Archive for DEMOCRATS

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. 






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

“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

Runaway Slave

Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 14, 2017 by drjgelb
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.

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 One Lesson of the Holocaust

Posted in Cultural Marxism, MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS, ONLINE DEBATE, U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , on April 26, 2017 by drjgelb

Daniel Greenfield brilliantly hits it out of the park again in this blistering calling out of the cowardice of Leftist Jews for not more forcefully opposing Obama’s delusional Iran Nuclear Deal and for so cynically supporting the predictably catastrophic “Two State Solution” for the Arab/Israeli conflict, despite the Arabs stating clearly that a Palestinian State would be merely the first phase in their determined quest to rid the Middle East of Israel & its Jews once & for all.

Daniel Greenfield’s article can be found here:

And I’ve posted it here to ensure my readers & friends see it:




Daniel Greenfield’s article: The One Lesson of the Holocaust

Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day)  comes and goes. A day for looking back at what has happened and a day for looking away from what will happen.

Millions of dollars have been spent building memorials to the victims of the Holocaust, even as Iran is spending its millions on building another kind of memorial to the Holocaust, in the form of nuclear technology that will be used to finish that piece of history that the Islamic terror state claims never took place.

Millions more are spent, by some of the same groups that claim an interest in Holocaust education, on bringing Muslim migrants to America and Europe to carry out the promise of an Islamic apocalypse in which, as the Hadith states, “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” That is what the Islamic Holocaust looks like. And it’s underway.

A Jew is murdered in France. Another in Jerusalem. And another and another.

The Final Solution, with its immediate extermination of the Jews, has been replaced by the Two State Solution, an intermediate process in which the land on which Jews can live in security is partitioned into smaller and smaller pieces.

The Lebensraum (German, esp. Nazis – “living space” – the additional territory that a group, state, or nation believes is needed for its natural development) of Islam demands ever more breathing room. And fewer breathing Jews. Israel is carved up into smaller indefensible ghettos. The number of places where the world decides that Jews can be allowed to live, shrink. The rest become “settlers” who must be evicted for the sake of peace. Even if the place they’re “settling” is Jerusalem. The oldest Jewish city on earth.

And this Two State Solution, this intermediate process, has the almost universal backing of the major Jewish organizations who are so very deeply concerned about the Holocaust. It has the backing of the diplomats and politicians who put out canned statements urging that we learn the lessons of the Holocaust. The only lesson they have learned though is that another Holocaust needs better marketing.

It is comparatively easy to build a memorial. You hire the architect, raise the money, buy the land and then cut the ribbon. It is a much harder thing to do something about the need for those memorials in the first place. That is what learning the lessons of the Holocaust is about.

It is easier to build another memorial than to look into your heart and ask why two generations later, the majority of the American Jewish community was still too cowardly to stand up to a liberal icon in the White House… when the lives of millions of Jews were on the line.

From FDR to Obama, American Jewish leaders had two opportunities to stand up to a liberal icon and save Jewish lives. No amount of memorials can disguise the fact that they learned nothing.
The reassurances from American Jewish leaders that Obama meant well, that he will not sell out Israel and that he cares sounded familiar. The American Jewish leaders of the 30’s and 40’s echoed the same sentiments. Even as the St. Louis was turned back and its passengers were sent to the gas chambers, even as every effort made to aid or save Jews from the Holocaust was frustrated and shut down with the active complicity of the liberal American Jewish leadership who were loyal to FDR.

The same people who let millions die went on to light candles and issue their hypocritical sanctimonious statements of mourning for the dead.  More candles have been lit. More memorials have been built. But the lessons of the Holocaust continue to go unlearned.

Regardless of which administration is in office, the Two State Solution and any support for the Islamic terrorists seeking to exterminate the Jews, as they have already exterminated many of the Christians in the region, must be fought. When we fail to do this, then whatever our politics are, we abandon our obligations to the dead and to the living.

The most important lesson of the Holocaust is that the details of how it happened don’t really matter. Had Hitler not come to power, had Germany not turned National Socialist, the Holocaust would have happened anyway. Stalin had one planned too before his death. Had it not been Hitler or Stalin, it would have been someone else. It still might be.

The Holocaust did not happen because of intolerance or fascism, as most liberals would like you to believe. It happened for the same overriding reason that any person or group of people is murdered. Because the Jews lacked the means of defending themselves against it.

There have been two Jewish responses to the Holocaust, on the one hand promoting tolerance and assimilation and on the other hand the State of Israel. Tolerance has done nothing to prevent the hatred and murder of Jews. In many cases it has actually served to promote it.

Every Muslim attack in Europe and America can be laid at the door of tolerance. When a Jewish woman is thrown out of a window in Paris or a Rabbi is beaten in Brussels, the true perpetrator is “tolerance”.

The State of Israel stands as the only meaningful response to the Holocaust. Rather than building stone memorials and going back to business as usual, the State of Israel is not only a living future for the Jewish people, it is a response to the fundamental lesson of the Holocaust. The Holocaust happened because it could happen to a people who couldn’t defend themselves. The State of Israel with its armies and borders was the best physical defense against it happening again.

Today the two responses to the Holocaust are battling out to the death, Tolerance and Assimilation vs the State of Israel. And the State of Israel is getting the worst of it. The teachers of tolerance blame Israel for the failure of their own ideology, manifest in the rising hatred of Jews around the world. If Israel wouldn’t exist, somehow Jews wouldn’t be hated, their thesis goes. As if Anti-semitism had been discovered lying around in a dustbin sometime after 1948.

But it is tolerance meanwhile that is killing Israel. The left has pushed Israel to the wall, because it represents the inversion of their ideology, it represents the reality that the best hope of the persecuted is not in multiculturalism or in tolerance classes, but in taking responsibility for their own safety and survival.


Free Speech on its Death Bed in Europe

Posted in Cultural Marxism, ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 24, 2017 by drjgelb

Professor Paul Cliteur had some interesting things to say during the recent Geert Wilders trial in which he gave excellent rational evidence supporting Mr Wilders right to ask his supporters at a meeting in an Hague bar whether they desired more or less (fewer) Moroccans to immigrate to The Netherlands. Sadly, the Dutch judges, blinded by ideology, decided to officially turn Moroccans into a ‘race’ in order to convict & sentence Geert Wilders for “hate speech” anyway.

The You Tuber who posted this video named “political correctness” as the Judges’ new “religion”. I think he nearly got it right but the truth is actually far more sinister.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is not the religion in question but is one of that religion’s weapons. That religion is Marxism. “Progressives” are more than “unconscious” of being pawns in a tried & tested strategy of the Left, they are IGNORANT of the full historical background that underpins the symbiotic relationship between Marxism, Progressivism, & Social Justice Activism. The entire adult population of Europe would greatly benefit from carefully reading Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”, which is the left’s blueprint for action following the failure of Bolshevism to be taken up outside of the Soviet Union, mainly due to its heavy reliance on violence, murder & terror. With little stomach for walking in Lenin & Stalin’s bloody footprints, international Marxists, inspired & guided by Alinsky, began the long task of sowing division amongst disparate groups in society by labelling them as “oppressed” & then pitting these “oppressed minorities”, women, blacks, homosexuals, transgendered, Muslims, Latinos etc against the state and simultaneously against each other by exaggerating the disparities in government responsiveness to their grievances. Alinsky taught his followers to pretend to care about the minorities they spurred to rebel & protest and he would actually yell at any idealists in the class who appeared empathetic to the targeted minorities. So what did he yell? He told them that the purpose of their focus on minorities was to foment a climate that favoured Revolution & that Revolution must be the penultimate goal of everything they were doing. And finally, what is the ultimate prize that Marxists desperately seek? Total, unbridled POWER! Power to destroy democracy & freedom and to replace it with a Marxist system in which loyalty to the state was rewarded and merit/achievement counted for nothing, where the property of those who strived & succeeded would be confiscated by the state & redistributed to those who had not, where a new elite would rob the nation blind & line their pockets with gold, while the rest of the population simply learned to line up in endless queues to buy whatever was not in shortage. If you recognise Venezuela in this scenario, it is no surprise, as the Marxist experiment has falied multiple times in exactly the same way – just as predicted so many years ago by the famous economists of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Google “Cultural Marxism” & learn what Social Justice Warriors & their “handlers” are really on about!


Trump Derangement Syndrome reaches Australia!

Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , on February 28, 2017 by drjgelb

c5okdjawqaelwg7Greens Senator Scott Ludlum published the following article on his Medium blog today, titled “Fascism in larval form: Australia and the US in the age of Trump.” I encourage you to read the entire article but you will not be surprised to find that it is a Leftist diatribe by a dedicated parliamentary representative of Australia’s most Left-wing political party holding any electoral seats in the country and is firmly in the  Socialist camp. Here is the article link:

Read on Medium:

I could not resist commenting on this phenomenon of the spread of TDS to Down Under!


“The gnashing of teeth re Donald Trump is enormously disingenuous & pundits must really believe that the informed public have no memory & are morons. We have just emerged from 8yrs of a dismal Presidency under Obama wherein allies were abandoned & enemies feted. 

Where were Progressive voices when Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the face of its published Jihadist manifesto and its history of having spawned enemies like al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS & dozens of other radical Islamic terrorist organisations? Where were Progressive voices when Obama participated in destroying Libya, when the State Department illegally supplied arms to the very Syrian rebels who became ISIS & its affiliates, when Obama directed the IRS to discriminate & hound conservative taxpayers, when the Obama Admin lied barefaced to the public re Benghazi & that notorious but irrelevant video, when Hillary Clinton revealed herself to be a pathological liar re her private email server & the destruction of State owned documents by the tens of thousands, when Obama betrayed the only democracy in the Middle East in favour of the duplicitous Palestinians whose desire to possess all of Israel & annihilate the Jews is plainly printed in the charters of Hamas & Fatah, when Obama lied to a National audience on the occasion of his first official visit to a Mosque in 2016, saying that Islam comes from the Arabic word for peace when he knows as a student in an Islamic school in Indonesia until age 14yrs that Islam comes from the Arabic word for submission, not peace, or when Obama swore in Congressman Keith Ellison on Jefferson’s famous Qur’an saying that Jefferson greatly admired Islam when reality is that Jefferson bought his Qur’an on his return from meeting with the Pasha of Tripoli in London where he and John Adams were witness to the Pasha reading from the sacred Islamic text that all Muslims were mandated to convert, kill or enslave non-believers. 

Jefferson obtained the Qur’an to determine the nature of an enemy that in 1798 was extorting 10% of the new American Nation’s GDP in return for repatriating pirated and abducted American crews. As a result of what he learned, Jefferson declared war on Tripoli & the Barbary Pirates and sent the fledgling U.S. Navy on its first overseas military mission where it waged a 5yr war, ending in a treaty. 

And where were the Progressive voices when the Clinton Foundation raked in 3 billion dollars in a massive pay to play scam and the Clintons were charging obscene speaking fees & funneling the money to Hillary’s war-purse? 

I could fill a book with scandals & disgraceful conduct of the Obama Administration that cannot possibly be matched in the first 40days of Trump! Currently, Trump has commenced implementation of the greatest number of campaign promises of any former President and has selected a serious, credentialed cabinet picked for their experience, success in achieving their goals and toughness. 

I have no doubt that the Left despise Trump & his team, as they must, because the agenda of the Left, having failed to win hearts & minds by either force or any record of successful governance, must continue to focus on division, identity politics, discord, racialism & interminable virtue signalling from the massive cohort of brainwashed graduates of left dominated faculties in Universities throughout the Union who call themselves Social Justice Warriors and everyone else, racists, bigots, Islamophobes, homophobes and most stupid of all, NAZIS! (who were of course socialists, not fascists……it’s in their name liberals!). Until you balance your anti-Trump bias with an honest critique of his rivals, your efforts will be seen as self-serving and merely leftist propaganda.”

View story at

View story at



Posted in U.S. POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2016 by drjgelb

U.N. goes all-in for unlimited migration!

Hillary an enthusiastic supporter of globalist plan for U.S. cities

The United Nations has cooked up a “New Urban Agenda” coming soon to a city near you.

It was unveiled this week in Quito, Ecuador, at the so-called Habitat III conference.

And part of the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world.

By now most Americans who follow world events are familiar with the U.N’s plan for global governance as envisioned by its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” approved by some 190 world leaders including President Obama and Pope Francis in September 2015.

This agenda includes 17 goals aimed at ending hunger, wiping out poverty and stamping out global income inequality by “transforming our world” through sweeping changes ostensibly aimed at freeing cross-border “labor mobility,” among other things.

Hillary Clinton, anointed by Obama as his successor, said in a speech to Wall Street bankers she envisions the U.S. as part of a single “hemispheric common market with free trade and open borders,” according to WikiLeaks data dumps.

In another bombshell revealed by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.” She has also called for a 550-percent increase in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America – that’s 550 percent more than Obama’s vastly increased level of more than 12,000 resettled in one year.

In short, Hillary’s agenda for cities sounds an awful lot like the U.N.’s agenda for cities as laid out in the New Urban Agenda document approved this week by world leaders in Quito.

“She’s totally in line with the U.N. agenda, on board with everything they do,” says economist Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.”

Clinton earlier this year announced her $135 billion “breaking every barrier” program to transform America’s cities.

In this plan, she makes 37 pledges promising everything from removal of blight to construction of affordable housing in areas that are currently out of the price range of refugees, immigrants, the chronically unemployed and under-employed. She intends to build on the “successes” of her husband and the Obama administration in using public-private partnerships to transform cities. Obama’s contribution in this area included his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which forces grant-receiving cities to infuse their low-crime suburban areas, deemed “too white,” with subsidized housing marketed to low-income renters.

This fits right in with the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement, said “She’s making a pre announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda. She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”

The problem that keeps globalists like Obama and Clinton up at night is how to implement the sweeping changes laid out in the U.N. 2030 Agenda last September at the global sustainability summit in New York.

That’s where Habitat III comes into play. It’s called the U.N. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development or “Habitat III” for short. Its focus is on the world’s cities.

Largest U.N. conference ever:

Habitat III was attended by a staggering 50,000 people including more than 200 mayors and another 140 city delegations. 

The sole purpose of this conference, held only once every 20 years by the U.N., is to approve a 24-page document called the New Urban Agenda.

“The only purpose of the conference is to rubber stamp this document and elevate it and lift it up to the world,” said Wood. “And right now it looks like they are. Everybody. All the nations.”

In this document lies the globalists’ plans for cities. All cities. Big, small, even tiny cities. Every American who lives in a city will at some point see the fruits of the plan the U.N. has in store for the world, says Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement.

The Habitat conference convenes only once every 20 years but when it does, it leaves a trail of anti-capitalist, anti-freedom “global standards” in its wake, says Wood. These are the standards by which the U.N. wants each and every city in the world to be operated. They come packaged as “non-binding” and Congress never approves them.

Yet, somehow, the global standards coming out of the major U.N. conferences always seem to filter down to even the smallest American hamlet. How? Through federal grants. Any city that accepts federal grants will at some point be required to implement the practices that the U.N. has declared “sustainable.”

‘Inclusive’ by design, coercive by default:

The catch word in the New Urban Agenda is “inclusive” or “inclusivity.” This concept has a long history with globalists.

The definition of “technocracy” as used by the original technocrats back 1938 was “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” That’s according to The Technocrat magazine.

“They use the word ‘entire’ twice in that definition so I’m really not surprised we see it showing up in these conferences today,” Wood said. “Their intent is to create a net that will catch 100 percent of the people.”

The word “inclusive” or “inclusivity” appear in the New Urban Agenda document no fewer than 36 times.

“There is no exclusion,” Wood says. “If you read the New Urban Agenda document, you’ll find for instance under item 6a, ‘transformative commitments,’ the statement starts out ‘leave no one behind.’”

That same phrase, leave no one behind, is in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

“In fact just about everywhere you go now at the U.N. you’ll find this concept,” Wood said. “It’s a little disturbing.”

Wood says the U.N. is resurrecting an old concept that fizzled in the early days of the technocracy movement, back in the 1930s. Its time hadn’t arrived yet, but now things are different. The world is run by big data and the world is eager to embraced a set of globalized, one-world standards for everything, whether it be Common Core education standards, globalized police standards that Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the U.N. last fall in the form of the Strong Cities Network, or global standards for healthcare, ala Obamacare. You name it, the United Nations wants to standardize it.

The next big hurdle in the race to standardize the world is the issue of immigration:

Point 42 on page 7 of the New Urban Agenda talks about cities providing opportunities for dialogue, “paying particular attention to the potential contributions” of women and children, the elderly and disabled, “refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, and without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.”

Everyone is welcome:

Wood notes that, in America, that would mean exactly what John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has already said — that anyone with a driver’s license should be allowed to vote.

“This is the way I read it,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted, jihadists or non-jihadists, sick or healthy. If they show up in your country, they must participate in the affairs of that country immediately, whatever country they find themselves in.”

The preamble to the New Urban Agenda says cities are the “key to tackling global challenges.”

“So these people are viewing cities as the key ingredient right now to implementing sustainable development, and they say this battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities.”

And the U.N. document goes on to state that this agenda is “the first step for operationalizing sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way at the global, national, subnational, and local levels.”

In essence, it’s a roadmap to global governance where American cities will no longer get their direction from elected officials representing them on the city council, or even the state legislature, but the United Nations itself. The local councils will likely not even know that the rules they are following in order to qualify for federal grants are tied to United Nations’ standards for sustainability.

Cities committing to ‘a paradigm shift’:

The document talks about cities committing to “a paradigm shift” in the way they “plan, develop and manage urban development.”

“It’s top to bottom,” Wood said. “They’re saying it’s going to be a top-down implementation. But for all the gains that sustainable development have made since 1992, there’s been a complaint that it hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough, and that it’s not inclusive enough, that some pockets have been left out. So, what they’re saying here is that this New Urban Agenda document is really, in their minds, the first step for operationalizing it. First step to making sustainable development completely operational. That’s huge.”

Wallace Henley, a journalist and former aide in the Nixon White House who went on to become a Christian pastor and who has written extensively on globalism, said the U.N. is making a full-on assault against the American system of government, which requires federalism, states’ rights and separation of powers.

“The U.N. is a glaring example of the inevitable course of bureaucracies. Like kudzu in Alabama, a tiny seed will inevitably spread until it controls the whole of a hillside,” Henley told WND in an email.

And he, like Wood, sees Hillary Clinton in the thick of the battle, fighting on the side of the globalists, not America first.

“The leftist-progressive philosophy is the fertilizer. Agencies sprout and grow, and bring forth policy confabs like Habitat III. The conferences then produce white papers that ultimately become the source of policies,” he said. “It is a leftist-progressivist dream.”

“Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority, Henley said, and that is the suffocating vine that chokes out everything else.

“This meshes perfectly with the New Globalism and its dream of a world without borders. Anything can be done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian invasion’ of a sovereign state – but only if its leaders embrace the same left-progressive philosophy as the bureaucracies headquartered in New York. This makes a Hillary Clinton presidency even more foreboding,” he said.

And these “progressives” include many in the Republican Party who are now shilling for Clinton, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

“The true conservative seeks preservation of liberty-nurturing principles, and the sustenance of values that resist the control of the bureaucrats and guarantee freedom from a globalist hegemon in the form of the U.N.,” Henley said

Eric Voegelin’s 1975 book, “From Enlightenment to Revolution,” describes with amazing prescience the “line of progress” according to the revolutionaries who drive what Henley calls the New Globalism, from the local to the global, from the individual to the mass of humanity, from nation-states to a concentrated global power.

“This is the big picture of which Habitat III and its New Urban Agenda is a part.”


%d bloggers like this: