Mike Barrett
Activist Post

Well the Food and Drug Administration has really made a name for themselves this time.

In response to claims by a company named Diamond Foods that walnuts possess health benefits, the FDA sent the company a letter informing them of their wrongdoing.

What did Diamond Foods do wrong? According to the FDA, claims made by Diamond Foods that omega-3′s found in walnuts produce health benefits make their walnuts “drugs”. As far as the FDA is concerned, these “drugs” can not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved new drug application

FDA Actions Portray Government Lunacy at its Best

It seems bureaucratic tyranny is really taking shape in America. Despite 35 peer-reviewed published papers showing that walnuts improve vascular health and promote heart function being held in the US National Library of Medicine database, the FDA refuses to allow Diamond Foods to make such claims. The evidence revolving around the benefits of walnuts evidently must be authorized by the FDA before those benefits can even be marketed.  A letter sent to the company from the FDA states:

We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

The FDA goes on to say that the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.”

All the while, the FDA is more than happy to allow marketing of chemical-laden, diabetes-inducing foods such as Apple Jacks or Fruit Loops, often targeted at young children. Not only that, but they would much rather the population ‘treat’ their problems with harmful pharmaceuticals rather than with a healthy diet. The government’s actions against natural solutions are sickening to say the least, and saying that walnuts or pomegranates are drugs is an outright false claim. But why are they even making these crazy statements?

The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry, multi-national corporations, and government officials all have both indiscrete and blatant financial ties. Junk food manufacturers heavily lobby the federal government for favorable treatment in order to vacuum in greater profits.

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

In response to the ingestion of massive amounts of junk foods, your body responds so negatively that various health-complications surface, causing you to search for a solution. It just so happens that the pharmaceutical industry has been pushing ‘solutions’ on you for years through mass advertising, making drug ingestion and medical devices the norm instead of healthy alternatives. As far as the government is concerned, there is absolutely no reason for you to live a healthy lifestyle, since many of the government officials would be losing out on a great sum of money.

The FDA simply does not have your best interest at heart. This kind of action truly reflects government lunacy at its best.

Explore More:

1. 22 Million Americans Use Illegal Drugs


2. Is there Really a Difference Between Legal and Illegal Drugs?


3. Walnuts Pack a Powerful Dose of Antioxidants


4. Foods Beat Cholesterol Drugs in Effectiveness Without Nasty Side Effects


5. How Your Taxes are Being Used by the Government to Produce Junk Food


6. FDA Claims Power to Seize Food Without Evidence of Contamination

Please visit Natural Society for more great health news and vaccine information.

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

What have you heard about tickborne Lyme for the last 30 years? That it’s rare, scary, acute, treatable? The government warns about its spread and implores people to go to a doctor upon seeing the telltale bulls-eye rash.

So, what happens when they actually do?

Many have researched the controversial beginnings of Lyme disease, but this article focuses on what happens to victims when they contract it, and the ongoing cover-up in the mainstream medical community and the CDC itself.

Under Our Skin is a documentary that lends a voice to the many who in fact suffer from chronic Lyme and are victims of a greater abomination.

Why do conventional doctors tell them it’s in their head? Why won’t they quickly test for it? Treat it? Acknowledge it? Why do medical boards shut down doctors who can treat and cure Lyme?

Lyme’s Disease is Not Rare – It is Bigger Than AIDS

In the late ’70s, a Lyme, Connecticut mom reported a mysterious new disease sweeping the town, leaving its people with debilitating, chronic symptoms. In 1981, Dr. Willy Burgdorfer discovered the Lyme bacteria, called Borrelia burgdorferi.

The bacteria spirochetes closely resemble syphilis in their make up. While a carrier tick is feeding, its backwash enters the host and transmits Lyme. The corkscrew spirochetes wreak havoc, drilling into any healthy cells and tissue. They create painful, crippling neurological and immunological damage.

In the beginning, doctors only knew that it resembled syphilis, but remained unaware of its wide spread, how to proceed, and the political-medical clash that awaited them.

In recent years, the CDC has reported over 35,000 new Lyme cases annually, but admits that since symptoms are so overlooked the actual number may be 12 times higher, up to 420,000 cases each year.

Think of how much more likely it is to contract Lyme than the media-touted fear of West Nile virus, which is only reported at around 1,300 cases annually. If the actual number of Lyme cases is even just a modest amount above the CDC’s 35,000, then Lyme is far more prevalent than AIDS, reported at 39,000 cases annually.

Since 1982, the number of cases continues to climb and spike prompting media reports and health officials to label it an epidemic as early as 1989. Reported cases have tripled since 1992. Every summer we hear the same cautionary reports. Yet, doctors constantly tell their patients: “You don’t have Lyme,” or “Lyme only happens in such-and-such state, not here.”

Lyme is a national health crisis in every state and has traveled the globe!

Since this infectious disease is viewed with eyes that won’t see and hands that won’t treat, the miniscule 35,000 reported cases are unquestionably a mere fraction of people sick with Lyme.

Patients often look normal and are told they have M.S., Lou Gehrig’s, psychological disorders, Parkinson’s, ADHD but not Lyme. Therefore, many walk around with Lyme and have no clue why they are so ill, why treatments don’t work and are left to wonder. Many are left to die.

Without Early Eradication Lyme is Chronic, Expensive, Does Not Leave Easily
Lyme patients often state that they’ve seen an average of 30 doctors, spent over $100,000 in medical care and waited up to 15 years for a Lyme diagnosis. Why??

Lyme disease antibodies can be detected early with a blood test. If caught early it can be treated with an inexpensive bottle of antibiotics. But that is rarely the case. Patients are told it’s not Lyme, it won’t be tested for, it’s something else and so the struggle begins….

When the patient remains ill, why, it couldn’t possibly be chronic Lyme because doctors view it as acute and are not allowed to believe chronic Lyme exists. If “acute” Lyme isn’t cured with two weeks of antibiotics, which it won’t be if the bacteria has taken hold due to waiting, then the patient is told it must be something else and years of sickness, pain, and ineffective treatments ensue.

Talk to someone who’s been through this battle. They will most likely tell you they were dismissed and referred to psychiatrists and multiple specialists.

Lyme can attack any area of the body and manifest endless symptoms. Lyme patients have seen specialists for chronic pain, arthritis, Chrohn’s, iritis, organ failure, brain and neurological problems, dyslexia, insomnia . . . you name it. All for one disease that could have been treated early. But no one will believe them, and after seeing so many specialists they are often labeled crazy, hypochondriacs, attention loving, and depressed.

The spirochetes can cleverly avoid the antibiotics and hide from the immune system. It’s frightening to think that specialists often prescribe immune suppressive drugs – the most counterproductive plan for Lyme patients.

The CDC now hints at chronic Lyme with sarcastic quotation marks and insists that it be called Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS). They openly admit that the first round of conventional treatment might not bring a cure, and that the patient is in for a long ride of pain and sometimes years of antibiotics — the only recognized conventional treatment.

They lie and state that there is no credible scientific evidence that PTLDS is caused by persistent infection, that it must be residual damage, that the Lyme is gone. They also make a big point in telling people to avoid their own research on the Internet; not to believe the inaccurate information out there, just keep seeing the doctor who left them untreated for so long.

The CDC says before PTLDS treatment takes place, confirm the diagnosis – fat chance that will happen.

Avoiding The Eye - Ships Free Today!

So how did that fiasco begin?

Stay tuned for part 2 of this series….

Sources:
Under Our Skin (2008), available on Netflix
http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/postLDS/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/lyme/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-galland-md/lyme-disease-symptoms_b_876096.html
http://www.lymenet.org/SupportGroups/UnitedStates/
http://www.lymecommunity.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2711
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10007902.html?tag=page

This series is dedicated to Lyme patients everywhere.

Read Part 2: The Establishment Cover-up of Chronic Lyme
Read Part 3: Effectively Treating Lyme

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system.”[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to “boost” immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, “B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity,” researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of “neutralizing” antibodies against VSV.[ii]

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were “neither needed nor sufficient for protection.” These findings, according to the study authors, “…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV.”

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges. Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other “stopgap measures,” which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and “buy time” for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: “Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions.”

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC’s focus on using vaccines to “boost” immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as “vaccine efficacy,” without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances — will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:

Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works.”- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in “The Great American Deception,” Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57. 

American Natural Superfood - Free Sample

The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled ‘A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody. – Magda Taylor, Informed Parent 

Human trials generally correlate ‘antibody’ responses with protection – that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. ‘Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’ immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.’ – Private Eye 24/1/2002 

Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.- Ted Koren DC

*PubMed Health

Notes:[i] CDC.gov, Basics and Common Questions: Immunity Types
[ii] B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity. Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26. Epub 2012 Mar 1. PMID: 22386268
[iii] Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology. 1992 Apr ;42(4):761-4. PMID: 1565228

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo.  Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.

var linkwithin_site_id = 557381;

linkwithin_text=’Related Articles:’

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

It’s been 230 years since James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—as a means of protecting the people against government tyranny, and what do we have to show for it?

Nothing good.

In America today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document, but the reality of life in the American police state tells a different story.

“We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

The bogeyman’s names and faces have changed over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights.

A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

A survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsons television family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

It gets worse.

Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

So what’s the solution?

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

“Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable. You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

Read full story here…

The midterm election is the most important since the creation of the US. There is a choice between successful or failed economic policies. Yes, it is that, but it is more profound because of what happens to ideas after implementation. The battle is the classic one seen throughout history between an idea, such as the one envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and the vain self-promoters who pervert the idea through control.

Everything starts with an idea, whether it is a new widget, a religion, or a country. Every year millions of ideas appear, but few ever develop into anything. The people select the ones that do if it fits their needs, satisfies their interests or improves their lives. A new phase must begin after the idea is accepted if it is to achieve wider success. An organization is necessary that takes the idea and spreads it to the world.

A classic example is the idea of Christianity. It wasn’t long before disciples appeared and travelled widely preaching the gospel and putting the idea in a written form that became the New Testament. Some of those ideas were leveraged into the creation of the Catholic Church.

 “The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches.”

Some disagree with this version. It doesn’t matter. What is important is that they created a structure called the Catholic Church with a human being in charge. This structure gradually grew, creating rules and positions inconsistent with the original idea of Christianity. It rapidly changed to ensure its existence and control. The self-promoting narcissists were in charge. The structure they created was rigid, but the world and society are dynamic and ever-changing. It eventually becomes so misaligned that it collapses taking the society down with it. Alternatively, the people revolt.

The drift of the Catholic Church was already evident with such things as the split in the Great Western Schism when two popes were elected, one in Avignon, France and the other in Rome. The division became so apparent that by 1517 Martin Luther (1483-1546) was driven to nail a list of the transgression to the Wittenberg Cathedral door.  The structure always becomes more important than the idea, unless a system is designed to prevent it.

The only serious attempt in history to do that was with the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights created by the Founding Fathers. The original idea was for a Republic with government at all levels elected and accountable to the people. We have direct insight into the thoughts behind their creation known as the Federalist Papers.

You can understand their importance when you recall the real issue in the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. When asked what he considered when making a judgment, he replied, the law as written, and precedence, that is previous judgments that stood the test of time. They then asked if he ever considered the reasoning behind the law; that is, what the legislators were thinking or what was their intent. He replied that most judges do that only helps to clear up ambiguity.

America is at the point where it must refer to the Federalist Papers. There is very little ambiguity in the Constitution, primarily because the Founding Fathers created a system of amendments to overcome rigidity. Amendments are deliberately and correctly difficult to obtain. The need to revisit the Constitution is made necessary by the creation of a rigid, unaccountable structure by the self-promoting elitists. The Founding Fathers tried to build in accountability by having more positions filled by elections than ever before, but there is an obvious limit to that idea, especially since the government has grown exponentially.

This is the critical issue at the heart of the battle between Trump and both other branches of the tripartite system. Today’s bureaucrats are mostly technocrats who control everything including their budgets, the size of their organization and the parameters of their responsibility. Here is a small example of the exploitation of such a system that I witnessed. A Captain was appointed the head of the motor pool on my base. He immediately asked for 25 more people because of work demands. The uninformed politicians agreed but said he could only have 12. That was precisely what he wanted because it increased the pool to a size that the rules required a Major in charge. As soon as he got the ruling, he applied for promotion.

The Founding Fathers considered the importance of numbers, only to reduce concentration of power. For example, they considered appointing two Presidents. Here are other salient quotes from the Founding Fathers that speak to the challenge in the US today. Most speak to power and its control.

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” –James Madison

“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.” –James Madison

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams 

“In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any.” –James Madison

 “If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last.” –Alexander Hamilton

“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature.” –Alexander Hamilton

All of these concerns were accentuated and exploited by former President Barack Obama and continued by the radical left. The talent of the Founding Fathers centered on their unblinkered understanding of human nature. Benjamin Franklin demonstrated this ability when he described Barack Obama 300 years ago.

“Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason.”

Thomas Jefferson described Obama’s drop of reason.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Will the unique idea of America survive the attacks and deliberate undermining, now so deeply entrenched by technocrats? They dragged the nation away from the original idea. Now, the people must know the original idea and intent. There is a glimmer of hope in the survival of the idea of Christianity: Despite the destructive actions of the Catholic Church, Christianity survives, protected from the meddling of man, in the heart and soul of the individual. The idea of the US is also there in the American people as Trump showed, which is why the narcissistic left is so blinded by hate.

Thank goodness the technocrats are usually in the minority. However, because of this, they constantly work to counteract and overcome this limitation. They do this in many ways, but one of the most effective is to undermine the decree at the heart of democracy that a majority is 50 +1. They convinced people that this resulted in a tyranny of the majority. They replaced it with the current situation that we now realize is a bigger disaster, the tyranny of the minority.

Consider the current situation in the US Senate where the Republicans have a majority with 53 seats to the Democrats 47. Under any fair democratic system that is a majority, but the technocrats forced through a requirement that requires 60 votes for approval on most issues. The argument was that these are so serious that a significant majority must approve. It sounds very reasonable, especially with something of great consequence, but all it does is give power and control to the minority.

I was President of a condominium or Strata that involved 96 private owners. Most issues only required a 50%+1 approval at the Annual General Meetings but any vote involving the expenditure of money required 75% approval. Again, it sounds reasonable adding a further control on careless or wasteful spending. What it did was put control of all expenditures in the hands of 25% of the owners. In most groups, it is always possible to find 25% who will not spend any money if they can. It meant that necessary structural repairs to our property were constantly defeated. It ended up in court where the judge appointed an administrator and effectively took all power away from the Council.

In a rewrite of the legislation governing Stratas, the politicians (technocrats) changed it but didn’t really change it. The 75% was still required, but after several attempts to get that vote, the Strata could go to the court for an adjudicated dispensation.

The level of political game playing with the Senate vote only underscores the problem with a 60% vote. It means that 40% can dictate to the 60% and that is undemocratic and constitutes the tyranny of the minority. Because the Democrats changed the list of what issues required a 60% vote to include Supreme Court Justices they approved, the Republicans were able to appoint Justice Bret Kavanaugh. Now the Republicans are confronted with another 60% vote. It is unlikely they can get it changed because of the tyranny of the minority. Besides, technocrats, including Republicans, warn them off by saying you might want to block something with a 60% vote in the future. This is what is wrong with politics today. They take an apparently reasonable idea and pervert it to achieve control. It is a reason for the growing public anger with politics that they justify a position by saying we will act stupidly because they acted stupidly.

Democracy is the rule of the majority and must be 50 + 1. It is an absolute, like free speech. Either you have it, or you don’t. The minute there is anything else a minority take control to decide which words are allowed. So it is, that if you move away from 50+1. This does not guarantee the rights of minorities, and that is the challenge. It is why Churchill made his famous comment in 1947,

 “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The Founding Fathers confronted the problem of democracy and created a republic in the 1787 Constitutional Convention. As one author explained,

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

All that is under attack as a small group of technocrats attempt to bypass the rule of the majority.

Voltaire said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” In this article, the required definitions are explained as follows.

Many people have heard laws and regulations being used in the same sentence. It is also assumed that they are related to each other in many ways. However, definitions of both the words often cause confusion between the two words making people believe that they are the same. These words are different from each other in distinct ways. Laws are rules that are enacted by a governing body, while regulation is the process of monitoring and enforcing the rules.

Donald Trump argues that his deregulations are freeing up and boosting the economy more than all the tax cuts he introduced. It is true, but just as people didn’t know how the addition of those regulations gradually strangled the economy, they are unaware of how they free it. His deregulation removed the “monitoring and enforcing,” but it did not remove the laws written by the enacting body, in this case, Congress.

Deregulation is rare as Trump pointed out. Removal of the laws that required the regulations is even rarer. It is almost impossible to imagine Congress agreeing even to consider removal of the laws that underpin the Trump deregulation examples. This means that throughout US history every law created to resolve an issue remains ‘on the books.’ Because of the legal practice of precedence, this means that an almost unlimited set of laws exist that any lawyer can use to argue a case.

The underlying point, experienced but rarely articulated, is that as soon as government becomes involved in an issue, it is a guarantee for no resolution of the issue. Worse, the resolution will become part of the larger growth of government, laws, and regulations that will eventually smother society. Continued growth of government is proof of my argument.

Because of this, you frequently hear people say, “There is too much government and too many laws.” Thirty minutes later you can hear the same person say about another issue, “Why doesn’t the government do something about this?” Many people claim that politicians don’t listen. What they mean is the politicians don’t seem to do what they want. The politicians do listen and respond but with knee-jerk, completely unnecessary reactions.

Every day new events occur that create a negative impact on at least one segment of society. Usually, there is an outcry and politicians feel obliged to respond. Today, the event and its implications for society, are amplified by the sensationalist media. The politicians respond by producing new legislation to deal with the event.

It is reasonable to assume that most new legislation or rules are not required. The Bible only needed ten rules. It is revealing to look at the original ten as set out in Exodus 20:2-17. There are only two (2) that are relevant in any society over time. 1. You shall not murder, and 2) You shall not steal. Of course, coveting thy neighbor’s wife works both ways and even other ways today.

Today there are so many laws that a lawyer can almost always find something to stretch and bend to overcome any charge. Sadly, it depends on whether you can afford a good lawyer and that in itself makes a mockery of the law and justice.

Lawyers are the largest professional group in politics.

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers. 

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.

Somehow this doesn’t prevent them piling law on law. A new circumstance arises that seems to get people upset. Most of the issues that persist over a few months gather political momentum. These include public and private meetings, the creation of concerned citizens, and corporate-funded lobby groups. Meanwhile, the politician’s setup research groups and ultimately hold public and private hearings. The media confuse the situation by selecting and amplifying specific issues.   There are few days when Congress is in session that you can’t tune to one committee or another holding hearings and special hearings. It is easy to argue that this is their job, but what it does is allow them to perpetuate their job.

In almost every case the conclusion is a recommendation for more legislation, and that means more laws. Trump recommended that politicians eliminate two old regulations for every new regulation. It is an excellent first step, and initially, it is working better than expectations. However, that won’t continue, no matter the benefit to society. At some point, the bureaucrats and lawyers and lawyer/politicians will stop the bleeding because, ultimately, they are in control and will not allow elimination of their positions and power. Undoubtedly, they will use the vast array of laws on the books to make their case.

But this underscores the problem that laws, and the accompanying regulations are self-perpetuating. When a regulation is eliminated the laws stay on the books. It is like erasing a software program. When installed it places controls throughout your computer that remain unless specifically and individually removed, even if you erase the basic program.

The debris accumulates and eventually clogs the system. The laws accumulate in the same way, except that lawyers dig through them, and that is much easier now with computers until they find all or part of one that is close enough to their argument. Almost always this is not related in any way to the original intent of the law. That is why Justice Kavanaugh spoke about how he decides a case – he looks at the Constitution, then Precedent. He only looks at the intent if it is not clear. Is he saying that in every law or portion of the law, and it is always that, lawyers know the intent? Talented as they are, that is not credible.

It is time for a legislative spring cleaning. They should eliminate all deregulated laws. Do not allow any new law that did not get full vetting of overlap with existing law. Gradually eliminate all laws not challenged before the Supreme Court. This could begin by eliminating all other laws over 100 years old and to continue removal until all unnecessary laws are gone.

This will work because it is working in almost every other country in the world. It is not working in America, not just because of the complexity but the prohibitive cost. It alone explains but doesn’t justify why America has more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world – one lawyer per 265 Americans. It is a growth industry that guaranteed its continued existence by saying that America is a nation of laws. Yes, it is because they made it that way.

However, it is not a nation of justice because they made a system so complex and arcane that they retain complete control. Legal technocrats with total control because they defined and created the system, control the society by pretending to deal with social and economic issues when they are actually self-perpetuating. They are the only ones that can afford the law. They use the people’s money to pursue and prosecute those people. They can stretch out and delay at will until justice is denied to the people. It is why British Prime Minister William Gladstone said, justice delayed is justice denied.

It is also why Charles Dickens wrote Bleak House in which families are involved in legal disputes through a legal company called Jarndyce and Jarndyce.: The legal issues are resolved by the end of the book, but everybody involved is dead.