Of the many constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the American public that the federal government has sought to destroy in recent decades, the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech is arguably the most important. If the ability for citizens to express themselves in the political, personal and commercial spheres is infringed, abridged, restricted or regulated by government agencies, this is one of the most obvious hallmarks of tyranny.
The Food and Drug Administration has appointed itself arbiter of what commercial speech is acceptable or unacceptable when it comes to marketing vitamins, supplements, foods, drugs, and other health products. Like every other form of government-imposed authority, however, that position of arbitration has been abused, corrupted, and, ultimately, used as an instrument to shut down competition from companies who threaten the business interests of the lobbyists and industry insiders that themselves populate the FDA.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett presents the corruption infested and special interest driven FDA’s tyrannical powers in setting impossible rules on the marketplace, placing prior restrictions on the speech of health product manufacturers, and inserting itself as the umpire in the arena of the marketplace by using consumer safety as the ostensible reason.
See the video on the site.
Here’s a simple, cheap, intuitive and commonsensical approach to reducing violence in society. Children who have difficult births followed by maternal rejection are about 4 times more likely to be violent as adults.
My guess that this is a serious underestimate because the two determining factors are judged by conventional medical criteria, not by the baby’s perception. But in any case, how would the infant perceive standard obstetrical care in this country?
First of all, depending on the specific OB, it can be obstructive to the process (birthing on the back, epidurals blocking contractions), violent (forecep delivery, chemical induction), painful (internal fetal heart monitor) suffocating (prolonged movement through the vagina followed by immediate cord clamping before the baby starts breathing), traumatic (c-section), torturous (circumcision) and ending in maternal rejection (the removal to “isolettes” and lack of touch and carrying that would normally occur with breast feeding is in itself a surefire way to increase adult violence, see http://www.violence.de ). Of course any mammal would perceive lack of breast feeding as maternal rejection. Think about it.
Consider the fact that it’s the fetus that initiates labor through the release of hormones. The fetus is an active participant in its own birth, pushing with its feet and writhing through the birth canal. A normal, self-made birth would be any baby’s proud accomplishment, its first lesson in self-empowerment. How would it perceive an induced delivery? Since it didn’t initiate it and doesn’t want it, it would perceive it as a miscarriage, another form of maternal rejection.
It’s spooky to consider the similarities between conventional obstetrics and the CIA’s formula for psychological torture (trauma and pain combined with sensory deprivation; see http://www.news.wisc.edu/11995 ).
Babies need normal births and normal childcare with normal families. This is what we’re evolved for, it’s what creates happy compassionate adults.
What we have currently is the result of decades of profit driven medicine with no corrective feedback from one of the two people involved in every birth. Americans are being imprinted (actually brainwashed) with sociopathy, disempowerment, pain, rage and violence. Families are falling apart due to reduced parental bonding that would normally occur through sex. (circumcision is a sensory lobotomy, see http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/primer.html ).
For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, see http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/MGM/birthUSA3.txt . Also see http://members.tranquility.net/~rwinkel/janel/Born2beGood.txt
Pretending for the moment that many if not all these recent massacres weren’t false flags against the second amendment like the “fast and furious” operation (http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2012/12/staged-massacres-important-links/), let’s look at one of the proposed solutions to the problem:
… Fifth, meanwhile, psychiatry and individual psychiatrists have no way of determining who poses a real risk of violence other than the common sense indicators, such as the person is making threats or has already committed violence. Nowhere in the scientific literature is there a study that confirms that psychiatrists can determine who will, or will not, perpetrate violence. Scientific risk assessment approaches cannot be relied upon to make decisions about treatment or incarceration.
Sixth, “mentally ill” people, that is, people who get diagnosed psychiatrically, are not more dangerous than the general population, including neighbors in their communities. However, individuals suffering from substance abuse do have increased rates of violence, but largely toward family members rather than the public.
Seventh, when psychiatry becomes involved, drugs are dispensed, and psychiatric drugs can cause or worsen violence. A recent study of reports to the FDA of drug-induced violence has demonstrated that antidepressants have an 840% increased rate of violence.
In particular, there is no doubt that the Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had an effective level the antidepressant Luvox (fluvoxamine) in his blood at the time of the massacre. For the first time, I’m making public the drug company report to the FDA confirming that Harris had a “therapeutic” level of the drug in his body at the time of the murders. This is the official report to the FDA on March 17, 1999, from Luvox (fluvoxamine) manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals confirming “the presence of a Luvox blood level at autopsy.” I was an expert in cases surrounding the Columbine shootings and can also confirm that Eric Harris was taking the drug for a year, had a dose increase to 200 mg per day two and one-half months before the assault on the high school, and was showing signs of toxicity in the form of a drug-induced tremor five weeks before the event. Meanwhile, his writings indicate he was becoming more and more violent while taking Luvox.
The most devastating recent shooters were all involved with psychiatric treatment and evaluation, and it did not prevent their violence. In some cases, it undoubtedly increased it. Eric Harris, as noted, was in treatment for at least a full year leading up to assault on Columbine High School. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, came to the attention of police and then mental health authorities as a result of harassing another student and threatening suicide in 2005. A voluntary mental examination found him “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization” and Cho was hospitalized and found to be a danger to himself and others. In December 2005, he was court-ordered to have follow-up treatment but this was never enforced. There is no record of any further psychiatric treatment.
James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter, in the months leading up to his violent assault, was in psychiatric treatment with psychiatrist Lynne Fenton, medical director of student health services at the Anschutz campus of the University of Colorado, where Holmes was a graduate student in neuroscience. Fenton was considered an expert on campus violence and had written the protocol for her campus threat assessment team. She was sufficiently worried about his propensity for violence to report him to the campus police and the campus threat assessment team in early June, a few weeks before the theater assault. When the assessment team suggested putting Holmes on a 72 hour involuntary hold, psychiatrist Fenton rejected the idea. When Holmes quit school, the school washed its hands of all responsibility for him.
Adam Lanza’s psychiatric history remains undisclosed but there are indications that he was at some time psychiatrically diagnosed and taking psychiatric medications. The Washington Post quoted a family friend as stating he was “on medication.” Given his affluent family, he was almost certainly taken to psychiatrists. …
The Winners of the Academy Award and Golden Globe Are … Government Propagandists
Rob Kall points out that the military-industrial complex is the winner of the Golden Globe award:
Homeland won best TV series, best TV actor and actress. It IS a highly entertaining show which actually portrays some of the flaws of the MIIC system
Argo won best movie and best director. It glorifies the CIA and Ben Affleck spoke with the highest praise for the CIA.
And best actress went to Jessica Chastain of Zero Dark Thirty, a movie that has been vilified for propagandizing the use of torture.
The Military Industrial Intelligence Complex is playing a more and more pervasive role in our lives. In the next few years we’ll be seeing movies that focus on the use of drone technology in police and spy work in the USA. We’ve already been seeing movies that show how spies can violate every aspect of our privacy– of the most intimate parts of our lives. By making movies and TV series that celebrate these cancerous extensions of the police state Hollywood and the big studios are normalizing the ideas they present us with– lying to the public, routinely creating fraudulent stories as covers for what’s really going on.
I was hoping that Zero Dark Thirty would come up without any awards. I was hoping that at least such blatant propaganda promoting the lie that torture works would be repudiated by the Golden Globes. That didn’t happen.
The truth is we do live in a time when the police have been massively militarized. We don’t need movies or TV shows that celebrate that militarization. We don’t need entertainment that normalizes the obscene violations of our privacy that the intelligence state is inflicting upon us. We need stories that celebrate people who stand up to this seemingly irrepressible tide that is washing away our freedoms, sucking up all our resources and erasing the last bastions of privacy.
David Walsh notes that the real winner of the 2013 Academy Awards is the CIA: …
The military has long had a direct influence on Hollywood. For example, a book published by the University of Texas points out:
The Central Intelligence Agency has been actively engaged in shaping the content of film and television, especially since it established an entertainment industry liaison program in the mid-1990s. …
The CIA has a pile of script ideas lying around.
The Department of Defense and just about every branch of the military has an entertainment industry liaison similar to the CIA’s.
If you want to make a war film and need a fleet of F-22s, a crowd of Marines, or a Navy aircraft carrier, just call up the Department of Defense’s entertainment media office and they’ll tell you if the Army can spare that M1A1 Abrams tank you’ve always wanted for a day or two of filming. …
The Guardian noted in 2001 that this has been happening for a long time:
For the first time in its history, the [CIA] has appointed an official PR liaison with Hollywood: veteran CIA operative Chase Brandon, whose 25-year career was spent defending democracy, it says here, in benighted South American theatres of the cold war. …
23 years after it was first revealed to the public in the Italian Parliament, few are today aware of the history of Operation Gladio, the stay-behind operation that was seeded by intelligence agencies in Western Europe at the end of WWII and which was responsible for numerous terrorist attacks and outrages in the ensuing decades. Fewer still are aware of the details of this program, where it originated, who was behind it, and what it teaches us about the nature of such operations. Join us today on The Corbett Report as we talk with Tom Secker of InvestigatingTheTerror.com about this much-neglected piece of false flag history.
The Obama Administration is seeking approval to conduct morally impermissible, wholly non-therapeutic medical experiments that would expose healthy children to risks of serious harm.
Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services is seeking to test the highly controversial, dangerous Anthrax vaccine, on children. Express Your Views to the Commissions Director, Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov
For over a year, the Commission has been attempting to find a rationale for endorsing a proposed government policy that would violate fundamental medical ethics principles. Principles mandated under the Nuremberg Code after the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime came to light.
Under US Law, research involving greater than minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit to individual [child] subjects, is prohibited in healthy children. (45 CFR 46, subpart D).
If not stopped, the US government would override ethical and legal prohibitions by testing “medical countermeasures” on unprotected children who are legally incapable of giving informed consent. The government would subject healthy but socioeconomically deprived American children to unjustifiable risks of harm–to be exploited as human guinea pigs.
The overarching question–Not specified by the Commission or the Administration–is, WHOSE CHILDREN ARE TO BE SELECTED for experiments that violate ethical and moral standards?
If history is a guide, underprivileged children’s best interest will be sacrificed to serve as a means to an end that will benefit powerful commercial and government entities.
More than a decade has passed since the US was attacked by terrorists, Sept. 11, 2001.
No biochemical weapon has ever been shown to pose a threat to Americans–neither military personnel nor civilians.
The only exception was the mailing of anthrax laced envelopes in October, 2001, by a US military scientist, from a US military laboratory-who is now dead.
There is no evidence whatsoever of an anthrax threat to American children.
Therefore, those who even consider exposing children to the documented harmful effects of the anthrax vaccine suffer from a “moral deficit disorder.”
Express Your Views to the Commissions Director, Hillary.Viers@bioethics.gov
Overarching all considerations is the question–
WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE EXPOSED TO THE SERIOUS RISKS OF THE ANTHRAX VACCINE WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR THEM?
WHOSE CHILDREN WILL BE USED AS HUMAN GUINEA PIGS?Below are the warnings on the Anthrax Vaccine label. …
Adding insult to injury of course is that the anthrax mailings were obviously done by agents of the US national security state. Unless you believe islamic jihadists had infiltrated a US bioweapons lab.
The demonic level of cruelty to children in evidence here is beyond normal people’s imagination.
Genital integrity activists from across the country are demanding that lawmakers ban the practice of circumcising boys. Popularly known as “intactivists”, these children’s rights advocates submitted the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) Bill proposal to more than 2,000 legislators this week in an effort to require gender neutrality in federal and state laws that regulate genital cutting. …
Male circumcision was one of the top issues for lawmakers around the world in 2012. It started in January when a Helsinki district court convicted a man of assault and battery for circumcising two Muslim boys. The following month, the Swedish Pediatric Society issued a statement calling circumcision an “assault” that should be banned. Then, in June, the Centre Party in Norway called on the Red-Green coalition government to grant boys legal protection from circumcision.
Two months later in August, the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute recommended that the state impose a general prohibition on circumcision while Denmark opened an investigation to determine if circumcision violates its health code. And in October, Finland’s largest opposition party promised to introduce a bill that would criminalize circumcision of boys.
But the biggest news came out of Germany over the summer, when a Cologne district court ruled that circumcision of male children is a crime. Although Germany’s parliament later overrode the decision by passing a new law, the German Pediatric Association called for that law to be rejected, stating that boys have “the same basic constitutional legal rights to physical integrity as girls”.
Circumcision was a hot topic in America, as well, when children’s rights groups slammed an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement that sanctioned parental access to newborn circumcision. New York City also implemented disclosure and consent rules regarding the practice of ritual circumcision after two baby boys died from contracting herpes during the procedure. And with H.R. 2400 (the “Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011”) failing to get past the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the path is now clear for state governments to prohibit circumcision of male minors within their own borders.
Matthew Hess, president of MGMbill.org, said lawmakers can’t hide from the issue forever. “There are too many people speaking out against circumcision now,” said Hess. “What once was a trickle of condemnation has now become a tidal wave. Modern parents are armed with information on the harmful effects of foreskin amputation, and circumcised men are much more willing to speak out against what was done to them as infants. I think the days of legalized childhood circumcision in this country are numbered.”
In addition to submitting the MGM Bill proposal to every member of the 113th Congress, the group’s representatives submitted similar bills to every state lawmaker in California, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington.
The level of brainwashing and social control exerted in this society are nowhere more in evidence than in the fact that we even need to fight for the right to control what we take into our bodies.
As we have demonstrated over the past several weeks on the EyeOpener, health freedom is a subject of growing importance for citizens of the United States and freedom lovers around the world as would-be “authorities” like the American Food and Drug Administration attempt to assert ever more control over our daily lives. Presuming to tell us what medications we must or must not take, what we can or cannot say about our experiences with natural medicines, and even what type of milk we may or may not consume, the system is quickly devolving into outright tyranny.
As with so many other types of tyranny, as the people awaken to this abrogation of their natural rights, they are learning that the system depends almost entirely on their complicity, and that their ability to simply put their foot down and say “no” to the would-be tyrants is a significant step toward reclaiming ownership of themselves and their bodies.
In this episode of our EyeOpener Report James Corbett wraps up our series on Health Freedom, and discusses the awakening to governments’ abrogation of people’s natural rights, the tyrannical system’s dependency on the People’s complicity, the People’s right and ability to reject and say “no” to the would-be tyrants, and reclaiming ownership of themselves and their bodies. …
See video at site.