs. Noting that the total elimination of a vaccine exemption for those with conscientious objections is a disproportionate response to any risk posed by the presence of unvaccinated persons within the population, constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is urging the California legislature to align itself with the 47 other states that provide religious exemptions for vaccines.

The Rutherford Institute’s letter to the California Assembly is available at www.rutherford.org.

“If SB No. 277 is enacted, it will place families in the dilemma of adhering to their deeply-held beliefs or forgoing the opportunity of a public education,” said Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “The state should not ask citizens to sacrifice their religious beliefs and right to conscientiously object to something that runs afoul of those beliefs except where the threat to public welfare is clear and present.”

Currently, all but two states (Mississippi and West Virginia) allow an exemption for parents who have sincerely-held religious beliefs in opposition to certain vaccinations required for children attending public and private schools. California law currently provides an exemption based on both religious and “personal” beliefs. However, in response to an outbreak of measles earlier this year traced to California’s Disneyland, legislation was introduced in the California Senate, Senate Bill 277, that would eliminate the exemption for both religious and personal beliefs. Despite strong opposition, Senate Bill 277 was approved by the state Senate on May 14, 2015, and sent to the California Assembly for vote.

In making a case for the state to preserve an exemption for those with religious and/or “personal” objections, The Rutherford Institute points out that accommodating religious beliefs when it comes to vaccination requirements is not only almost universally recognized, but is in keeping with the nation’s long history of respect for and toleration of religious beliefs. For example, the Institute’s letter cites George Washington, who wrote “the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” The Institute also asserts that there is no compelling health and safety reason for not accommodating persons with personal beliefs in opposition to vaccinations. The threshold number of children who are presently vaccinated is enough to provide the entire population with protection from outbreak under the principle of “herd immunity.”

This press release is also available at Rutherford Institute Warns California Legislature Against Adopting Mandatory Vaccine Law, Urges Accommodation of Religious Beliefs

Will Republicans Keep the Court from Blowing Obama’s Cover?

3 Comments

 

new logoorient

 

 

by Jane M. Orient, M.D.

___________________________________________________

The Big Lie of ObamaCare is in the title: the Affordable Care Act. Administration officials invoke “affordable” over and over again.

The U.S. Supreme Court could well blow the Democrats’ cover in King v. Burwell if it rules that people in the 37 states that did not establish an Exchange cannot legally get taxpayer subsidies for health insurance.

The subsidies hide the reality. People generally look only at what they themselves have to pay. They do not care what faceless taxpayers are paying to insurance companies for their policies.

Of the 11.7 million Americans who now have private health insurance through federal and state marketplaces, 86 percent of them are receiving financial assistance from federal taxpayers to help pay premiums—or, more accurately, their insurance company is.

“More than seven million people could lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable,” said White House officials, according to the New York Times.

These subsidies (“tax credits”) averaged $263 a month and reduced the premium by 72 percent, on average. Taxpayers who manage to earn more than a certain threshold thus have to pay 100 percent of their own premiums plus their “fair share” of 72 percent of premiums for those who earn less.

Assuming that they will be blamed for the surge in the number of uninsured, although they did not write the law, congressional Republicans are scurrying for ways to “fix” the problem of a purported “mistake” in drafting the law.

The only problem they apparently see is that people would lose coverage—not that ObamaCare drove premiums to unaffordable levels. And the only remedy they can think of is to force others to pay the unaffordable cost, at least for a time. Not having learned from vast experience, they assume that an extension of subsidies will be temporary.

One would like to see Republicans explain to the people why the whole structure of ObamaCare is a mistake, which worsens and solidifies the problems that make American medical care so costly in the first place. These are the simple, incontrovertible facts:
• Guaranteed issue/community rating always drives up premiums and leads to a “death spiral.” Unless premiums are based on risk, people have no incentive to buy insurance when they are well.
• Mandates to pay for expensive services people do not need or want help purveyors of such services but drive up premiums.
• Third-party payment itself always and everywhere drives costs far higher than people would pay if spending their own money.
• Administrative micromanagement drives up costs and limits access.
• Insurance is not the only way to buy medical care—just the most expensive way.

ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Tweaking one of the interlocking parts just makes the interconnected rest even more unworkable. If the Supreme Court exposes the true cost by removing the veil of subsidies, Republicans should not try to cover it up.

If people lose coverage, another shocking truth might be revealed, to the horror of the insurance cartel: they might be better off. The unsubsidized share of premiums—instead of being sucked into the insurer’s bank account—would be available to buy actual care, which people might now avoid because of high ObamaCare deductibles. A market might develop for true catastrophic-only insurance, with appropriately low premiums. Note that if ObamaCare insurance becomes unaffordable because of lack of subsidies, the individual mandate penalty/tax does not apply.

Of the money paid to insurers, at least 15 percent goes to administration and much more to activities like “quality assurance” that provide nothing recognizable to patients as a medical service or product. And if the insurer does pay for something, it decides exactly what, when, and how much a beneficiary might receive.

There are many alternatives to dependence on the government/insurer monolith, which the cartel would love to crush, such as health sharing ministries, direct-pay practices, and indemnity insurance. More resources are becoming available to patients (for example, medicalselfsufficiency.com and selfpaypatient.com).

Republicans should not help to suppress alternatives by propping up the ObamaCare monster and leaving the façade of subsidies intact.

###

http://www.aapsonline.org/

About the author/contributor: More

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Manipulate Us Physicians Without our Awareness

2 Comments

Duty to Warn

new logokohlsBy Gary G. Kohls, MD

______________________________________________

The pharmaceutical companies are an amoral bunch. They’re not a benevolent association. So they are highly unlikely to donate large amounts of money without strings attached. Once one is dancing with the devil, you don’t always get to call the steps of the dance.”—A psychiatrist, quoted in the Boston Globe, 2002.

__________________________________________

The New England Journal of Medicine, under the editorship of Marcia Angell, MD, published a study in the May 18, 2000 issue whose principle author was the chief of Brown University’s Department of Psychiatry. The academic psychiatrist had reportedly made $500,000 in one year doing consultancy “work” for various psycho-pharmaceutical companies that marketed antidepressant drugs. In editing the article, Dr Angell discovered that there wasn’t enough room to print all the various co-author’s conflict of interest disclosures. Because of space limitations, Angell put the full list on the website rather than in the hard copy issue.

In a foot note to the article, she wrote: “Our policy requires authors of Original Articles to disclose all financial ties with companies that make the products under study… In this case, the large number of authors and their varied and extensive financial associations with relevant companies make a detailed listing here impractical. Readers should know, however, that all but one of the twelve principal authors have had financial associations with Bristol-Myers Squibb – which also sponsored the study – and, in most cases, with many other companies producing psychoactive pharmaceutical agents. The associations include consultancies, receipt of research grants and honorariums, and participation on advisory boards.

Angell then proceeded to write an editorial in the same issue. It was titled, “Is Academic Medicine for Sale?” In it she expressed her concern about the merging of commercial and academic interests.

“Q: Is academic medicine for sale?

  A: No. The current owner is very happy with it.”

In response to Angell’s editorial, a reader sent a letter to the editor asking rhetorically, “Is academic medicine for sale? No. The current owner is very happy with it.” More

Keeping Government Bureaucrats Off the Backs of the Citizenry: The Supreme Court Responds

1 Comment

By John W. Whitehead
June 22, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

_____________________________________________________
“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin’.”—Texas Rangers

In one swoop, on June 22, 2015, a divided U.S. Supreme Court handed down three consecutive rulings affirming the right of raisin farmers, hotel owners and prison inmates. However, this push back against government abuse, government snooping and government theft only came about because some determined citizens stood up and took a stand against tyranny.

The three cases respectively deal with the government’s confiscation of whitehad bokagricultural crops without any guarantee or promise of payment (Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture); the practice of police gaining unfettered access to motel and hotel guest registries (City of Los Angeles v. Patel); and the use of tasers and excessive force by prison officials (Kingsley v. Hendrickson).

Whether these three rulings will amount to much in the long run remains to be seen. In the meantime, they sound a cautiously optimistic note at a time when police state forces continue to use advancing technologies, surveillance and militarization to weaken, sidestep and flout the Constitution at almost every turn.

In the first case, Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, a 5-4 Supreme Court declared that raisin farmer Marvin Horne deserves to be compensated for the official seizure of one-third of his personal property by the government.

The case arose after independent raisin farmers in California were fined almost $700,000 for refusing to surrender about 40% of the raisins they produced to the government as part of a program purportedly aimed at maintaining a stable market for commodities.

Marvin and Laura Horne are independent farmers in California and have been growing raisins for almost half a century. During that time, the Hornes were subject to a Depression-era law promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that aims to create “orderly” market conditions for raisins by regulating their supply. Supply is regulated by requiring that raisin producers surrender a certain percentage of their raisins (a so-called “reserve tonnage”) each year to an administrative committee. More

TS Radio: J. Kristi Hood & Debbie Valdez…..PROBATE PIRATES

1 Comment

link sizeJoin us this evening June 21, 2015 at 6:00 pm CST!

probate piratesAvailable at Amazon.com

4:00 pm PST … 5:00 pm MST … 6:00 pm CST … 7:00 pm EST

Listen Live HERE!

Callin # 917-388-4520

We will take calls in the last hour of the show.  To speak to the guests, please press #1 as soon as you are connected.

______________________________________

Hosted by Marti Oakley

Tonights guests are J. Kristi Hood, Author of Probate Pirates and Debbie Valdez.  Kristi will be talking about her new book titled “Probate Pirates”

Kristi & Debbie will be discussing probate and a few other things of interest.  This should be a killer show!

Probate Pirates:  Find out what your lawyer won’t tell you about probate court. A must-read for anyone planning to get old. Take a look inside the biggest organized crime currently being perpetrated on Americans. Find out why probate court is not about protecting the elderly, but why It’s a machine designed to systematically fleece old people of their money and humanity. Probate piracy is a growth industry, a ridiculously easy crime with an almost zero chance of getting caught. These crimes are all conducted in probate court and are completely under the radar. Find out how to keep it from happening to you. Available on AMAZON.com

A little humor for Friday………….

5 Comments

Two prostitutes were riding around town with a sign on top of their car which said:
Two Prostitutes – $50.00.

A policeman, seeing the sign, stopped them, and told them they’d either have to remove the sign or go to jail.

At that time, another car passed with a sign saying: “Jesus Saves.”

One of the girls asked the officer, “How come you don’t stop them?”
“Well, that’s a little different,” the officer said. “Their sign pertains to religion.”
The following day the same police officer noticed the same two hookers driving around with a large sign on their car.
He figured he had an easy arrest until he read their new sign:

Two Fallen Angels
Seeking Peter — $50.00

Gina’s Story of alleged abuse in a Skilled Nursing Facility

2 Comments

On June 15, 2015, Gina called into TS Radio, Host Marti Oakley & Debbie Dahmer on World Elder Abuse Awareness day. Gina is in a skilled nursing facility. Gina alleges neglect, verbal abuse ,threats, intimidation and she alleges she also has witness a rape, suicide, neglect, resident choking, within this skilled nursing Facility. On June 16, 2015, Investigators Gilgan and Falk interview Gina in East Los Angles, CA. Investigation ongoing. Special Thanks to Elder Advocate Marisa Conover, Carole Herman, Foundation Aiding the Elderly, and TS Radio, Marti Oakley, Debbie Dahmer.

Probate Pirates: A new book by J. Kristi Hood

2 Comments

probate piratesFind out what your lawyer won’t tell you about probate court. A must-read for anyone planning to get old. Take a look inside the biggest organized crime currently being perpetrated on Americans. Find out why probate court is not about protecting the elderly, but why It’s a machine designed to systematically fleece old people of their money and humanity. Probate piracy is a growth industry, a ridiculously easy crime with an almost zero chance of getting caught. These crimes are all conducted in probate court and are completely under the radar. Find out how to keep it from happening to you.

Available at Amazon.com

Prisons Without Walls: We’re All Inmates in the American Police State

4 Comments

By John W. Whitehead
June 15, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.
“It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free—to be under no physical constraint and yet be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation wants him to think, feel and act. . . . To him the walls of his prison are invisible and he believes himself to be free.”—Aldous Huxley, A Brave New World Revisited

“Free worlders” is prison slang for those who are not incarcerated behind prison walls. Supposedly, those fortunate souls live in the “free world.” However, appearances can be deceiving.

“As I got closer to retiring from the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” writes former prison employee Marlon

ABOUT JOHN WHITEHEAD  Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

ABOUT JOHN WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Brock, “it began to dawn on me that the security practices we used in the prison system were being implemented outside those walls.” In fact, if Brock is right, then we “free worlders” do live in a prison—albeit, one without visible walls.

In federal prisons, cameras are everywhere in order to maintain “security” and keep track of the prisoners. Likewise, the “free world” is populated with video surveillance and tracking devices. From surveillance cameras in stores and street corners to license plate readers (with the ability to log some 1,800 license plates per hour) on police cars, our movements are being tracked virtually everywhere. With this increasing use of iris scanners and facial recognition software—which drones are equipped with—there would seem to be nowhere to hide.

Detection and confiscation of weapons (or whatever the warden deems “dangerous”) in prison is routine. The inmates must be disarmed. Pat downs, checkpoints, and random searches are second nature in ferreting out contraband.

Sound familiar?

Metal detectors are now in virtually all government buildings. There are the TSA scanning devices and metal detectors we all have to go through in airports. Police road blocks and checkpoints are used to perform warrantless searches for contraband. Those searched at road blocks can be searched for contraband regardless of their objections—just like in prison. And there are federal road blocks on American roads in the southwestern United States. Many of them are permanent and located up to 100 miles from the border.

Stop and frisk searches are taking place daily across the country. Some of them even involve anal and/or vaginal searches. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved strip searches even if you are arrested for a misdemeanor—such as a traffic stop. Just like a prison inmate.

More

The Nightmare Years

2 Comments

new-logo25kohls By Gary G. Kohls, MD

____________________________________________________

 

Such pseudo-patriotism can be easily generated by the telling of heroic war stories, the playing of rousing patriotic anthems, the application of constant and cunning propaganda, the total control of the mainstream media’s message by the ruling elites, and the support of (or silence from) the nation’s religious leadership Good Christian Germans and good Christian Americans are not much different in their susceptibility to brain-washing techniques and pledges of allegiance to the flag, whether Swastika or Stars and Stripes.

______________________________________________________________

I have in my library dozens of books that were written about the history of fascism and its politics, economics, religious affiliations and psychology that makes it succeed so often.

1476159_634395409937481_1193924902_nThat includes the varieties of fascism that were studied in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, Britain and America, among others. To my recollection, none of the lessons I learned from my books had been even mentioned during my high school education or even my college careers. I don’t recall hearing any of my teachers talk about American-style fascism. And none of my teachers led me to doubt the validity of the anti-democratic, pro-fascist and very unethical Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, Laissez Faire capitalism, the Dred Scott decision or any of the wartime atrocities that were so commonly perpetrated by American troops in any of its wars (ex: inventing water-boarding on innocent Filipinos and then massacring them during the Spanish-American War).

The “Nightmare Years” (in Germany): 1930 – 1940

I started on my path of trying to de-mystify fascism, ultra-right-wing conservatism and authoritarian nation-states after reading “into” William Shirer’s “the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich”. (I say “into” with no shame because I don’t know anybody who has actually read the entire 1500 pages of that seminal work.) Shirer was to later write a book titled “The Nightmare Years: 1930 – 1940” about his experiences as an American correspondent in Berlin during the run-up to WWII. (I was later to become interested in the dynamics of a nation’s authoritarian parenting styles, a reality that correlates nicely with a nation’s militarism, war-mongering, racism, fascism, and imperialism.)

At the beginning of the Nightmare Years (for Shirer) was the phenomenon of Horst Wessel and the song that he was said to have written (the “Horst Wessel Lied”). Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, cunningly took an unknown Brown Shirt street fighter (and alleged pimp) and turned him into a martyred hero for the far right-wing extremist political party: the Nazis. (Robert Welch, Jr, the founder of the John Birch Society was to do the same thing for his hero John Birch exactly 30 years later – read on.)

Wessel was a member of the SA and the son of a conservative Protestant chaplain. He had been killed in 1930 by anti-fascist, pro-communist street fighters and then was memorialized by Goebbels. With a beautiful German folk tune accompanying the lyrics (and with the obligatory Hitler salute during the singing), the Horst Wessel song was sung by uber-patriotic Germans at Nazi rallies. Wessel’s song was more popular than the official Nazi anthem, “Deutschland Uber Alles”.

The lyrics of the song were quite pathetic but, because of the melodious tune, the song, especially when sung by a male chorus, easily aroused the patriotic fervor of rallying Nazis to more eagerly follow the psychopathic Hitler anywhere he desired. The song’s lyrics went like this:

More

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,677 other followers

%d bloggers like this: