Archive for Conspiracy Theories

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. 







Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , on December 19, 2016 by drjgelb

It’s a Myth that Trump Called for the Russians to Hack anyone! It all Started with Katy Tur!

Obama repeats media creation that president-elect called on foreign government to hack Clinton!

It has become an unshakable article of faith on the Left that President-Elect Donald Trump asked Russia to hack computer systems in order to defeat his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton. Of course Russia hacks, the People’s Republic of China hacks, North Korea hacks, and every country that gathers intelligence hacks, with varying degrees of efficiency.

At what was billed as President Obama’s final press conference Friday, the outgoing president said he was confirming Russia tried to interfere in the Nov. 8 election.

“This happened at the highest levels of the Russian government,” Obama said. But there has never been any evidence that Trump called upon Russia to hack anybody. It simply never happened. And this is not an arguable point. It is not a close call. Yet eyewitnesses say they saw and heard something that didn’t actually take place.

“I personally saw President-Elect Trump say, go ahead and hack Hillary Clinton,” liberal pundit Juan Williams said Thursday on “The Five” on Fox News Channel. Williams seemed to be referring to a July 27 press conference in Doral, Florida, at which the mainstream media hallucinated then-Republican candidate Trump was inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin to use cyberterrorism to help him win the White House.

On Wednesday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a matter-of-fact tone that Trump asked Russia to use cyber warfare against Clinton. “There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent,” Earnest said. “It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.” “That’s why he was encouraging them to keep doing it,” Earnest said.

Where did these people come up with a dangerous, provable falsehood that is undermining both the American electoral system and the incoming administration?

Take a look at the video footage of Trump’s July 27 press conference!

At the press conference, Trump, half-jokingly, urged the Russians to hand over those supposedly personal emails from Hillary’s accounts that had disappeared into the ether. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said.

He added sarcastically: “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Remember that Clinton admitted to grabbing some 66,000 emails and then returning about half of them which she claimed didn’t touch upon personal matters. She said those personal emails were deleted.

A few minutes later in the press conference, NBC reporter Katy Tur shouted a loaded question at Trump to introduce into the mainstream media ecosystem the Big Lie that Trump had personally invited Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

“Do you have any qualms about asking a foreign government — Russia, China, anybody — to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody in this country?”

Trump was understandably dismissive of Tur’s question without specifically denying the premise underlying it — which was the false assertion that Trump asked a foreign government to engage in hacking. Tur restated her question replacing the word “qualms” with “pause.”

“Hey, you know what gives me more pause, that a person in our government, crooked Hillary Clinton — here’s what gives me more pause,” Trump said.

He continued:

“Be quiet, I know you want to, you know, save her. That a person in our government, Katy, would delete or get rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a big problem. After she gets a subpoena. She gets subpoenaed, and she gets rid of 33,000 emails. That gives me a problem. Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.” Trump reinforced his point on Twitter a few minutes later. He tweeted: “If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 illegally deleted e-mails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!”

In the meantime, The New York Times wrote on July 27: “Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he hoped Russian intelligence services had successfully hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, and encouraged them to publish whatever they may have stolen, essentially urging a foreign adversary to conduct cyberespionage against a former secretary of state.”

The New York Times and CNN then vigorously promoted the lie. And so Katy Tur’s strategically placed Big Lie was carved into the Left’s narrative and repeated so many times that the mainstream media now treats it as indisputably true. It is now regurgitated almost continuously by journalists, editorial writers, Democrats, Republicans, left-wingers, and even some conservatives who don’t know any better.

So-called liberals and progressives use the power of narrative — of telling a story — in order to alter the public’s perception of reality. They take real facts and then they distort them or put a plausible spin on them until the truth is massaged to serve their interests.

In other words, they lie. Yet not everyone who swears up and down that Trump asked Vladimir Putin to interfere in the recent U.S. elections is lying.

Lying requires dishonest intentions. A sincerely held belief cannot be a lie.

But it’s important to remember that this ugly lie began with one person and her name is Katy Tur.

Matthew Vadum is senior vice president at Capital Research Center, an investigative think tank in Washington, D.C.

ISIS AND THE LEFT by J.R. Dunn, American Thinker, 19th September 2014

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , on September 20, 2014 by drjgelb

   ISIS AND THE AMERICAN LEFT    by J.R. Dunn, American Thinker, 19/09/2014


Since the appearance of ISIS, the usual suspects on the left — those in politics and the media in particular  — have bent over backwards to argue that it has nothing to do with President Obama, that his silly foreign policy, undergrad strategic considerations, and infinitely collapsible notion of American responsibilities, unfolded in a vacuum and could not possibly have had any effect on anything! No, the fault, of course, according to Obama, is that of George W. Bush and his neocon comrades.  By this twisted narrative, if it weren’t for Bush, a strong, wise, and humane Saddam Hussein would be present to destroy this Jihadi upsurge, exactly the way Gadhafi and Mubarak did.


This chatter has redoubled since ISIS tightened its hold on Syria and northern Iraq and Obama demonstrated himself incapable of mounting any sort of coherent resistance.  It can be found anywhere from the NYT to HuffPo to CNN, but I saw put most succinctly by Ron Fourier of the National Journal:

“Called again to confront a threat in the MiddleEast, Americans keep tripping over the baggage of George W.  Bush. In 2003, we trusted.  Not again.  The president vowed retribution against terrorists who slaughtered Americans. The Defense secretary and secretary of State spoke of imminent threats. The intelligence community leaked word of Americans-turned-terrorists and sleeper cells.  Those actions echo today, but Americans are of a different mind—not nearly as credulous, or as willing to fight.”


Utilizing foreign policy, whether successes or failures, to manipulate domestic politics is mostly an exercise in self-delusion, since there is rarely any one-to-one correlation involved. That is clearly the case with the Bush-wrecked-the-Middle-East argument. The Mideast being what it is, nobody ever comes out a clear winner.  The best that can be done is to control the latest blowup while preparing for the next.  Hoping for permanent closure in the sand-belt is a wish-fulfillment daydream.


That said, one thing that is utterly clear is that the current Mideast situation is not only largely the fault of Barack Obama, but of the entire American left, including politicians, academics, the media, and the entertainment world.  It was leftist policies (often non-policies) that triggered today’s chaos, that channeled it, and that has rendered solutions both difficult and ephemeral.  The Mideast today is an indictment of both Obama and the entire leftist cohort.  Compared to this crew, George W., whatever his errors and shortcomings, looks gigantic.  Whatever his mistakes, whatever he did wrong, we know this: when somebody finally nukes Manhattan, it won’t be Saddam Hussein. 


We’ll start the video rolling at 9/11, remaining fully aware that the operation itself was the direct result of Bill Clinton’s finickiness and timidity.  (Not to mention Jamie Gorelick’s obsessive tinkering with the nation’s counter-intelligence system.)


Even as the national reaction to the attack gathered force, the left set out to undermine it.  Recall the Californian politician whose first thought was to screech, “America, what did you do?”Those who joined him — and there were plenty — were blown back by the public response, deciding that momentary silence was the best policy. 


Except for Michael Moore.  The day after the attack, Moore blogged one of the most infamous phrases ever written about 9/11 (possibly excepting those of Ward Churchill). 


‘’If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California — these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush.”


This set the tone for further leftwing responses.  Bush was the story — not the terrorists, not the victims.  9/11 was simply more ammunition.  Bush was not going to be allowed a success.  The United States was not going to be allowed a victory.  While the left might not be capable of much in the way of positive achievement, it has always been great guns at destruction.  The U.S.  was going to feel the full force of that tendency. 


One development that for some reason stuck in my mind was a quickly staged New York performance of Bertolt Brecht’s Arturo Ui, the cast headed by Al Pacino and Steve Buscemi.  Brecht’s play was a satirical attack on Hitler, reworked to target Bush and the war effort, which was depicted as little different from Hitler’s takeover of Europe.  


This continued throughout the post attack period…..CHECKPOINT, a novel by high-class porn writer Nicholson Baker, a film, and at least two plays were published calling for the president’s assassination.  As a full revelation of the enormity of the Bush tyranny, the authors, directors, and publishers were immediately struck with… nothing.  No effort whatsoever was made to silence or even address these people.  If you tried such a thing concerning Obama today, the black suits and helicopters would descend upon you like hail.


The apotheosis was reached with Fahrenheit 911, a fake documentary by none other than Michael Moore himself, utilising the Bush/Hitler thesis to create doubt in the public mind and disrupt efforts against the Islamist threat. 


The left were clearly out to duplicate the experience of Vietnam.  In so doing, they gave direct encouragement to the Jihadis through assurances that the United States would not see the effort through, that it would be sabotaged from within, and that the Islamists would escape full retribution for their actions and eventually achieve their goals.  (As Michael Moore  himself put it: “They are minutemen. And they will win.) Much of this exact program, needless to say, was put into effect by the Obama administration. 


The first strike against the Jihadi strongholds,targeting Taliban Afghanistan, occurred too swiftly for the left to muster effective opposition.  (Ironically, I was on a panel the very day the campaign opened, persuading several left-wing feminists that such a strategy would favor Afghan women.  News of the attack came just as the panel was ending.  One of them raised her fist and shouted, “For the women ofAfghanistan!”)


The Bush administration’s greatest error of the campaign now unfolded — rather than take down Hussein’s Iraq in short order, the U.S.  paused for a year and a half.  The reasons remain unknown,though they probably involved mollifying the Cabinet’s more moderate members by kowtowing to the UN and a spineless Europe.  


This pause allowed the left to gather its forces, build up steam, and attack on a broad front.  This was the period of “blood for oil” mythology, along with the pseudo-Freudian interpretation that Bush was attempting to make up for his father’s failure in Iraq.  (At the same time, the left was praising Bush 41 as a great man who knew when to stop.) 


The most blatant effort involved direct personal support for Hussein, one of the foulest tyrants of the late 20th century. Leading the parade here were three Democratic representatives, Jim McDermott, David Bonior, and Jim Thompson, who, as the Coalition gathered its forces, flew to Baghdad at Saddam Hussein’s expense.  The three met personally with the dictator, though what was discussed remains unclear. 


At the same time hundreds of other sandal-wearers appeared in Iraq offering to serve as “human shields” for probable targets, demonstrating considerable faith that American pilots would be more humane than the Jihadis behind the September 11th attacks.  Though widely covered and praised by America’s patriotic media, these people vanished just before hostilities broke out.  (Many evidently made a mad dash across the country to the friendly Jordanian border.)


The Second Gulf War ended with victory, though serious flaws arose during the post-conflict occupation.  Media jumped on these failings while ignoring everything else.  Western reporters worked hand-in-glove with the Ba’athist resistance.  Palestinian stringers were utilised  few of whom, it goes without saying, had a constitutional revulsion against manipulating the facts.  Rocket attacks by insurgents were scheduled for the benefit of media cameras, and attacks were carried out with due regard for reporters’ deadlines.  You can examine major media outlets for the entire period of the war and not find a single reference to any of this. 


Scandals were inevitable amid the complexities of military occupation and national reconstruction and the media took full advantage of them when they appeared.  The most virulent involved Abu Ghraib, the main prison in Baghdad, where a National Guard MP unit largely composed of backwoods types tormented and humiliated a number of prisoners.  This was presented not as an isolated failure, but as a direct result of administration policies, and beyond that, the entire American effort.  Never did major media report that the problem lay in a command failure — the prison commander, Colonel Janet Karpinski, an affirmative-action promotion out of the Clinton era, scarcely set foot in the prison itself, allowing ill-disciplined and badly-led troops to run riot.  Mark this oneup to the feminists.


The same type of coverage was given to the main terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.  Gitmo was relentlessly characterized (by Senator Richard Durbin, among others) as a concentration camp on the same level as the Nazi camps or the Soviet Gulag.  Repeated reports– almost entirely fabricated — described torture, starvation, and petty harassment such as tossing Korans into toilets.  This received wisdom became one of Obama’s major campaign themes, leading him to promise to close the camp down within a year (six years later, that promise abides in Limbo along with many others.)


The true measure of Gitmo can be gained from the fact — universally both acknowledged and ignored — that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is a Gitmo grad, released in the stampede to let go “harmless” prisoners in hopes of bringing the numbers down.  (A process-easily picture: “We gotta let go ten! That’s what the DOD PR people say.  How about… Baghdadi.  Yeah — throw him in too!”) How many of his comrade mujahedin share his record is unknown, but the number is likely to be very high.  You will fail to find mention of this in any of the analyses of ISIS, but dude, it was, like, seven-eight years ago, right?

When the surge strategy was introduced to save the faltering Iraq occupation, both media and political leftists turned on its most capable advocate, Gen. David Petraeus, with a vengeance.  He was pilloried as a traitor, a fool, a front for the Bush administration.  No less a figure than Hillary Clinton called Petreaus a liar in the Senate on national television.  Following the success of the strategy, Petraeus was at last brought down by a cabal of corrupt, grasping females, none of whom should have been in the positions they were occupying. 


All this had two purposes: the destruction of an American president, first, and beyond that, the crippling of the United States as a whole in the face of a dramatic and global threat. 


Obama’s actions are merely icing on thecake.  He contemptuously tossed aside a recommendation by President Bushto maintain 20,000 troops in Iraq while refusing to negotiate a correlation of forces agreement with the Maliki government.  Iraq became the sole nationliberated by the U.S. in the past century with which no militaryconnection was maintained.  As a result, the incompetent Noori al-Malikiwas allowed to give full play to his more brutish instincts, quickly unravelingeverything the Coalition had built.  While it would be going too far tosay that this was what the Obama administration intended, the possibility wasprobably not overlooked either.


Beyond this we have the shadowy and ill-reported“Arab Spring” strategy evidently cooked up by a coven consisting of HillaryClinton, Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, the chief outcome of which has beenchaos in Libya and a massacre at Benghazi, near civil war in Egypt, and overallcollapse across the Mideast culminating in the rise of ISIS.  The Americanmedia has done nothing to expose or even allude to any of this.  We willlearn how it all actually unfolded at some point farther down the line –perhaps in twenty years or so. 


Obama’s full response was to insist that ISIS isactually called something else and to make a speech the content of which was evidentlycleared with none of our allies beforehand.  There it stands: a non-strategy featuring a non-alliance aimed at non-goals.  And it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.

As is almost always the case, none of the priceis being borne by the individuals responsible.  Thousands are dying under the most horrific circumstances conceivable.  Small children have been beheaded.  Entire villages buried alive.  Vast areas are in abjectchaos, with entire countries in danger of sliding into the sinkhole the regionhas become.  But Jim McDermott remains in office.  Steve Buscemi isstar of a successful cable series.  Hillary Clinton is on the verge ofannouncing her run for president.  Not a single word of regret has beenheard from any one of them.  Why should there be — do you think that Tina Fey has lost a minute’s sleep over providing cover for Vladimir Putin? (Thoughit should be added that ISIS victim James Foley was in effect a propagandist for Islam. His executionwas a calculated kick in the teeth for his leftist allies.)



There have been plenty of mistakes in dealingwith the Jihadi threat.  There are always mistakes in any complex effort,and there is something deeply wrong with the claim that this is not the case,and that the counterterrorism policy represents some kind of anomaly in anotherwise unsullied parade of triumphs.  But it’s also true that theactions of the left cannot be defined as “mistakes.” The American leftdeliberately undermined this country’s campaign against Islamist terrorists insupport of their own agenda.  Every element of the left — the feminists,the multiculturalists, the pacifists, the anti-militarists, the Marxists — hasplayed a part. 


So there’s considerableirony in seeing the ball at last in their court.  There can be littledoubt as to how badly they will handle it, with their “smart diplomacy,” their“soft power,” their “leading from behind.”  The inevitable result will beyet more unspeakable human suffering, as far as the eye can see, and the mindcan encompass.





Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 15, 2014 by drjgelb

Comprehensive article on the history and origins of Islamic hatred of Jews and the incorporation of this bigotry within the constitution of HAMAS. The details of 1500 years of massacres, pogroms, assassinations and constant degradation and cruel subjugation are presented and contextualised so that the reader gains an informed understanding of the intractable religious basis for the impossibility of Israel ever being accepted as a peace partner by its Islamic neighbours. Hatred of the Jews is mandated by Islam to such an extent, that a 21st century approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is impossible. If Arab Muslims accept the presence of Jews in their midst, they would have to turn their backs on one of the most central tenets of Islam, that Jews are the spawn of Apes & Pigs, that they are hellish servants of Satan and that it is the sacred duty of every Muslim to eliminate every last Jew from the Earth in order for Islamic Messianic times to become possible. These concepts pepper the speeches & sermons of contemporary Imams and the public pronouncements of current Muslim politicians & leaders, when speaking in Arabic. They are redacted from any public communications delivered in English. Ignorance of these core Islamic beliefs has led to an almost universally held false belief that Jews are responsible for the Arab/Israeli conflict. Could you reach a peace agreement with people that want to kill you & your family?



Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2014 by drjgelb

Hats off to Mark Joseph Stern and his recent article in Slate, entitled “The Cruelty of Creationsim”. The article finally pitches itself at the Creationists not only for their delusional fundamentalism but also for their depraved goal of indoctrinating children to take their twisted logic into the future. Here is the article. Please share it with your friends.

Intellectual freedom is one of humanity’s greatest gifts—and biggest burdens. Our ability to ask questions, to test ideas, to doubt is what separates us from our fellow animals. But doubt can be as terrifying as it is liberating. And it’s the terror of doubt that fosters the toxic, life-negating cult of creationism.

That fear is on full display throughout HBO’s new documentary Questioning Darwin, which features a series of intimate interviews with biblical fundamentalists. Creationism, the documentary reveals, isn’t a harmless, compartmentalized fantasy. It’s a suffocating, oppressive worldview through which believers must interpret reality—and its primary target is children. For creationists, intellectual inquiry is a sin, and anyone who dares to doubt the wisdom of their doctrine invites eternal damnation. That’s the perverse brilliance of creationism, the key to its self-perpetuation: First it locks kids in the dungeon of ignorance and dogmatic fundamentalism. Then it throws away the key.

And that dungeon is much darker than most Americans realize. The creationists interviewed in Questioning Darwin—including their abominable doyen, Ken Ham, a wily businessman who is already fundraising off his ill-conceived recent debate with Bill Nye—returned again and again to the same depressing subjects. Death, suffering, pain, sorrow, disease: These, creationists inform us, are what await any skeptic, anyone who questions the word of God. Pastor Joe Coffey neatly sums up their objections to natural selection:

If all we are is a product of this random mutation process, then where does morality come from? Where does hope come from? Where does love come from? Where does anything that makes us a human being really come from?
The answer, to creationists, is simple: There is no love, no humanity, in a world with evolution. Humans must have been designed by God; if we weren’t, then we’re mere animals, lacking in morality and dignity, consigned to a pitiful and pointless life of struggle and dolor. Evolution, one true believer informs us, is “incompatible with biblical Christianity” because it recognizes the permanence of death and leaves no room for a second coming. Creationists are consumed by repressing the existential panic that often attends acceptance of reality. Instead of confronting that terror, they’ve retreated into an elaborate fantasy.

So deep is their delusion, in fact, that many creationists are perfectly willing to acknowledge their abandonment of reality—on camera. “Truth is not an assimilation of information,” insists one fundamentalist in Questioning Darwin, explaining why no amount of evidence could change his mind about human evolution. “There’s one truth, and that’s found in the Bible.” A creationist pastor takes this illogic to its harrowing extreme, freely conceding that he would perform endless mental gymnastics to justify the seemingly unjustifiable conclusions of biblical text.

Creationists brainwash their own children and push their creed into public schools across the country.
“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that says two plus two equals five,” the pastor states plainly, “I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it—accept it as true and then do my best to work it out and to understand it.”

This ideology might seem fairly benign. And it’s true that, by itself, creationism damages only those who choose to believe it. But here lies the true peril of the dogma: No creationist is content to keep her beliefs to herself. Creationists don’t merely proselytize; they brainwash their own children and push their creed into public schools across the country. Creationists teach their children not only that evolution is evil, but that studying evolution, even thinking about it, is a sin that leads the soul to eternal damnation.

“What [Darwin] has done is worse than murder,” proclaims one creationist in the documentary. “All the death and suffering we see here isn’t the result of a creator God,” says another. “It’s sin”—such as the acceptance of evolution. (He doesn’t explain how so much death occurred before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.) Creationists spend countless hours telling their children that scientists and biology teachers are spouting the devil’s lies. Creationism is a mental prison with no hope of release, for the only escape hatch—intellectual inquiry—has been sealed off by years of suppression.

The conflict between creationism and evolution is, to many believers, an all-out war between God’s word and humans’ sins. That’s why parents are so determined to prepare their children for battle. One mother in Questioning Darwin home-schools her children to prepare them to defend their creationist beliefs against secular “attacks.” We see pastors casting an ominous eye over their congregations, warning them of the horrors of the Darwinian worldview and the hellfire that awaits those who are lured into its trap. Creationists discuss evolution with a combination of abject fear and muffled rage, ranting that natural selection sounds “crazy” while calmly asserting that Adam and Eve shared Eden with vegetarian dinosaurs. They blame Darwin for Hitler (a time-honored smear) as well as for drug use, murder, and an endless parade of horribles. Question the Bible, creationists tell their children, and you will soon be drowning in barbarity.

This view isn’t benign or wacky: It’s poisonous and medieval. Creationists reject not just evolution but most of the Enlightenment and pretty much all intellectual development since. Rather than celebrate the brilliance of the human mind, they disparage free thought as dangerous and sinful. Instead of extolling the virtues of creativity and imagination, they malign all unorthodox ideas as immoral and wicked. For all creationists’ insistence that evolution denigrates humanity, creationism is fundamentally anti-human, commanding us to spurn our own logic and cognition in favor of absurd sophism derived from a 3,000-year-old text. It turns our greatest ability—to reason—into our greatest enemy. Using our brains, according to creationism, will lead us to sin; only mindless piety can keep us on the track to salvation.

It’s easy to scoff at all this, to giggle at the vivid weirdness of young Earth creationism and then shrug it off as an isolated cult. But the 40 percent of Americans who reject evolution, as well as the tens of thousands of children or more who are being brainwashed with it in publicly funded classrooms, aren’t laughing. Creationism is built to metastasize; those who believe it won’t rest until everyone else believes it, too. True believers yearn for the rest of us to be locked up in the same mental prison where they have consigned themselves and their children. They insist that evolution has robbed us of our humanity. But in reality, it’s their twisted gospel that aims to strip us of the very thing that makes us human.



Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 29, 2013 by drjgelb

I just have to put this link up for all to see. The AVN has outdone itself by cruelly bullying and harassing a young couple whose 4 week old baby died from Whooping Cough…..Pertussis…..due to the presence of the bacteria in the under-vaccinated children of the Anti-Vaccination activists, whose conspiracy theory is that all medical advocates of vaccination are on Big Pharma’s payroll! They are dangerously deluded! Thankfully, Bill Gates was in Canberra, Australia’s Capital, today and at a Press Club Luncheon, he explained how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was gratefully accepting an $80 million donation from Australia to complete vaccination and elimination of the Polio Virus from the last Four countries where the terrible scourge still exists. Gates said he is a champion of vaccination and credits it for saving 5 million lives each year that would otherwise be lost in the third world alone!



Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , on May 9, 2013 by drjgelb

Lots of recent articles, recycling the so called debate re vaccination, quackery and pseudoscience!

I made this comment to Paul Smiths article in Medical Observer, 23rd April 2013:

“Why are too many doctors so reluctant to raise their voices and stridently call a spade a spade? I fear that an entire generation is growing up with political correctness hard-wired into their brains by constant repetition of that mantra throughout their childhood & adolescence. Anti-Vaccination activists are ignorant, conspiracy theorists who commonly hold multiple unfounded beliefs & who have a broad mistrust of science, bordering on paranoia. They easily find sectors of the community who are unschooled in being able to differentiate between science and pseudoscience. Even Paul Smith makes assumptions about Richard Dawkins & the Big Bang Theory without finding out about the close friendship between Dawkins, Isaac Asimov & Carl Sagan & the numerous & extensive discussions these men have shared. Rather than make assumptions, write to Dawkins & ask him on what basis does he accept his various beliefs. In my experience, he is careful not to be dogmatic where it is unsafe for him to do so. Not so the anti-vaxers, many of whom I met on the Sunshine Coast when I lived there from 1996-2006. They quoted anecdotes & rumours, railed against scientists as all being in the pocket of Big Pharma & considered Western Medicine generally as a fraud. When a friend with a totally unvaccinated 12yr old brought him around newborns, I explained the danger & was poo-poo’d by a roomful of vegan, yoga loving, Neo-Buddhist, Anglo-aussies who believed far more earnestly in crystals & craniosacral readjustment as the path to good health! I left that Sunday coffee & cake afternoon simply shaking my head in disbelief & vowing not to subject myself to such stupidity again! And I told them that their ignorant & false beliefs may well lead to the death of innocent infants! Wasn’t I popular…….not!!