Archive for the U.S. POLITICS Category

Psychiatric Ethics & the Goldwater Rule

Posted in MEDICOPOLITICS, ONLINE DEBATE, PERSONAL, PRACTICE, PSYCHIATRY, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2018 by drjgelb

The desperation of the Democrats, still baying at the moon over a year since their terrible candidate lost the election, despite her seditious, criminal actions to subvert the will of the American People, is astonishing. We have witnessed a complete refusal by the Democrats and their supporters to allow a smooth and peaceful transition of power. Instead, as each attempt to oust President Trump falls flat on its face, the derangement of his enemies escalates & now we have the absurd scene of highly trained medical specialists attempting to misuse their skills in order to achieve what their compatriots have been unable to pull off. Let me make it very clear to all my colleagues, friends and readers, opining on someone that one has not clinically evaluated, that one has never met, without taking a thorough psychiatric and medical history, conducting a Mental State Examination, including an assessment of Cognitive Function, obtaining a collaborative history from family, friends, involved medical practitioners and allied health and obtaining appropriate special investigations such as blood tests and medical imaging, is MALPRACTICE or put formally, Professional Misconduct. The actions of the psychiatrists supporting the outrageous 25th Amendment Coup attempt are a despicable display of partisan abuse of psychiatry reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s fabrication of the diagnosis of “Slowly Progressive Schizophrenia” used to incarcerate & stupefy hundreds of thousands of political dissidents and enemies of the state. So egregious was the USSR’s behaviour considered that the nation was expelled from the World Psychiatric Association and the psychiatrists that colluded with the regime were ostracised for life. I consider attempts to use our specialty as a political weapon makes the perpetrators the equivalent of War Criminals. At the very least, they don’t give a damn about President Trump’s Human Rights. They bring psychiatry into shameful disrepute and I sincerely hope that those engaged in this shameful, cowardly attack are formally reported to their State Medical Board for ethical investigation and censure. Below are some of the official APA statements regarding this ongoing debacle. You can see that the APA leadership has had to repeat its warning to members more than a few times and has had to head off at the pass several attempts to introduce confounding side issues to the debate.

APA Calls for End to ‘Armchair’ Psychiatry

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as “The Goldwater Rule.” We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.

The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context. Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA’s ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.

A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.

“The Goldwater Rule embodies these concepts and makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement,” said APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “APA stands behind this rule.”

The President is about to undergo his annual physical examination, and APA has confidence that his physician will follow the standard of care in examining all systems, which includes an age-appropriate medical and mental health evaluation. If mental health concerns are raised, the standard of care would result in the examining physician seeking consultation from an experienced psychiatrist who would approach the consultation with objectivity and within the physician-patient confidential relationship.

APA is ready to make recommendations from among our 37,000 psychiatrist members, physicians who have the knowledge, training, expertise, discretion, and objectivity to perform a thorough and apolitical evaluation. Using psychiatry for political or self-aggrandizing purposes is stigmatizing for our patients and negatively impacts our profession.

 

 

Goldwater Rule

by Aaron Levin

Restraint of psychiatrists’ comments on political candidates is grounded in APA’s response to an attempt to question Barry Goldwater’s mental health during the 1964 campaign for President.

“Do you believe Barry Goldwater is psychologically fit to serve as President of the United States?” the editors of Fact magazine asked 12,356 psychiatrists during the 1964 presidential campaign between Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson.

The responses set off a wave of reaction that resonated again most recently after media speculation about the mental status of the current Republican presidential candidate.

Fact published numerous comments questioning Sen. Barry Goldwater’s psychological capacity for office, which ultimately led to the creation of APA’s “Goldwater Rule” in 1973.

A look at the original episode reveals as much about psychiatry’s changes over the last half century as it does about politics then or now.

The harshly negative responses by people who had never even met Goldwater seem astonishing by today’s standards, as a sampling suggests:

“I believe Goldwater to be suffering from a chronic psychosis,” wrote one.

“A megalomaniacal, grandiose omnipotence appears to pervade Mr. Goldwater’s personality giving further evidence of his denial and lack of recognition of his own feelings of insecurity and ineffectiveness,” wrote another.

“From his published statements I get the impression that Goldwater is basically a paranoid schizophrenic who decompensates from time to time. … He resembles Mao Tse-tung,” said a third.

Not wanting to exclude other relevant 20th-century tyrants, another claimed, “I believe Goldwater has the same pathological makeup as Hitler, Castro, Stalin, and other known schizophrenic leaders.”

Others pushed back. In reality, Goldwater had worked in his family’s business, then served as a transport pilot in World War II, and retained a commission in the Air Force Reserve for many years. He was twice elected senator before the 1964 presidential race and would be again in 1968, 1974, and 1980.

It was difficult, said one psychiatrist quoted in Fact, to believe that a man who was “psychotic” or “schizophrenic” would have managed all that.

“I served as a flight surgeon in the USAF,” wrote Wilbert Lyons, M.D., of Sellersville, Pa. “I speak with authority when I say that Sen. Goldwater could not be a jet pilot if he were emotionally unstable.”

Goldwater certainly held very conservative political views and expressed them forcefully. Many of the respondents who declared him “unfit” were likely expressing their own political biases in psychiatric terms. Tellingly, many of them asked that their names be withheld from publication, perhaps hinting at some guilt feelings over their cavalier, remote diagnoses of the candidate.

Nevertheless, many other respondents understood immediately the greater implications of the question for psychiatry’s purported role in the electoral process.

“Your inquiry for a professional opinion regarding Sen. Barry Goldwater’s general mental stability is an insult to me,” wrote Thomas Stach, M.D., in 1964. “An inquiry of this type regarding any individual can only be based on ignorance of the field of psychiatry.”

Stach demanded an apology from the editors to all the psychiatrists who had received the survey.

“It was astounding to me when the survey first came out,” Stach, now retired in Willowbrook, Ill., told Psychiatric News. “It was impossible for a psychiatrist to come to a conclusion like that without a personal examination. The psychiatrists who were baited into giving responses were imprudent.”

Some offered a nuanced statement of their own positions.

“Politically, I heartily disapprove of Goldwater,” wrote Joseph Schachter, M.D., Ph.D., in 1964. “In fact, I find him somewhat frightening. Yet I do not feel I can honestly say he is psychologically unfit to serve as president.”

“I still think that’s a plausible view of the Goldwater situation,” said Schachter, now retired and living in New York City, in a recent interview. “Psychiatrists and psychoanalysts have the right as citizens to comment on elections and candidates and are free to do that, but without selecting a psychiatric diagnosis.”

“Vetting a candidate should be based on his or her position on the issues,” agreed Stach. “The survey betrayed the ignorance of the questioner.”

APA’s initial reaction to the Fact magazine article came swiftly.

“[S]hould you decide to publish the results of a purported ‘survey’ of psychiatric opinion on the question you have posed, the Association will take all possible measures to disavow its validity,” wrote APA Medical Director Walter Barton, M.D., in a letter to the magazine’s editors on October 1, 1964.

APA President Daniel Blain, M.D., denounced the compilation as “a hodge-podge of the personal political opinions of selected psychiatrists speaking as individuals. … [T]he replies to the question have no scientific or medical validity whatsoever.”

Tying political partisanship to the psychiatric profession, continued Blain, “has, in effect, administered a low blow to all who would work to advance the treatment and care of the mentally ill of America.”

APA’s formal response came in 1973 with the adoption of Section 7.3 in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, which became known as the Goldwater Rule.

The rule applies to public figures and states: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement” (see below).

The episode and the subsequent adoption of Section 7.3 appear to have dampened the enthusiasm of most APA members for a repeat performance, leaving psychiatric diagnosis to the media.

Text of APA’s Ethics Annotation Known as ‘Goldwater Rule’

7. 3. On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

 

APA’s Goldwater Rule Remains a Guiding Principle for Physician Members

ARLINGTON, Va. — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) today released the following statement regarding The Goldwater Rule:

“In the past year and a half, there have been numerous news articles and commentaries on The Goldwater Rule. The Goldwater Rule is an ethics principle that guides our physician members not to provide professional opinions in the media about the mental health of someone they have not personally examined and without patient consent or other legal authority. A personal examination includes ruling out physical causes of or other reasons for a behavior. Nothing about the Goldwater Rule discourages psychiatrists from providing education to the public about mental illnesses; in fact, APA encourages psychiatrists to educate the public about the causes, symptoms, and treatment of mental illnesses and substance use disorders.

The APA would also like to dispel a common misconception about the so-called “Duty to Warn.” The duty to warn is a legal concept which varies from state to state, but which generally requires psychiatrists to breach the confidentiality of the therapeutic session when a risk of danger to others becomes known during treatment of the patient. It does not apply if there is no physician-patient relationship.”

 

APA Reaffirms Support for Goldwater Rule

ARLINGTON, Va. March 16, 2017 — The American Psychiatric Association (APA) today reaffirmed its support behind the ethics guideline commonly known as “The Goldwater Rule,” which asserts that member psychiatrists should not give professional opinions about the mental state of someone they have not personally evaluated.

The APA’s Ethics Committee issued an opinion that clarifies the ethical principle and answers questions that have been posed recently.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule.” The ethics principle is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. (See APA Blog on Goldwater Rule.) During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which it queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency. Goldwater would later sue the magazine, which was found liable for damages.

“It was unethical and irresponsible back in 1964 to offer professional opinions on people who were not properly evaluated and it is unethical and irresponsible today,” said APA President Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D. “In the past year, we have received numerous inquiries from member psychiatrists, the press and the public about the Goldwater Rule. We decided to clarify the ethical underpinnings of the principle and answer some of the common questions raised by our members. APA continues to support these ethical principles.”

In reaffirming the existing policy, the Ethics Committee explained the rationale behind the rule. For example, offering a professional opinion or a diagnosis of someone they have not thoroughly examined compromises the integrity of the doctor and the profession and it has the potential to stigmatize those with mental illness. Furthermore, when a physician publicly gives a professional opinion on a public figure without consent, it violates the principle that a psychiatric evaluation must occur with consent or authorization.

 

The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible

August 3rd 2016    

Every four years, the United States goes through a protracted elections process for the highest office in the land. This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.

Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

Maria A. Oquendo, M.D.

Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated. The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

While there was no formal policy in place at the time that survey was published, the ethical implications of the Goldwater survey, in which some responding doctors even issued specific diagnoses without ever having examined him personally, became immediately clear. This large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry.

We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a Presidential candidate. I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor, and would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as “unfit” or “unworthy” to assume the Presidency.

Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

The Goldwater Rule is published as an annotation in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry. I encourage you all to read the full text of the rule below, and keep it in mind during this election cycle, and other events of similarly intense public interest.

 

 

The Ethical Psychiatrist’s Role in Public Elections

April 7th 2016

Presidential elections are intense and may lead some observers to speculate about the mental health of the candidates. People are curious about psychiatrists’ diagnostic opinions of politicians and other public figures. This is a sufficiently common phenomenon that APA added an annotation to the Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry in 1973, commonly referred to as the Goldwater Rule, prohibiting psychiatrists from offering public opinions about people they have not personally evaluated.

Section 7, Article 3, of the Principles states, “On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

Why is it called the Goldwater Rule? During the 1964 presidential election, Fact magazine published the results of a survey it had mailed to 12,356 psychiatrists. Of the 2,417 respondents, 1,189 replied that Sen. Barry Goldwater was not psychologically fit to be president. For a detailed account of the responses, see Henry Pinsker, M.D.’s “Goldwater Rule History” in Psychiatric News. Sen. Goldwater successfully sued Fact for libel and was awarded $75,000 in punitive damages.

APA responded to this very public ethical misstep by a large number of psychiatrists with the annotation above, and periodically the Goldwater Rule is recapped in APA publications (“Ethics Reminder Offered About Goldwater Rule on Talking to the Media,” and in the national media (“Should Therapists Analyze Presidential Candidates?).

Beyond a reminder about the rule, it may be helpful to understand some of the ethical concepts behind it. Virtue ethics emphasizes the personal characteristics that society expects physicians to embody. Among these virtues are respect for others, humility, and adherence to diagnostic processes according to the standards of our field. If we venture a diagnostic impression about a person we have not examined, we trample upon these virtues.

In addition to inviting a lawsuit for libel or slander, a potential consequence of psychiatrists breaching these virtues is a diminution of public confidence in psychiatrists. If we will speak to the media about the possible psychiatric diagnosis of a person we have not evaluated, will we also reveal the identities and diagnoses of our patients? We must guard against undermining the protective cloak of confidentiality, without which people may refrain from seeking mental health treatment.

Political campaigns are brutal. Even a psychologically healthy person needs extra support if engaged as a candidate in an election. Because of stigma, that candidate needs to be assured of the utmost privacy and confidentiality if he or she is to enter treatment. If we are hazarding guesses about politicians’ diagnoses in the media, we will lose the opportunity to provide treatment to our political leaders, which is perhaps one of the most effective ways to ensure a mentally healthy leadership while simultaneously eroding the stigma attached to our field.

Psychiatrists can play an important role in elections, but it is mostly silent. 

 

 

There are many other similar statements, warnings, reminders and guidelines that have been issued on a regular basis since 1973, as each election cycle strained adherence to the Goldwater Rule but have no doubt, EVERY PSYCHIATRIST IS FULLY AWARE OF THEIR ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN THESE MATTERS and the public has the right to expect better of its key Mental Health Professionals. 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

WILLIAMS: Western Values Are Superior!

Posted in Cultural Marxism, ONLINE DEBATE, POLITICAL ISLAM & JIHAD, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 25, 2017 by drjgelb

https://www.dailywire.com/news/19048/williams-western-values-are-superior-walter-e-williams

https://www.dailywire.com/authors/walter-e-williams

“Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value?”

Here’s part of President Donald Trump’s speech in Poland: “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”

After this speech, which was warmly received by Poles, the president encountered predictable criticism. Most of the criticism reflected gross ignorance and dishonesty.

One example of that ignorance was penned in the Atlantic magazine by Peter Beinart, a contributing editor and associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York. Beinart said, “Donald Trump referred 10 times to ‘the West’ and five times to ‘our civilization.’ His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means.” He added, “The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white.”

Intellectual elites argue that different cultures and their values are morally equivalent. That’s ludicrous. Western culture and values are superior to all others. I have a few questions for those who’d claim that such a statement is untrue or smacks of racism and Eurocentrism. Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan; is it morally equivalent?

In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limitations placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning. Thieves face the punishment of having their hands severed. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in some countries. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to Western values?

During his speech, Trump asked several vital questions. “Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?” There’s no question that the West has the military might to protect itself. The question is whether we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation.

Much of the Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. Islamists’ use multiculturalism as a foot in the door to attack Western and Christian values from the inside. Much of that attack has its roots on college campuses among the intellectual elite who indoctrinate our youth. Multiculturalism has not yet done the damage in the U.S. that it has in Western European countries — such as England, France and Germany — but it’s on its way.

My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell reveals some of the problem. He says, “Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the ‘infidels’ of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise.” Sowell adds, “Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world.” Few people, such as Persians and Arabs, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don’t blame themselves and their culture. They blame the West.

By the way, one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. One just has to accept the sanctity of the individual above all else.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

THE GUTLESS JEW HATERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS Vs THE SHINING LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS, POLITICAL ISLAM & JIHAD, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 21, 2017 by drjgelb

Nikki-Haley-Veto-UN-Security-Council-Resolution-Jerusalem-e1513731465781-620x435

The U.N. Security Council critics of the U.S. decision to acknowledge the fact of Jerusalem as Capital of the State of Israel and its history as the ONLY and ETERNAL CAPITAL of the Jewish people for over 3000yrs, yet again demonstrates their sycophantic appeasement of the Islamic Cabal that controls today’s United Nations.

Once again, as so many times since Arab Oil and money took priority over conscience, the nations of the world cowered in the face of Muslim opinion and proved themselves gutless Jew Haters who, lacking any decency or seeming knowledge of history, fell back on the despicable post-1967 U.N. resolutions that followed Yasser Arafat’s widely admitted fabricated newly weaponised ethnicity, The Palestinians!

From 1917-1967, the term Palestinian referred to Jews living in the British Mandate region that the Brits cheekily called Palestine as a reference to the term for a part of Israel under Roman occupation 2000 years earlier – Palestina. Prior to the Romans & after the fall of the Roman Empire, the term disappeared until the British Mandate resurrected it following the defeat of the Turks in World War One. For over 600 years prior to that, what is Israel today, was simply part of the Ottoman Caliphate/Empire. None of this is news! After the allied victory in World War One , the defeated Ottoman Turks were stripped of their territory and the Partition Plan  was devised & ratified by the United Nations, thus restoring the Land of Israel to the only ethnic group who ever created a discrete nation there 3500 years ago & who defended it through multiple invasions, exiles, conquests & genocides, including the rejection of the Partition Plan and the mass attack by  surrounding Arab nations immediately upon Israel’s establishment.  

The United States finally has a President with the determination and guts to follow through with the repeatedly deferred 1995 statute ordering recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital & the move there of  its embassy, as is routine for all other U.S. Embassies but the DisUnited Nations has once again ignored the right of the nation it created in 1948, of simply having its only ever capital acknowledged as a reality!

Only hatred of the Jews, the very same factor that led Britain, America, Australia & the other World War Two Allies to ignore the desperate pleas of World Jewish organisations for the Nazi concentration camps’ extermination infrastructure and the transportation lines that supported the Final Solution, to be bombed, a measure later acknowledged as potentially saving hundreds of thousands from terrible deaths. The allies didn’t care about the Jews then & other than America, they don’t care now.

Nikki Haley is spot on to berate the gutless, useless members of the Muslim dominated U.N. to demand that they butt out of U.S. internal affairs or lose U.S. funding & future participation. The “Palestinians”, Muslim majority nations and their supporters should be put firmly in their place, told that Muslim dreams of a Global Islamic Caliphate will never be realised & that if the Muslim nations currently sponsoring terrorism and Jihad fail to reign in & destroy Jihadist Extremists in their midst, they will no longer enjoy a place at the table with the United States.

President Trump has already declared that Islamic Jihadist Extremists will no longer be tolerated by the United States and that they and their sponsors will be destroyed…..it’s time for those who dare to continue to spread the toxic ideology of Islamic Jihad, to face the unbridled wrath of the most powerful nation on the planet, in the interest of world peace, stability and the safety and prosperity of our children and grandchildren.  

 

 

Runaway Slave

Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2017 by drjgelb
 p9334083_d_v8_aa
An important Documentary that is even more relevant today than it was on its release in 2012.
“A perpetual state of welfare exists in the U.S., creating a form of modern slavery for a large percentage of African-Americans. Rev. C.L. Bryant presents an insightful and compelling look at how freedom can be restored.”
Watch this excellent documentary to discover the best arguments against the NFL Players’ “Take a Knee” campaign & against the Marxist ideology that underpins the policies & direction of the Democratic Party, Progressives, Liberals, Post-Modernists, Socialists, Globalists or whatever label this bankrupt, nihilistic & dangerous movement chooses to use currently for its advancement. 
http://hdmega.net/movie/bxq1k9xJ-runaway-slave.html

Genres: Documentary

Actor: Glen Beck, Andrew Breitbart, C. L. Bryant, Herman Cain

Director:  Pritchett Cotten

Country:  U.S.A., Israel

Duration:  108mins

Year: 2012

The Shocking Defeat of the United States

Posted in CRIME & CORRUPTION, Cultural Marxism, MEDICOPOLITICS, MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS, ONLINE DEBATE, POLITICAL ISLAM & JIHAD, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 31, 2017 by drjgelb

https://youtu.be/XHbrOg092GA

Members of both the U.S. House of Representatives & the U.S. Senate have had to contend with the reality of their powerlessness for over a century, beginning as WWI ended in 1918. Woodrow Wilson warned the American people that as a result of the massive profits accruing to the military armaments industry & complicit military leaders, undue influence had reached such proportions as to dictate U.S. policy. President Wilson felt that he had failed the people by failing to stop these “men in suits” from obtaining so much power. President Roosevelt spoke several times of the gathering power & control of the military industrial complex and its ability to subvert elected government. He was careful with his words but those listening knew what he was warning the nation about. Harry Truman was shocked to discover that intelligence gathering was split between agencies & that he received information that could not be utilised because its meaning was so poorly communicated. He set up the CIA to co-ordinate the collation & presentation of all available intelligence into a comprehensible form and to ensure that the President was always fully informed. Little did he know that the CIA’s origin in the OSS made it a severely dysfunctional organisation from Day 1. Why? Because the OSS had placed the European Head of Intelligence for the Gestapo as the new CIA European boss and allowed him to hire & fire, leading to the placement of numerous former Nazis in the CIA as well as facilitating the escape of hundreds of war-criminal Nazis to Sth America. Truman stated in a public speech that he feared he had unleashed a “Gestapo-like” entity on Americans. Eisenhower became so alarmed at the actions of the CIA, the Deep State, that he referred to it as a malign “Shadow Government”. His warning, contained within his farewell speech, was chilling (watch it on You Tube) & so real were his fears that he changed the venue for the farewell speech at the last minute from the Capitol Building to the Oval Office, so he could complete his term & the speech without leaving the safety of the White House. JFK was a whole other story & it is now very clear that the CIA & its partners in crime, assassinated an elected President for daring to challenge their power.The 20 co-conspirators who met the night before the killing were the who’s who of the Bankers, Industrialists, Mafia & rogue politicians, FBI, CIA, the Generals etc of the U.S. and they employed a team of assassins the like of which had never before been gathered to murder JFK. Then, despite subsequent Presidents all being made aware of the facts, the Deep State doubled down and ensured that they remained the power behind the throne by intimidating, compromising and blackmailing every Federal politician elected as soon as they possibly could. This remains the case today. Massive colluders with the Deep State like the Clintons & Bushes are protected species & the Deep State will do all it can to see that no Justice ever comes for the Clinton Machine because both Bill & Hillary understood criminal hierarchies & understood the value of the Green Light they have been given. It is bullshit to think that the Intel Agencies are unaware of every last thing that HRC, Obama et al said & did and anyone observing the near perfect lockstep of CIA and the Clintons must realise the mortal danger one places oneself in if one objects too loudly! No wonder Jason Chaffetz had had enough! I wonder how harshly he was threatened and told to STFU. Under Obama, the Deep State was strengthened in every way, with virtually unfettered power to intimidate, lie to, monster, blackmail, defraud & sometimes even to kill those it designated enemies of the state for any or no reason. The American people MUST reject this creeping loss of the nation.

Corporate Attacks on Free Speech Gather Pace

Posted in CRIME & CORRUPTION, Cultural Marxism, ONLINE DEBATE, POLITICAL ISLAM & JIHAD, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2017 by drjgelb

I’m extremely concerned with Google’s just announced escalating attack on Free Speech, particularly in respect of You Tube and I believe the arrangement that it is entering with Leftist Organisations to provide oversight of posted videos, is a potential breach of the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The notion that Social Media Mega-Corporations are immune from the obligation to protect free speech when they exist & operate in a class of very few similar entities that have such an extremely unique & privileged societal position, has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court.

I hope that leave is sought from the Supreme Court to hear a test case if You Tube, Facebook, Twitter et al attempt to restrict conservative voices and I believe that such action is already being prepared in the interests of moving rapidly to protect Free Speech, the major pillar of democracy.

Soon the Supreme Court will have another new conservative Justice and within 2yrs there will likely be a third. At that point, the full force of the Court will undoubtedly be brought to bear against the Leftist propaganda machine that considers any opinion they disagree with as “hate speech.”

Google/You Tube also need to be aware that world Jewry do not consider the ADL as speaking for us. The ADL has become an unabashed Leftist/Marxist organisation fixated on barely visible “white supremacists” as a distraction and is ignoring the concerns of the majority of Jews, who as a group suffer 68% of violent hate crimes in the U.S. annually. The ADL is far more concerned about Islam being justly criticised for its bottomless pit of hatred and supremacism than they are about violent hatred against Jews. Simply take a look at the comments on the ADL’s Facebook page to see how upset the majority of Jews are to see the ADL act in line with many well-known neo-Marxist activism strategies.

Whatever Google’s long term aim might be, Socialist/Progressive ideology, weaponised by the Frankfurt School & its miserable depressive killjoys & honed to a sharp point by Saul Alinsky, is exactly the wrong path to take & will only serve to destroy the United States and beggar its people. Wake up Google/You Tube and cease your attempts to kill the very Goose that produced your stockpiles of Golden Eggs.

How to Spot a Psychopath

Posted in Cultural Marxism, ONLINE DEBATE, PSYCHIATRY, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , on July 24, 2017 by drjgelb

How to Spot a Psychopath

 

Richard Fidler’s “Conversations” program on ABC Radio National (Australia) today interviewed David Gillespie, author of a new book on how to spot a psychopath at work & at home. Unfortunately, the last five minutes of the program consisted of branding President Trump a psychopath, a disturbing and invalid characterisation. I made the following comment on the show’s Facebook Page:

 

 

“Excellent program let down by mischaracterisation of Donald Trump as a psychopath based on 2nd & 3rd hand, biased reporting & an absence of inclusion of numerous examples of behaviour completely inconsistent with psychopathy. Mainstream media has failed to report the numerous unheralded examples of great generosity displayed by Trump throughout his life. Research will reveal instances of Trump contacting people affected by serious misfortune & providing enormous help anonymously. Several instances have been revealed years later, despite Trump’s wishes to remain anonymous.
Secondly, he has loyal and diverse friendships with people from all walks of life, many whom have complained that the goodness they have witnessed from Trump does not interest the press & is ignored.
Thirdly, psychopaths rarely have successful, confident children, rather they control their kids mercilessly, demand loyalty without reciprocating & suffer inevitable rejection & abandonment by their adult children.
Fourthly, the comments suggesting Trump is a compulsive liar neglects to place this opinion in the proper context of the bottomless pit of lies told by his rival, Hillary Clinton, whose remorseless blame-shifting & dishonesty regarding her private email server, details of the Benghazi attack, destruction of mobile devices and so much more, is much more indicative of psychopathy. Her calling the parents of the murdered Benghazi defenders “liars” after she blamed the attack on an anti-Islamic video when she knew categorically that this was untrue, was one of the lowest & despicable actions of the entire campaign & was much more characteristic of a psychopath. Her laughing comments re winning a case for a rapist of a 13yr old girl were similarly despicable, as was her “we came, we saw, he died” laughter following Gaddafi’s unnecessary removal. Her actions related to arms sales to ISIS were totally reprehensible & her hypocrisy re the sale of 20% of U.S. Uranium to Russia & the acceptance of a $130 million donation to the Clinton Foundation for doing so, was astounding. Failure to mention her husband, psychopath & serial rapist, Bill Clinton, demonstrated the bias that infected the show today.
Lastly, regardless of experience, no diagnostic labels are valid in the absence of a clinician personally interviewing a patient, preferably face to face and supplementing the assessment with a thorough search for corroborative information & 3rd party interviews with relevant informants who have personal knowledge of the subjects life & behaviour. Armchair psychiatrists who provide the press with definitive diagnoses re Trump without such an examination may actually be in breach of their Code of Conduct and various U.S. State Medical Boards have indicated that such practitioners may face investigation and censure.”
%d bloggers like this: