Top psychiatrist: Meds behind school massacres

Society conducting 'vast social experiment' without knowing its end

 

From: World Net Daily

by - Jerome R. Corsi - January 22, 2013

NEW YORK – If lawmakers and authorities are truly concerned about stopping gun violence in schools, they need to take a close look at the prescription of psychotropic drugs for children and young people, says a leading psychiatrist.

In an exclusive in-person interview in New York City with WND, London-based Dr. David Healy criticized pharmaceutical companies that have made billions of dollars marketing Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, known as SSRIs.

Psychotropic drugs “prescribed for school children cause violent behavior,” Healy stated.

The drugs are widely used in the U.S. as antidepressants by doctors working in the mental health field and increasingly by primary care doctors, he noted.

Healey insisted the problem today is that doctors working with schools to control the behavior of children are inclined to prescribe SSRI drugs without serious consideration of adverse consequences.

“The pharmaceutical companies made these drugs with the idea of making money,” he said. “There’s a wide range of problems when it comes to looking at these drugs for children. Very few children have serious problems that warrant treatment with pills that have the risks SSRI drugs have.”

The drugs can make children “aggressive and hostile,” he noted.

“Children taking SSRI drugs are more likely to harm or to injure other children at school,” said Healy. “The child may be made suicidal.

“We are giving drugs to children who are passing through critical development stages, and as a society we are really conducting a vast experiment and no one really knows what the outcome of that will be.”

Healey cautioned that there is a very high correlation between mass shootings and use of the drugs.

“When roughly nine out of every 10 cases in these school shootings and mass shootings involve these drugs being prescribed, then at least a significant proportion of these cases were either caused by the drugs or the drugs made a significant contribution to the problem,” he said.

President Obama, in a series of 23 presidential memoranda and proclamations signed last week, called for the Centers for Disease control to undertake research to examine gun violence and to explore medical means to control the problem.

WND contended that putting more mental illness screening into schools would actually increase the incidence of school shootings, not reduce the violence.

“You can draw a line between the number of child psychiatrists in the United States and the number of school shootings, and you will find that both have gone up in the same direction at the same time,” he said.

He sees a “propaganda campaign” being conducted in the U.S. in the wake of the Aurora, Colo., cinema shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting asserting gun violence is being caused by mental illness and could be stopped by additional school programs that screen for it.

“If school children are screened for mental illness problems, this presumably will lead more medical doctors to put more students on more pills,” he said. “I would predict then the outcome of more school screenings for mental illness will be more mass killings, even if the guns are taken away and the mass killings are not done with guns.”

He cautioned shareholders of pharmaceutical companies to realize share prices can be adversely affected should judges and juries determine the companies bear legal liabilities. Law enforcement investigators could conclude one of the company’s medications was prescribed to a child who ended up perpetrating a school shooting.

Healy cautioned that medical doctors who prescribe pills do not necessarily cure mental illness problems.

He argued that today medical doctors are inclined to solve a wide range of health problems by prescribing drugs. In previous generations, however, extended families were capable of providing a context of family history to understand behavioral problems and to identify a wide range of problem-solving treatments. The families understood the issue as a developmental problem better treated by family intervention than by medicine.

“Market research, for instance, has made pharmaceutical companies realize it is much harder to sell drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, in a home or a community where the child’s grandmother is likely to be present,” he explained. “Because, of course, the grandmother may say, ‘That kid doesn’t need pills. His father was just like him, and look, his father turned out alright.’ Medicine intervenes with pills when communities have lost their roots in families.”

Healy also expressed distress that information available to pharmaceutical companies exposing adverse side effects of SSRI medications is not made available to the public.

To solve this problem, Healy has created a website, RxISK.org, that allows the posting of personal experiences with SSRI drugs by people who have had personal experience or have had partners, parents, children or friends injured by them. These are people, the website says, “who have found themselves trapped in a Kafkaesque world when they have sought help from doctors, regulators, or others who seem to be there to help us”

The goal of RxISK.org is to create a database open to the public that provides a report a patient can take to a doctor or pharmacist to support and inform a conversation about the adverse sides of a particular SSRI drug.

Independently, a sortable database of 4,800 cases in which SSRI drugs have been associated with violent behavior in the U.S. and worldwide has been posted on the Internet, compiled from incidents that have appeared in the media, scientific journals and Federal Drug Administration testimony.

SSRI drugs covered in the sortable database include Prozac (fluoxetine), Zoloft (sertraline), Paxil (paroxetine), Celexa (citalopram), Lexapro (escitalopram) and Luvox (fluvoxamine).


God bless,
JohnnyD

Understanding America: What Is the Role of the People?

From: Heritage Foundation

By Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D. -  August 21, 2012

The stirring opening words of the Constitution proclaim that it is the work of "We the People." In the Declaration of Independence, the American people had announced to the world that they were sovereign and free. In the Constitution they sought to defend this freedom by creating a unique government for an exceptional nation, a government that derived its just powers from the consent of its people. In the American republic, what is the role of the people? 

The United States is exceptional because of its universal founding principles. At the heart of these principles is the belief that people are free by nature and possess inherent rights. The use each of us makes of these rights will naturally be different, and the outcomes of those choices will naturally differ too. But the choice remains ours. Freedom is thus inextricably bound up with living our lives as we see fit. This is self-government in the truest sense of the term. We the people need not slavishly defer to experts. We can be trusted to govern ourselves.

That is why government must remain limited: The people have given it only limited powers, as described in the Constitution. When government takes more than we have given it, it renders our choices meaningless. At worst, unlimited government is tyrannical; at best, it imposes a dull uniformity that crushes true diversity and saps the independent spirit of the people.

 

The Founders believed that a crucial problem was to avoid creating a government that could be dominated by a single faction. That faction might be a minority, or it might even be a majority. But no matter its size, it would inevitably seek to promote its own narrow interests at the expense of the liberties of the people. One purpose of the Constitution’s checks and balances, one reason why it divides and limits power, is to restrain the ambition of the powerful, and—in the words of the Constitution—to ensure that government genuinely promotes “the general Welfare.” As the federal government has grown over the past century, the business of government has increasingly become taking from Paul to benefit Peter, and then borrowing from Peter to pay off Paul. What the supporters of big government call the general welfare is merely the artful distribution of favors to particular factions.

 The federal government is not supposed to be the most important institution in America. In securing the general welfare, it is supposed to do only those things that are provided for in the

Constitution. It must, for example, provide for the common defense and regulate our relations with foreign nations. It must respect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labor by taxing lightly, and defend the freedom of the marketplace by ensuring the rule of law. And it must remember that the family and religion are where we learn virtue, and that without virtue, government cannot be both limited and free.

  As John Adams stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In the United States, government requires

not merely the consent of the governed. It rests ultimately on the ability of the people to govern themselves. The first role—the first duty—of the people is to ensure that they remain virtuous and free. 

That is why the American system is based on the rights of the individual, but not on individualism. When Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia that “it is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor,” he captured a vital truth of American freedom. The Founders placed great hopes in the Constitution, but they knew that no paper constraints could preserve liberty. That duty rested ultimately with the American people. The role of the Constitution was to restrain and to check, and—as Washington wrote—to “raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” The words of the Declaration, the lives of the Founders, and the design of the Constitution can inspire, but on their own they cannot preserve the American republic. 

Only the American people, steeped in the principles that inspired the Founders and animated the Declaration, can do that. And America’s virtues do not appear out of thin air. They are not

the result of individuals living in isolation. They are social virtues. They are nurtured in families, sustained in religious congregations, and fostered in the everyday interactions of work, hobbies, and life. Long before the Declaration, foreign observers were surprised by the number and vigor of America’s social institutions, and by the everyday democracy of American marriage, work, and society.

Far more than any other nation in the world, Americans recognized each other as social and thus as political equals. That is why the traditional American virtue of self-reliance is so vital, and why the growth of government is so dangerous: Self-reliance means we have an obligation to try not to impose financially on our equals. Big government does not see citizens who provide for themselves and help their fellows; it sees subjects whom it must tax and on whom it must spend.

The wish of the Founders was not for us to live as isolated individuals. Nor was it to insulate government from religion and civil society. On the contrary, it was to insulate religion and civil society from the government, to prevent government from weakening and corrupting it. The Founders believed that, if the sources of civic virtue remained free and strong, the American people would remain capable of self-government. There is no magic in the American people that can save them if they do not save themselves. That is why Ronald Reagan said, in his famous speech on the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union, that “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” As Americans, we have always an obligation to pass the inheritance of freedom on, unimpaired, to the next generation. That is the second duty of the people.

Today, everyone says they are in favor of civil society. But not everyone understands what it means. When the left speaks of civil society, it often implies that it sees civil society as the government’s agent, paid by the government to do the work that the government has not yet taken over. In the realm of diplomacy, civil society is a code word for self-nominated left-wing organizations that claim to speak for the people of the world and assert a moral authority

greater than democratically elected governments. Abroad, the United States needs to stand up for the legitimacy of sovereign democracies, which are the only governments that allow genuine civil society to flourish.

At home, Americans should not be taken in by the argument that civil society needs to be directed by the state in order to do good works. That is just another subterfuge that weakens civil society, conceals the hand of big government, and ultimately impoverishes us all, both spiritually and financially. This subterfuge rests on the deep contempt that the left has entertained for civil society since the 1960s, when it came to the conclusion that the job of the government was to liberate us from our oppressive private lives.

Churches, charities, or institutions like The Heritage Foundation are part of civil society, and all can do good work. But our bowling clubs, our Scout troops, and our farm stands are equally part of civil society. Just because an institution is social does not mean it is everyone’s business. On the contrary: The power of civil society stems from the fact that so much of it is personal, not intended to remedy any broader problem. Government must be built on respect for the virtues that this civil society fosters, or it will ultimately destroy civil society. The lesson of history from Europe is that as their governments have expanded, their charities, churches, and social institutions have shriveled.

The United States is an island of stability in a world of turmoil. We have the same Constitution today that we had over two hundred years ago. Our concern to protect America from its enemies abroad, and to promote American leadership in the world, must never cause us to forget that our power to lead flows from our unique combination of a powerful but limited government with a dynamic and self-reliant society. When we see others abroad who share that vision, and who are struggling against tyranny, we should give them our friendship. When we see a tyranny fall, we should applaud cautiously, knowing that democracy is created from the bottom up, not the top down. Our role in the world flows from what makes us exceptional: to defend and promote the universal principles on which the American people founded their government.

That is why the true role of the people is to ensure that both they and their government stay faithful to those principles. This is partly a job for the free press and the ballot box. But we will not be able to speak and vote in support of America’s founding principles if we forget what those principles are.

In his great Farewell Address from the Oval Office on January 11, 1989, Ronald Reagan called on the nation to foster “informed patriotism.” Reagan believed that, after the end of the Cold War, the spirit of patriotism was in the air, but he thought that was not good enough. For Reagan, patriotism had to be “well-grounded” in popular culture, and to recognize always that “America is freedom . . . and freedom is special and rare.” American freedom began with the American memory, and if that was not preserved, Reagan warned, the ultimate result would be the erosion of the American spirit.

The cover of this essay alludes to Reagan’s charge. “All great change in America,” he said, “begins at the dinner table. … And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ’em know and nail ’em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.” Reagan was right: We must understand our Constitution if we are to defend what we have achieved under it, and we must know our history if we are to value the ordered liberty the Founders bequeathed to us. We must be free by governing ourselves, preserve our freedom for the next generation, and stand for freedom at home and abroad. We the people created this republic, and we the people must preserve it.

God bless,

JohnnyD

Human health risks from Electromagnetic Fields and Radio Frequency Radiation Real

From: Canada Free Press

by - - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh - Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Bioinitiative 2012 has just released its 2012 report on January 7, 2013, an update of the 2007 version. It includes approximately 1,800 new studies on biological effects and adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields such as power lines, electrical wiring, appliances, hand-held devices, and from wireless technologies such as cell and cordless phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, wireless laptops, wireless routers, baby monitors, surveillance systems, and wireless utility meters (smart meters).

The report has been prepared by 29 authors from 10 countries; ten researchers have medical degrees (MDs), twenty-one have PhDs, three have MsC, MA or MPHs. RF color charts can be downloaded as well as 4 links with summaries of hundreds of studies done between 1990 and 2012 on the “free radical damage from both RFR (radio frequency radiation) and ELF (extremely low frequency) and a set specific to electro-sensitivity.” (www.bioinitiative.org/report/research-summaries/)

Lennart Hardell, MD from Orebro University, Sweden, said, “There is a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma, a malignant brain tumor, and acoustic neuroma, with use of mobile and cordless phones.” Acoustic neuroma is a slow growing benign tumor of the vestibular cochlear nerve that connects the ear to the brain. As it grows, it can damage other nerves. “Epidemiological evidence shows that radiofrequency should be classified as a human carcinogen.”

The topics explored, as evidenced by the abstracts, include damage to DNA and genes, changes in memory, learning, behavior, attention, sleep disruption, insomnia, heat sensitivity, cell damage, cancer, benign tumors, and neurological impairment and diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Human subjects as well as animals and birds were used.

At least a dozen studies connect cell phone radiation to sperm damage. The DNA of sperm may be harmed, misshapen, and fertility in men may be impaired even by a cell phone kept in a pocket or on a belt. Laptop computers and wireless Internet connection can also damage DNA in sperm.

“The existing FCC/IEE and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) public safety limits and reference levels are not adequate to protect public health. Based on strong evidence for vulnerable biology in autism, EMF/RFR (electromagnetic fields/radio frequency radiation) can plausibly increase autism risk and symptoms.”

Martha Herbert, MD, PhD, believes that in people with autism disorders, children, people who are planning to have a baby, during pregnancy, we should minimize wireless and EMF (electromagnetic field) exposures. Pregnant women who use laptops and phone are not aware that such wireless devices may alter the brain development of the fetus and may cause miscarriage. Children and adolescents may be adversely affected by wireless classrooms.

David O. Carpenter, MD, co-editor of the 2012 Report said, “There is now much more evidence of risks to health affecting billions of people world-wide. The status quo is not acceptable in light of evidence for harm.” New safety standards are urgently needed for protection against EMF and wireless exposures present everywhere in daily life.

Smart meters use radio signals to communicate via RFR (radio frequency radiation) and are similar to those in a cell phone. Smart meters (advanced metering systems) pulse information several times per minute to the utility company on the electricity demand and usage of someone’s home. Microwave ovens, radar, Wi-Fi devices also emit RFR.

I have read the findings of the abstracts in the four links of the Bioinitiative 2012 Report and chose some that I found particularly interesting.

Landgrebe M. et al concluded in a study in 2008 that “data indicate that tinnitus is associated with subjective electromagnetic hypersensitivity.” The study adds that “significant cognitive and neurobiological alterations point to a higher genuine individual vulnerability of electromagnetic hypersensitive patients.” (Landgrebe M. et al. Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case-control study. Psychol. Med. 38 (12): 1781-1791, 2008)

EMF exposure alters melatonin, behavior, growth, and reproduction in males kestrels (falco sparverius). EMF exposure is a “possible human carcinogen and associated with some neurodegenerative diseases. Oxidative stress contributes to cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and immune disorders. (Fernie KJ, Bird DM. Evidence of oxidative stress in American kestrels exposed to electromagnetic fields. Environ. Res. 86 (2): 198-207, 2001)

Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMFs) affect DNA integrity in human cells. (Focke F, Schuermann D, Kuster N, Schaer P. DNA fragmentation in human fibroblasts under extremely low frequency field exposure. Mutat. Res. 683 (1-2): 74-83, 2010)

J. Frahm said that the “interaction of extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF) of 50 Hz with cells can induce alterations in various cell physiological processes.”

Al Garip and Z. Akan reported that “It is by now accepted that extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields ELF-EMF (0-300 Hz) affect biological systems although the mechanism has not been elucidated yet.” (Garip Al, Akan Z. Effect of ELF-EMF on number of apoptotic cells; correlation with reactive oxygen species and HSP. Act Biol. Hung. 61 (2): 158-167, 2010)

Agawam A. et al found that “radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cell phones may lead to stress in human semen. We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility.” (Agawam A, Desai NR, Maker K, Varghese A, Moored R, Sabanegh E, Sharma R. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro study. Fertil. Steril. 92 (4): 1318-1325, 2009)

Atasoy’s findings raise questions about the safety of radiofrequency exposure from Wi-Fi Internet access devices for growing organisms of reproductive age, with a potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of sperm cells. (Atasoy HI, Gunal MY, Atasoy P, Elgun S, Bugdayci G. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rats testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. J. Pediatr. Urol. March 30, 2012)

Martin and Goodman found that electromagnetic fields (EMF) in both extremely low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) ranges activate the cellular stress response, increasing levels of stress proteins. In the RF range DNA strands break down. To protect living cells, “EMF safety limits must be changed from the current thermal standard based on energy, to a standard based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes.” (Martin B, Goodman R. Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiology 16, 71-78, 2009)

For reasons of space, I constructed a short list of radiation effects without citations. They can be found under the four links of abstracts on the Bioinitiative 2012 website. (www.bioinitiative.org)

• Most mobile phones emit 900 MHz of radiation that is mainly absorbed by the external organs.
• Static magnetic fields (SMF) effect genetic mutation and necrosis.
• Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation has been found to induce arterial dilation.
• It is generally accepted that electromagnetic fields (EMF) can exert biological effect but the mechanism by which EMF elicits responses are still unknown.
• Childhood leukemia has been the only cancer consistently reported in epidemiological studies as associated with ELF MFs.
• Increasing production of free radicals in organisms is one of the putative mechanisms by which an extremely low frequency magnetic field (ELF-MF) may affect biological systems.
• There is a relation between the exposure of SMF to ELF-EMF and the oxidative stress through distressing redox balance leading to physiological disturbances.
• “Epidemiological studies have suggested that extremely low-frequency magnetic fields (EMF-MF) are associated with an increased incidence of cancer. Studies using in vitro systems have reported mixed results for the effects of ELF-MF alone, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Research Agenda published in 2007 suggested that high priority research should include an evaluation of the co-carcinogenic effects of ELF-MF exposure using in vitro models.”

While Americans have the option to pick what appliances they surround themselves with, they do not have much choice when it comes to power lines and electrical wiring, cell towers, and smart meters (advanced metering systems).

All across the country utility companies are in a hurry to install smart meters and connect everyone to the smart grid. This move is supposed to save energy, reduce consumption, reduce the cost per kilowatt hour, and deliver energy more expediently to all customers, none of which is actually true. Supply is curtailed, costs have skyrocketed in some states, people’s homes are electronically searched without a warrant, their usage information and patterns of consumption are sold to third parties, while customers are suffering adverse health effects from radiation. The smart meters are expedient, of course, for the utility companies, their financial gain, and for the environmentalists who control our lives in the name of saving the planet. And the smart grid is a sitting duck to the next solar flare or cyber-attack.


God bless,
JohnnyD

I Am Ashamed of Our Government Today. I Am Ashamed of Our Inept, Corrupt, Do-nothing Congress

Un-American, anti-American, seemingly emasculated individuals who presently make up our government

From: Canada Free Press

by - Donald Soos - January 21, 2013

I am a military veteran, entered the service during WWII, served through Korea and Vietnam eras, retiring from the U.S. Navy .  I am an American Patriot, a vanishing type of creature which is quite rare these days among the so-called “leadership” in Washington, D.C. The only Patriots I can find are in the military hospitals, at the DAV headquarters, the USO, the Vietnam Vets Club,  at the American Legion, the Fleet Reserve Club and other service facilities

I am proud of my service. I never had to be ashamed of a decision made during my career.  I always acted in the best interests of my Service and my Country. I love my Country.  I proudly salute the U.S. Flag at every opportunity.  I still tear up during Taps, when I think of all my shipmates who have passed.

Someone please explain to me the actions of all the un-American, anti-American, seemingly emasculated individuals who presently make up our government.  How can the members of the U.S. Congress be so un –American and anti-American in their every day actions and decisions?  In my world, according to my reading and understanding of our Constitution,  many of their actions actually border on treason..How can they live with themselves; how can they ever look in the mirror?  Their actions reflect a disdain for MY COUNTRY, MY FLAG, and MY HERITAGE!  Many in government today seem to hate our nation, our way of life, and all we stand for.

Many individuals of government have committed serious crimes, which should lead to both impeachment and imprisonment. Some members of congress have been convicted of a felony but are still permitted to serve, without honor or dignity.  These people would never have been tolerated in years past!  Where are the real Americans who will stand up and be counted?  The members of the House Of Representatives have ample evidence to bring charges many times over; they can refuse funding for the illegal and nefarious schemes which seem to almost daily be entered into the record. Are there not a few good men, a few real Americans, a few American Patriots who are willing to stand up and act with honor and integrity…and do what is best for their country regardless of personal privilege and wealth, or the loss thereof?

Is money that important?  Is the heady power that comes with being in public office all that important? Is it all worth sacrificing your integrity, your self-respect and your character?  Does it not matter that your children and family will be ashamed of you forever?

I read and re-read our Constitution, which is now being shredded and denigrated every day by those who have no respect for our Nation, but think only of themselves and the power and wealth they are building as a part of the future ruling elite.  I think of our Founding Fathers who were PATRIOTS, willing to give all for the sake of their nation.  They gave up their businesses and their very lives to go to Washington to serve and then return home to try to pick up their lives where they left off.  They sacrificed all for their country. They did not receive a fantastic salary, they did not have all the “perks”, they did not receive a huge retirement after voting “present” for a few years.  No, they were PATRIOTS who gave of themselves because it was the right thing to do!

We are hated and detested around the world. I took part in a diplomatic mission some years ago, visiting many different countries where my personal duties involved liaison with local consulates, embassies and offices of foreign government. Classified reports sent to Washington after each visit were always identical:  “They gladly take our money, they welcome the supplies and support, but, they hate the U.S. and all we stand for”. Why do we insist on bankrupting and sacrificing our young American men and women to support dictators and despots?  My great country as I knew it is gone forever! 

We are rapidly descending to 3d world status.  Starting at this very moment it would take 30 to 40 years to even partially regain our former status and stature.  Is the N.W.O. the oil and the money and power really all that important?

I am ashamed of our government today.  I am ashamed of our inept, corrupt, do-nothing Congress. I am ashamed of the illiterate, stupid individuals who keep these people in office only for the easy money and myriad benefits they receive as payment for their support.  I daily think of and pray for the millions of past patriots and heroes who fought for this great Nation, and who so willingly gave up their very lives for what they thought was a just and honorable cause.

I want just ONE member of congress to stand up and reply to the above. I want just ONE member of congress to justify their deplorable, illegal and disgusting actions.

However, I would rather have just a few AMERICAN PATRIOTS, if there are any such to be found in our present congress, to stand up and be counted.  Yes, you will be ostracized and almost definitely not be re-elected… BUT, you will have the enduring respect and admiration of those of us who still love and honor our country, and you will certainly win a place in history with all those great heroes and patriots who have gone before.


God bless,
JohnnyD

An Imperial President

From: Cal Thomas.com

by - Cal Thomas - January 16, 2013

One definition of “imperial” on dictionary.com is, “of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.”

At his news conference Monday, a petulant, threatening and confrontational President Obama spoke like an emperor or supreme ruler. All that was missing was a scepter, a crown and a robe trimmed in ermine.

This president exceeds even Bill Clinton in his ability to evade, prevaricate and dissemble. I didn’t think that possible.

Not only did he supply long answers to relatively easy questions, but much of what he said bore no relation to reality.

He spoke of having had the debate over the economy during the 2012 campaign and boasted, “…the American people agreed with me.” By the way, can we now retire the phrase “the American people”? Too many politicians overuse it, including Speaker John Boehner. Forty-seven percent of voters supported Mitt Romney and other Republicans in the last election. Ninety-four million people eligible to vote didn’t vote. Can Obama really claim “the American people” agreed with him? The president won the election, but he has yet to win the debate over smaller vs. larger government, and more vs. less spending.

The question Major Garrett of CBS News posed to the president on raising the debt ceiling in tandem with spending cuts exposed his hypocrisy and that of many congressional Democrats: “You yourself, as a member of the Senate, voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997, all signed deficit-reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself, four times have done that. Three times, those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers. What Chuck (NBC’s Chuck Todd) and I and, I think, many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history of the modern era of American presidents on the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn’t that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?”

The president dissembled, talking again (he repeated this at least three times by my count) about how Congress had authorized all the spending and how we must now “pay our bills.” But as Garrett noted, the president had a different view of the debt ceiling when he was an Illinois senator and voted against raising it. In 2006, he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.” Except when he’s the leader, then it’s someone else’s failure.

In 2003, during another debate over raising the debt ceiling, Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT, said, “The federal debt is like the family credit card. Sooner or later you have to pay down the debts that you have already incurred. If you don’t, your credit rating will suffer. The way the government raises the debt limit is also like a family who just keeps calling the bank every time they hit the credit limit and asks the bank over and over again for an increase in their credit limit without regard to anything else. Rather than pay down their debt, they just keep on asking for a higher debt limit.”

Many other Senate Democrats, including Senators Harry Reid, D-NV, and John Kerry, D-MA, shared Baucus’ concerns, but that was during the George W. Bush administration.

The president says he will reduce debt with a “balanced approach,” by which he means offsetting higher taxes on the wealthy with spending cuts, which will never materialize. It won’t work. Whatever tax revenue government manages to save, Congress will always find a way to spend it.

The president has submitted a budget proposal to Congress for each fiscal year he’s been in office, but Congress has failed to pass a single one. That’s a staggering repudiation of his leadership.

President Obama will not negotiate about raising the debt ceiling? Not surprising. Imperial leaders don’t negotiate.

God bless,

JohnnyD

The Line in the Sand – Choose Which Side

From: Jan Morgan Media

 

by David M. Chaney / January 18, 2013

There is a clear line in the sand, regardless our recognition of it, awareness of it, or willingness to deal with it. It is just there. Over time, we either move towards one side or the other. However, we must choose which side we’re going to stand on when there are those who attempt to push us from Liberty to Tyranny. Regardless one’s willingness to confront times when this does occur… it has happened, will happen again, and is happening now.

Fortunately, there still is a strong majority in America who stand ready to defend Liberty — as our ancestors, grand-parents and parents did.

If you are not clear on what it means to defend Liberty, what the core concepts of Liberty mean, or what the opposite of Liberty means, Tyranny, this little graphic may help.

Let’s just say that what we’ve had in America for over 237 years is a miracle of human history. No country in history of mankind was structured as America was structured… to acknowledge that our rights were natural, inalienable, and not granted by the State or man, rather, they were granted by the God. This means the State cannot take them away.

Our Constitution was designed by our brilliant founders, to ensure this was defined clearly so that no tyrant, or group of tyrants, could ever take our liberties.

Yet, sadly, there are a few ways tyrants can take our liberties. First, by convincing those who often do not understand these important concepts (as our founders said we all must) to accept a promised bounty from the State, in lieu of hard work, individual responsibility, and self-reliance. And secondly, by allowing those with special interests, be they corporate, union, military, or any other group, to continually shape policy and legislation away from individual liberty and free-markets, towards their best interests — cronyism — further eroding our nation until it is only the carcass of its former glory.

Today, there are many who would rather give up their liberty, become slaves to the State, so they can live off of the toil of others. And there are many businesses and special interests who will sacrifice our freedoms and risk our Republic, for the shot at wealth, power and control. Yet, they are all buying into a mirage.

First, in reality, the State and those in power are most often driven by greed and self-fulfillment, not charity and others fulfillment. This, is a reality of life and human history. Even historically when there may have been the rare “benevolent dictator”, it usually did not take long before power lust consumed those around them and eventually the governance model moved from benevolence to tyrannical control. So what starts as a promise of utopia — no risk, security, guarantees, etc. — ends in disaster and despair as the inevitable collectivist “house of cards” comes tumbling down. And it always will.

The second mirage is that of the benefits of cronyism. Although corporations and other entities may, for a time, reap the reward to their corruption, over time the results of one-sided market and industry controls, union strong-arming, military industrial complex expansion, and or any other interference and control of intended free-markets, will result in mal-investment, industry dysfunction, and ultimately unpredictable correction. The mirage fades and all must deal with reality.

Today, we’re reaping the whirlwind of both individual and organizational abuse of our founder’s gift of individual liberty and the resulting free-exchange which always leads to great prosperity. Without individual and organizational responsibility and integrity, all systems eventually fail.

It is up to us, therefore — those willing to work, those willing to take personal responsibility for individual and organizational choices, those willing to make good, integrous decisions from a position of strength with an eye not only towards our present, but towards our nation’s future, and those who understand the value of liberty and the dangers and death that result from State tyranny — to sound this warning and help others see this clear line in the sand.

Hopefully you will stand on the side of liberty. However, make no mistake, there are millions clearly on the side of right, and of liberty, who will stand.

Support Liberty. Fight Tyranny. Stand on the Right Side.

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Obama Could Not Pass a Background Check

From: Facts Not Fantasy

by - Alan Caruba - January 17, 2013

President Barack Obama could not pass a background check if he was applying for a gun permit or a job. Why has this man been allowed to remain in office or take the oath for a second time?

During the 2008 campaign, it was known that:

His official, long form birth records were SEALED.

His Occidental College records were SEALED.

His Columbia College records were SEALED.

His Harvard College records were SEALED.

His College thesis – SEALED.

His Harvard Law Review articles – SEALED.

His Indonesian adoption records – SEALED.

His passport file – SEALED.

His medical records – Unavailable

His baptism records – Unavailable

His papers from his service in the Illinois legislature – Unavailable

His Illinois State Bar Association records - Unavailable

The birth certificate that the White House released is reputed by document experts to be false.

The Social Security number he has used was issued to someone else. He could not pass an E-Verify test. The first three numbers of his Social Security ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049. The number was issued between 1977 and 1979. Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii.

Many of the “facts” he cited in his two memoirs have turned out to be questionable, if not outright lies; particularly as regards his birth father, a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth.

A job applicant with Obama’s paper trail would not even pass the smell test, but this man was elected and reelected. The role of journalism is to vet the credentials of anyone running for public office, let alone the highest office in the land. Instead, he has been protected against all inquiries and those making them have been called “birthers” or simply ignored.

Obama so routinely lies that keeping track of them would require a team of full-time archivists.

In August 2009 he said, “I have not said I was a single-payer supporter”, but in June 2003, as an Illinois state senator, he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care system.”

In March 2006, he said “Leadership means the buck stops here…I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” He is now into his second political battle to raise the debt limit. In July 2011, he said “It is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default.”

In response to a 1996 questionnaire he said “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages, but in November 2008 he said, “I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

He spent his first term blaming the nation’s economic ills on his predecessor, George W. Bush, saying in July 2008, that “he added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion in debt that we are going to have to pay back. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” Today, the debt stands at more than $16 trillion because Obama added more to the debt than all previous presidents combined. For the first time in U.S. history, our credit rating was reduced and rating services are warning they will reduce it again.

He has a record of using executive orders to bypass the constitutional powers and duties of Congress. His most recent effort was 23 such orders regarding gun control at the same time Americans are buying guns as fast as they can, fearing the loss of the right to own and bear arms. This is the same President who just signed a law granting him and his family lifetime Secret Service protection.

He used “executive privilege” to cover-up the “Fast and Furious” scandal in which guns were allowed to be purchased and transported for use by Mexican drug cartel members.

He lied about the attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed a U.S. ambassador and encouraged members of his staff to spread the lie that it was “spontaneous” and the result of a video no one has seen.

He and the Democratic Party imposed “Obamacare” on the nation and its passage is already undermining the provision of healthcare services, driving up the cost of health insurance, and causing physicians and the providers of testing and other services to leave the profession and close their doors.

He no longer can blame President Bush, so now he blames the Republican Party that has offered solutions to the nation’s economic crisis that has worsened every day he has been in office. His foreign policy has consisted of apologizing for America and standing aside while one nation after another in the Middle East and northern Africa has fallen under the control of Islamist radicals. He is doing nothing to avoid the sequestration cuts that would harm national defense and a range of other government functions.

He has failed us. Congress has failed us.

 It has taken four years for a case challenging his right to hold office and the Supreme Court has scheduled a “conference” in February that might decide to ignore a current case.

The mainstream media has failed us and we only hope the courts will not fail us.

He should not be administered the oath of office for a second time.

 

 

Gos bless,

JohnnyD