Friday, June 7, 2013



A huge Muslim problem: Inbreeding
Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who has done extensive research into a little-known problem in the Muslim world: the disastrous results of Muslim inbreeding brought about by the marriage of first-cousins.

This practice, which has been prohibited in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the days of Moses, was sanctioned by Muhammad and has been going on now for 50 generations (1,400 years) in the Muslim world.

This practice of inbreeding will never go away in the Muslim world, since Muhammad is the ultimate example and authority on all matters, including marriage.

The massive inbreeding in Muslim culture may well have done virtually irreversible damage to the Muslim gene pool, including extensive damage to its intelligence, sanity, and health.

According to Sennels, close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred. In Pakistan , the numbers approach 70%. Even in England, more than half of Pakistani immigrants are married to their first cousins, and in Denmark the number of inbred Pakistani immigrants is around 40%.

The numbers are equally devastating in other important Muslim countries: 67% in Saudi Arabia , 64% in Jordan , and Kuwait , 63% in Sudan , 60% in Iraq , and 54% in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar .

According to the BBC, this Pakistani, Muslim-inspired inbreeding is thought to explain the probability that a British Pakistani family is more than 13 times as likely to have children with recessive genetic disorders. While Pakistanis are responsible for three percent of the births in the UK , they account for 33% of children with genetic birth defects.


Thursday, June 6, 2013



EPA Keeps Everyone in the Dark

Want to see what EPA stonewalling looks like? 

 Below's article by Sheryll Poe shows that for years the agency has shown little regard for government openness. The latest example is EPA dodging requests from state Attorneys General for information on “sue and settle” practices that impose new federal regulations with little public input. She also addresses a new database on “sue and settle” cases created by the U.S. Chamber.

by Sheryll Poe, Free Enterprise: From recent news reports, it’s becoming clear that the EPA will do just about anything to avoid any sense  of transparency.

The latest example of EPA foot-dragging and creative dodging comes at the expense of attorneys general in 12 energy-producing states. The AG’s have raised questions over the EPA’s use of “sue and settle” lawsuits as a short-cut to put in place expensive and burdensome regulations favored by activists and environmental groups.

For those who don’t know, sue and settle works like this: Environmental and consumer advocacy groups file a lawsuit claiming that the federal government has failed to meet a deadline or has not satisfied some regulatory requirement. The agency can then either choose to defend itself against the lawsuit or settle it. Often times, it settles by putting in place a “court-ordered” regulation or deadline to regulate, as desired by the advocacy group. Consequently,  the proper rulemaking channels and basic transparency and accountability standards are circumvented. The results are economically damaging rules.

Not surprisingly, the state attorneys general want some answers. However, they aren’t getting any from the EPA. As the Daily Caller reports:
In February, twelve states — Oklahoma, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wyoming — requested records pertaining to settlements the EPA entered into with environmental groups over state Regional Haze implementation plans.
The agency denied their request, arguing that the states did not express specific intent to disseminate the information to the public. However, the states did mention in their FOIA request that the information would be disseminated to the public. The states appealed, and the EPA has twice asked for more time to review the appeal.
The Chamber recently compiled a database of sue and settle cases and their subsequent rulemaking outcomes. The results were eye-opening. The Chamber investigation shows that from 2009 to 2012, the EPA chose at some point not to defend itself in lawsuits brought by special interest advocacy groups at least 60 times.

These cases include EPA settlements under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, along with key Fish and Wildlife Service settlements under the Endangered Species Act. Significantly, settlement of these cases directly resulted in more than a hundred new federal rules, many of which cost more than $100 million annually.

The Chamber database also shows that several environmental advocacy groups have made the sue and settle process a significant part of their legal strategy. The Sierra Club has filed and settled 34 cases. By filing and then quickly settling lawsuits covering significant EPA rulemakings and regulatory initiatives, these groups have been able to circumvent the normal rulemaking process and effect immediate regulatory action with the consent of the agencies themselves.

Another popular diversionary tactic employed by the EPA relates to fee waivers for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. An investigation by the Competitive Enterprise Institutefound that the EPA often refuses to waive FOIA fees for conservative groups, while almost always waiving them for environmental groups.
In a review of letters granting or denying fee waivers granted at the “initial determination” stage from January 2012 to this Spring, [CEI Senior Fellow Christopher] Horner found green groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and EarthJustice, had their fees waived in 75 out of 82 cases. Meanwhile, EPA effectively or expressly denied Horner’s request for fee waivers in 14 of 15 FOIA requests over this same time… “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” Horner said.As the Washington Business Journal notes, “the waivers are significant since FOIA fees can run into the thousands of dollars – enough money to discourage groups from going forward with their requests for emails and other government documents.” In addition, it’s common practice to waive FOIA fees for media and public-interest groups. Instead, this is a clear case of EPA picking its’ friends and punishing its’ critics.

Luckily, Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Darrell Issa and Sens. David Vitter, Chuck Grassley and Jim Inhofe, are getting involved. They recently announced that they will be investigating CEI’s findings, and have asked the EPA to hand over all Freedom of Information Act fee waiver requests, responses to requests, and FOIA officer training materials since the beginning of the Obama administration.

The EPA could just follow the lead of  the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). They just take out their big black Sharpies and redact every single line of a FOIA-requested document. That’s what happened to the Chamber when it made a FOIA request to CEQ relating to agency records on climate change. As we wrote in 2010, the Chamber was told that CEQ had identified 87 documents totaling 759 pages that were responsive to our request. However, they could not release most of the documents because they "originated" with another agency but what they could release looked like this (see image above).

Maybe the EPA folks should stock up on Sharpies.



I am hoping those of you who think that not all Muslims are bad will read slowly and for God's sake pass it on. America is still in denial and asleep.

This was written by a woman born in Egypt as a Muslim. Make sure you read the paragraph (in red)towards the end.
Joys of Muslim Women
By Nonie Darwish

In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.

The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.

Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.

To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.

Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.

The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.

The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America and Britain ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and British Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.

By passing this on, enlightened American and British women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.

Ripping the West in Two.

Author and lecturer Nonie Darwish says the goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shariah law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.

She recently authored the book, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law.Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel . He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza .





PASTOR: "Praise the Lord!"
CONGREGATION: "Hallelujah!"
PASTOR: "Will everyone please turn on their Tablet, PC, iPad, smart phone,and Kindle Bibles to 1 Cor 13:13.
And please switch on your Bluetooth to download the sermon."
"Now, Let us pray committing this week into God's hands.
Open your Apps, BBM, Twitter and Facebook, and chat with God"

"As we take our Sunday tithes and offerings, please have your credit and debit cards ready."
"You can log on to the church wi-fi using the password 'Lord909887. ' "
The ushers will circulate mobile card swipe machines among the worshipers:
  • Those who prefer to make electronic fund transfers are directed to computers and laptops at the rear of the church.
  • Those who prefer to use iPads can open them.
  • Those who prefer telephone banking, take out your cellphones to transfer your contributions to the church account.
The holy atmosphere of the Church becomes truly electrified as ALL the smart phones, iPads, PCsand laptops beep and flicker!
Final Blessing and Closing Announcements...
  • This week's ministry cell meetings will be held on the various Facebook group pages where the usual group chatting takes place. Please log in and don't miss out.
  • Thursday's Bible study will be held live on Skype at 1900hrs GMT. Please don't miss out.
  • You can follow your Pastor on Twitter this weekend for counseling and prayers.
  • God bless you and have nice day.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013



Kind of puts everything in perspective ...................

A father walks into a restaurant with his young son. He gives the
young boy 3 nickels to play with to keep him occupied.

Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the face. The father
realizes the boy has swallowed the nickels and starts slapping him on
the back. The boy coughs up 2 of the nickels, but keeps choking.
Looking at his son, the father is panicking, shouting for help.

A well-dressed, attractive, and serious looking woman in a blue
business suit is sitting at the coffee bar reading a newspaper and
sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the commotion, she looks up,
puts her coffee cup down, neatly folds the newspaper and places it on
it on the counter, gets up from her seat and makes her way, unhurried,
across the restaurant.

Reaching the boy, the woman carefully drops his pants; takes hold of
the boy's testicles and starts to squeeze and twist, gently at first
and then ever so firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses
violently and coughs up the last nickel, which the woman deftly
catches in her free hand.

Releasing the boy's testicles, the woman hands the nickel to the
father and walks back to her seat at the coffee bar without saying a

As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no ill effects, the
father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking her saying, "I've
never seen anybody do anything like that before, it was fantastic. Are
you a doctor? "

"No," the woman replied, " I'm with the Internal Revenue Service ."



Peter Boyles of Denver’s KHOW Radio
A top-rated radio talk-show host known for his challenges of President Obama’s eligibility for office as well as his interest in Bible history has been fired after reportedly getting into a “violent” confrontation with his own longtime producer.
Peter Boyles, the morning drive-time anchor at KHOW-AM, the Clear Channel radio station in Denver, was let go by the station “following a heated exchange with his producer two weeks ago,” according to the Denver Post.

“Peter Boyles is no longer with the company,” program director Dan Mandis said in a statement emailed to the paper.
The Post reported “Boyles had been off the air for a week and a half following a violent incident involving his producer, reported by a local TV crew visiting the studios. He was suspended from his morning duties after the 9News crew reported ‘a heated exchange’ with the show’s producer, Greg Hollenback.”
Michael Roberts of the Denver Westword blog reported Boyles had former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo in his studio on what proved to be Boyles’ final day on the air May 23.
“About 8 a.m. on the 23rd,” Roberts wrote, “a TV crew was in the studio to witness former Congressman Tom Tancredo announce that he’s running for governor when Boyles and producer Greg Hollenbeck got into a high-volume disagreement.
“Afterward, Hollenbeck had red marks on his neck. Sources tell us they were caused by Boyles yanking the producer toward him by a lanyard. In response to this action, Hollenbeck is said to have thrown his hat at Boyles.
“The program continued after that, but the dust-up was subsequently reported to KHOW management, with overseers from Clear Channel, the station’s corporate owner, getting involved that same day.”
The Post noted Boyles’ popularity in recent years, with one ratings report saying he had 109,300 cumulative listeners every week.
Boyles became well-known for his support of WND’s “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” billboard campaign that ultimately led to Obama releasing what the White House claims is Obama’s original long-form birth certificate. The veracity of that document has since been called into question by the likes of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who continues to press for a congressional investigation of the alleged forgery.
In June 2006, Boyles spearheaded a successful effort for KHOW to post two billboards concerning the issue of illegal immigration, suggesting the city of Denver was welcoming illegal aliens.
One sign proclaimed: “Welcome to SANCTUARY CITY … Relax, you made it! Brought to you by Executive Order 116.”
The other displayed three military helmets atop rifles and read, “Mr. President, Mr. Governor, Mr. Mayor; they did not die for ILLEGAL SANCTUARY.”
Boyles has also aired extensive programs in recent years examining the content of the Holy Bible and the impact of pagan religions on today’s Christian culture.
“Where did we get Christmas? From the Bible? From paganism?” Boyles asked WND Executive News Editor Joe Kovacs, author of “The Divine Secret” and “Shocked by the Bible” on his show Dec. 20, 2012.
Boyles received a sarcastic email from one listener during that program which he read aloud on the air, saying, “I get it, Pete, you don’t believe much in Christianity. Thanks for trying to ruin Christmas for the rest of us.”
Boyles told his listeners, “If you’re gonna be offended, I don’t want to offend you with this. Turn your radio off. Go someplace and come back.”
In a commentary Wednesday by the former media critic for the Rocky Mountain News, Jason Salzman writes:
“Boyles talked a lot about history, and he even read books! But in the end, how could you like the guy? He stood for nothing beyond weird nihilism and his Arbitron rating. Why would such an intelligent person spend so much time fomenting anger and hatred toward undocumented immigrants, who are actually one group of people who might, through Boyles’ audience, feel the effects of his venom?
“His repeated attacks on Muslims were equally gross. And why did he spend so much time trashing journalism? … You got a sense of what Boyles could have been when he defended gays. But soon enough, he’d been talking birth certificates and social security numbers again.”



Obama’s Years of Collaboration with Terror Supporters


Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States

Obama’s Years of Collaboration with Terror Supporters

By Arnold Ahlert
As the Obama administration seeks to move beyond a welter of scandals, a new report by investigative journalist Patrick Poole reveals that the frenzy isn’t quite over yet. On top of the IRS’s targeting of conservatives, the DOJ’s seizure of reporters’ phone records and the coverup surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, the White House’s years-long collaboration with supporters of terrorism is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves.Poole’s comprehensive GLORIA Center article, “Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government’s Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Policy,” details the Obama administration’s extensive relationship with accomplices to terrorism and how these associations have shaped administration policy—and endangered the American public in the process. As Middle East expert Barry Rubin commented on the report, “[Y]ou may think that you know this story—but it is far more extensive than has ever before been revealed.”
The primary question at the heart of Poole’s report is simple:
Why has the U.S. government called certain Islamic groups supporters of terror in federal court, and then turned around and called these same organizations ‘moderates’ and embraced them as outreach partners?
Many of the individuals under active federal investigation for terrorist activities were simultaneously meeting with government officials to help formulate U.S. policy during the last three administrations. Under the Obama administration, these same Islamist organizations and their leaders have influenced vital policy measures, including a purge of counter-terrorism training that makes it virtually impossible for law enforcement officials “to connect the dots.”
For example, Poole cites the failure of the FBI to carry out an investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, despite Russian warnings. He attributes a portion of that failure to
a full scale campaign of political correctness waged inside the bureau and throughout the U.S. government under the Obama administration against any attempt to link jihadi terrorism with anything remotely connected to Islam of any variety.
This regime of “political correctness” (to put it charitably) is no doubt a function of the Obama administration’s choice of Muslim “outreach partners,” which is rife with individuals like Shaykh Kifah Mustapha. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) extended an invitation to Mustapha to tour its top-secret facility in September 2010, as part of the FBI’s civilian training program, despite the fact that he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial. That trial represents the largest terrorist financing case in history. During the trial, an FBI agent testified that Mustapha undertook fundraising efforts for Hamas, glorified the terrorist group, and encouraged the slaughter of Jews. Furthermore, the visit also followed Mustapha’s previous removal as a chaplain for the Illinois State Police, due to media reports of his terrorist activities.
The same reckless discounting of radicalism and terror ties can be found at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where Janet Napolitano appointed Mohamed Elibiary to her Homeland Security Advisory Council in October 2010, despite his honoring Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini at a 2004 conference, and his open support for Islamist godfather Sayyid Qutb. In 2010, Mohamed Majid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), was sitting a few feet from Obama at the annual White House Iftar dinner in August, commemorating the Muslim celebration of Ramadan. ISNA was also cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).
The terrorist connections of Muslim aid programs and their financiers have also been scrupulously ignored. The Obama administration continues to fund the Sunni Ittehad Council to combat Pakistani extremism, despite rallies it held celebrating the assassination of a Pakistani governor opposed to the nation’s use of blasphemy laws to punish religious minorities.
Poole also cites the disturbing number of “leaders of American Islamic organizations that partner with the U.S. government” who transition into officials for Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Louay Safi is one such individual. Safi, a former top advisor at the Pentagon, appeared at a 2011 press conference in Istanbul as one the leaders of the Syrian National Council, which seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad and is associated with the Brotherhood. That appearance occurred only weeks after Safi met with top White House officials. Safi was yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. According to Poole, Safi’s status at the Pentagon became an issue following the Fort Hood atrocity, “when 13 members of Congress sent a letter to Defense Secretary Gates complaining that not only was Safi endorsing Muslim chaplains for the Defense Department on behalf of ISNA [a Muslim Brotherhood front], but also teaching classes on the ‘Theology of Islam’ to troops departing for Afghanistan at Fort Hood and Fort Bliss under a subcontract with the Naval Postgraduate School.”
Five other men made a similar transformation. Ghassan Hitto, a Dallas businessman, former director of CAIR’s Texas branch, and a recent board member of the Muslim American Society that the FBI has identified as a North American “arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, has become “the provision premier of the Syrian resistance.”
Muthanna al-Hanooti is a former CAIR director and a former federal prisoner convicted for doing business with Iraq as part of a plea deal that stemmed from a far more serious indictment accusing him of attempting to influence Congress on behalf of Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence Service (ISI). He is now regional director for the Detroit chapter of the Muslim Legal Fund of America.
Mahmoud Hussein is the current secretary general of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, recruited while studying at the University of Iowa. He was once president of a now defunct subsidiary of ISNA know as the Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), which sponsored several conferences featuring terrorists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ishaq Farhan, a longtime board member of the Washington-based International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) now heads the the Islamic Action Front, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm in Jordan.
Ahmed Yousef was the director of the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), identified as early as 1993 as Hamas’s “political command” in America. According to the terror group’s charter, they consider themselves a “wing” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Yousef, who fled the U.S. in 2005 on terror-realted charges, is currently a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, and a senior political adviser to their terrorist leader, Ismail Haniyeh.
Poole notes that, because so many of the Islamic outreach partners affiliated with the government turned out to be fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, the government is making “extraordinary efforts” to ignore that reality. This self-orchestrated denial has led to an incredible policy implemented by the Obama administration, one that was formulated as a result of the FBI’s continued relationship with CAIR, despite its aforementioned status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.
It began with the purge of hundreds of documents and presentations from counterterrorism manuals, leading to the creation of the FBI’s “Touchstone Document.” That document finally codified the Obama administration’s increasingly despicable approach to terror. It articulates a new policy that ought to enrage every American, even as it will undoubtedly endanger us all (emphasis added):
Training must clearly distinguish between constitutionally protected statements and activities designed to achieve political, social, or other objectives, and violent extremism, which is characterized by the use, threatened use, or advocacy of use of force or violence (when directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless activity) in violation of federal law to further a movement’s social or political ideologies. This distinction includes recognition of the corresponding principle that mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).
In other words, if a terrorist group performs any “advocacy” function, such as building a school or a day care center, the FBI cannot “jump to conclusions” about individuals associated with the group, even if it is also perpetrating mass murder. Thus, as Poole notes, the terror support of this administration’s Muslim outreach partners “is absolved with a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.”
The result? “This is why Mohamed Majid, who just a few years before was treated as a pariah by the Attorney General of the United States after federal prosecutors named his organization as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of terrorism in the largest terrorism financing trial in American history, can just a few short years later not only be rehabilitated, but can regularly be found—much as al-Qa’ida fundraiser Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi who preceded him‚Äìa frequent visitor to the White House,” writes Poole.
Poole then goes on to reveal a parade of “rehabilitated” terrorists and their organizations that have been, and will continue to be, welcomed into the country by the Obama administration. These include people like Hani Nour Eldin, a known member of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Egyptian al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who visited the White House in 2012 to demand the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman. Rahman was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Sudanese war criminal Nafie Ali Nafie, the architect of two genocides in that nation, also got the red carpet treatment, receiving an invitation to the State Department as part of a Sudanese delegation.
Poole further reveals that such monstrous accommodation begets an even more insidious downside. “No sooner had the White House’s new outreach policy been announced, when it became clear that one of the policy outcomes of this relationship was the administration’s enforcement of a blacklist of subject matter experts deemed ‘enemies’ by their Muslim partners,” he writes. Coupled with the “Islamophobic” purge of law enforcement training manuals, the Obama administration began fully embracing this Alice in Wonderland approach to terror, best described as one that allows enemies of the United States to help us decide who our enemies are—and who they aren’t.
Poole uses a quote by Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the Blind Sheikh, to encapsulate the insidiousness of this policy. “I marched into the courtroom every day for nine months and proved that there was an undeniable nexus between Islamic doctrine and terrorism committed by Muslims…And when I demonstrated the straight-line, undeniable logic of the evidence—that scripture informed the Blind Sheikh’s directives; that those directives informed his terrorist subordinates; and that those subordinates then committed atrocities—the government gave me the Justice Department’s highest award,” McCarthy writes. “Today, I’d be ostracized. No longer is the government content to be willfully blind. Today, it is defiantly, coercively, extortionately blind.”
It is far worse than that. When five members of Congress led by the retiring Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) attempted to ascertain the level of Islamic infiltration into the government of the United States, members of both political parties, along with the media, excoriated their efforts to protect the American public. Their ire was further stoked by the group’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s family, despite the reality that her mother, brother and deceased father are/were members of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliate organization, the Muslim Sisterhood. Ironically, given the parameters of the Touchstone Document, it would now likely be irrelevant if Huma Abedin herself belonged to either branch of the organization.
Yet as this extensive investigation by Poole reveals, Bachmann, et al., have not only been vindicated, they may have underestimated the problem. It remains to be seen if Congress, already up to its necks in administration scandals, will be willing to take this one on as well. As the atrocity in Boston indicates, American lives literally depend on it.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013









In a move with implications for every American, the American Psychiatric Association’s new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders takes obfuscation and euphemistic language to a whole new level, calling temper tantrums “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” and labeling grief “major depressive disorder.”
Overeating? That’s “binge eating disorder.” Are you forgetful? You can be treated for “mild neurocognitive disorder,” reports Ian Sample of the London Guardian.

The definitions are more than semantics, however, as the highly influential manual is referenced by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, courts and lawmakers.
Based on the broadened definitions and categories, the new edition asserts that nearly half of all Americans will face a diagnosable mental illness at some point in their life. That’s up from fewer than 6 percent just eight years ago.
The sharp increase comes as the federal government begins to implement the government-controlled Obamacare system and Democrat lawmakers use mental health issues as a reason to curb gun rights.
Critics are expressing concern that the new edition of the manual could be insidiously used by government to label certain Americans with mental disorders as a pretext for curbing rights of all kinds.
The Citizens Commission on Human Rights International questions the validity, the science and even the intent of the manual, contending drug companies have a conflict of interest.
“While even key DSM contributors admit that there is no scientific/medical validity to the disorders, the DSM nonetheless serves as a diagnostic tool, not only for individual treatment, but also for child custody disputes, discrimination cases, court testimony, education and more,” the group said.
The DSM “is driven not by science, but instead caters to the pharmaceutical industry,” the commission contended.
“With its expanding list of ‘mental disorders’ – voted into existence, not discovered as in real medicine – for each of these a psychiatric drug can be prescribed and insurance companies billed,” the group said. “That big formula spells big profits for psychiatrists and drug companies. And this has been exposed more recently with a U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigation into the APA itself and the fact that about 56 percent of its $12 million-a-year income derives from drug makers.”
Numbers are telling. For example,  according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, about “72 percent of prescriptions for antidepressants are given without a diagnosis.”
Defenders of the Second Amendment see the grouping and labeling as a direct threat to their right to protect their families from tyranny.
Those who fit into groups already defined by the federal government say they are concerned that individuals will fear seeing a psychologist for any reason – even something mild – because the government could label them and pull their constitutional rights.
Carl Elliot, a bioethicist at the University of Minnesota, told the Citizens Commission that the issue isn’t complicated.
“The way to sell drugs is to sell psychiatric illness,” he said.
Kelly Patricia O’Mear, a former congressional staff member, agreed.
“Drug companies pull a mental disorder out of the DSM hat and get FDA approval to use an already existing drug to treat it. Well-known psychiatrists are enlisted to publicly affirm the disorder as a social problem. … Viola! Confirmed psychiatric ill and magic pill.”
The commission reported that the links already are in evidence. It cited a 2006 report in the Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics:
“Of the panel members that reviewed which disorders would be included in the fourth edition revision of DSM … more than half had undisclosed financial links to Big Pharma. For the so-called mood disorders (‘depression’ and ‘bipolar’) and ‘schizophrenia/psychotic disorder,’ 100 percent of the panel members had financial involvements with drug companies. Sales of the drugs prescribed for these (by virtue of their inclusion in the DSM) reach more than $80 billion worldwide.”
“Apparently the APA psychiatrists did not want to give up this cashcow. For the DSM-V revision, another study found that 18 of the 20 members overseeing the revision of clinical guidelines for treating just three ‘mental disorders’ had financial ties to drug companies, with drug treatment for these disorders generat[ing] some $25 billion a year [in the U.S. alone.]“
The new manual puts everyone in the bull’s-eye.
The report said: “As the diagnoses completely lack scientific criteria, anyone can be labeled mentally ill, and subjected to dangerous and life-threatening treatments based solely on opinion. … Therein lies the underlying problem of DSM – it isn’t a medical diagnostic system. It’s all based on opinion – and faulty at best.”
However, some leaning to the political left say the club used to bludgeon some individuals isn’t big enough yet.
For example, Jillian Keenan in a report said the new edition is “redundant, unscientific, and stigmatizing” because of its treatment of “kinky sexual interests.”
“Simply put, the DSM-V will say that happy kinksters don’t have a mental disorder. But unhappy kinksters do. …  Some sexual minorities have applauded this diagnostic compromise as a step forward. It isn’t. This is just the same routine that the psychiatric community dragged homosexuality through decades ago, and adult, consensual … expressions of atypical sexuality should be removed from the DSM entirely for many of the same reasons that homosexuality was.”
And Jonathan Metzl, an MSNBC psychiatrist who supports increased background checks and broadened gun control measures, admits that “psychiatric diagnosis is not a predictive tool … the types of questions garnered in background checks is far-and-away more relevant for predicting gun crime than is a person’s psychiatric history.”
Some in the field of psychology are expressing concern about over-diagnosis and possible abuses stemming from over-labeling, especially on those most vulnerable in the mental health system. Psychology Today, for example, warns that “the DSM-V will give drug companies running room to continue their disease mongering of female sexual disorders – hyping questionable DSM ills as a means of pushing pills.”
Dr. Gary Greenberg, a psychotherapist and author, noted: “Only about 4 percent of violent crimes are committed by mentally ill people. We are not going to diagnose our way to safety” and warns that over-diagnosis could be a serious problem that gets much worse when the DSM-V is implemented by the psychiatric profession.
In an interview with WND, clinical psychologist Dr. Dathan Paterno said he has witnessed many patients hospitalized against their will: “The psychiatric establishment has enormous power. The power to label brings the power to hospitalize and prescribe, forcefully if deemed necessary by the psychiatrist. This power metastasizes into denial of liberties. For example, I know several veterans who can no longer own a firearm, simply because they were hospitalized. Often this was due to medication errors – ironically caused by the psychiatrist.”
The denial of rights to veterans has already generated a lawsuit asserting arbitrary decisions cannot be used to deprive anyone of Second Amendment rights.
Noted the Guardian report: “Changing the definitions of disorders alters who has them. That affects who gets drugs and other support, and who interventions are trialled on. If the criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disordered (ADHD) are broadened, then more people are likely to be diagnosed with the condition.”




Obama’s Super Secret Treaty Which Will Push The Deindustrialization Of America Into Overdrive

Barack Obama With His Hand On The Resolute DeskDid you know that Barack Obama has been secretly negotiating the most important trade agreement since the formation of the World Trade Organization?  Did you know that this agreement will impose very strict Internet copyright rules, ban all "Buy American" laws, give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and force even more domestic manufacturing offshore?  If you have not heard about this treaty, don't feel bad.  Obama has refused to even give Congress a copy of the draft agreement and he has banned members of Congress from attending the negotiations.  The plan is to keep this treaty secret until the very last minute and then to railroad it through Congress and have it signed into law by October.  The treaty is known as "the Trans-Pacific Partnership", and the nations that are reported to be involved in the development of this treaty include the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia.  Opponents of this treaty refer to it as "the NAFTA of the Pacific", and if it is enacted it will push the deindustrialization of America into overdrive.
The "one world" economic agenda that Barack Obama has been pushing is absolutely killing the U.S. economy.  As you will see later in this article, we are losing jobs and businesses at an astounding pace.  And each new "free trade" agreement makes things even worse.
For example, just check out the impact that the recent free trade agreement that Obama negotiated with South Korea is having on us...
  • A 10 percent decline of U.S. exports to Korea
  • The U.S. trade deficit with Korea has climbed 37 percent
  • U.S. auto industry has been crippled
  • Loss of U.S. control where international trade, banking and finance is concerned
  • A projected 159,000 jobs will be lost
Wait a second - I though that "free trade" agreements were actually supposed to increase exports.
So why have they declined by 10 percent?
Did someone make a really bad deal?
And of course we have all seen the economic devastation that NAFTA has wrought.
When NAFTA was pushed through Congress in 1993, the United States actually had a trade surplus with Mexico of 1.6 billion dollars.  By 2010, we had a trade deficit with Mexico of 61.6 billion dollars.
And "free trade" with China has turned out to be a complete and total nightmare as well.
Back in 1985, our trade deficit with China was approximately 6 million dollars (million with a little "m") for the entire year.
In 2012, our trade deficit with China was 315 billion dollars.  That was the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
But instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, Barack Obama is pressing for more "free trade" agreements.
The New York Times is calling the Trans-Pacific Partnership "the most significant international commercial agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995".  It is reportedly going to include a whole host of provisions which would never be able to get through Congress on their own.  Even though this treaty will affect all of our daily lives, the Obama administration is keeping this treaty a total secret.  In fact, Obama won't even show it to Congress even though members of Congress have asked repeatedly to see it...
The agreement, under negotiation since 2008, would set new rules for everything from food safety and financial markets to medicine prices and Internet freedom. It would include at least 12 of the countries bordering the Pacific and be open for more to join. President Obama has said he wants to sign it by October.
Although Congress has exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade, so far the executive branch has managed to resist repeated requests by members of Congress to see the text of the draft agreement and has denied requests from members to attend negotiations as observers — reversing past practice.
While the agreement could rewrite broad sections of nontrade policies affecting Americans’ daily lives, the administration also has rejected demands by outside groups that the nearly complete text be publicly released.
So exactly who in the world does this guy think that he is?  Why won't Obama let us know exactly what is in this treaty?
Fortunately, there have been a few leaks.  One thing that we have discovered is that this new treaty would reportedly ban all "Buy American laws".
That certainly would not be popular if it got out.
And do you remember SOPA?
The American people wanted nothing to do with the very strict Internet copyright provisions of SOPA and loudly expressed their displeasure to members of Congress.
Unfortunately, now the provisions of SOPA are back.  It is being reported that most of the provisions of SOPA have been quietly inserted into this treaty.  If this treaty is enacted, those provisions will become law and the American people will not be able to do anything about it.
And according to the New York Times, there are all sorts of other disturbing things that have been slipped into the treaty...
And yet another leak revealed that the deal would include even more expansive incentives to relocate domestic manufacturing offshore than were included in Nafta — a deal that drained millions of manufacturing jobs from the American economy.
The agreement would also be a boon for Wall Street and its campaign to water down regulations put in place after the 2008 financial crisis. Among other things, it would practically forbid bans on risky financial products, including the toxic derivatives that helped cause the crisis in the first place.
Are you starting to understand why the Obama administration is keeping this treaty such a secret?
If the details of this treaty were revealed to the American people right now, it would create such an uproar that Congress would never approve this treaty.
So please share this article with as many people as you can.  We have got to get the American people educated about this.
Enough damage has already been done to the U.S. economy by "free trade" agreements.  Just consider the following statistics...
-The United States has lost more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.
-Back in the year 2000, there were more than 17 million Americans working in manufacturing.  Now there are less than 12 million.
-There are less Americans working in manufacturing today than there was in 1950 even though the population of the country has more than doubled since then.
-According to the Economic Policy Institute, America is losing half a million jobs to China every single year.
-According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.
-Today, corporate profits as a percentage of U.S. GDP are at an all-time high, but wages as a percentage of U.S. GDP are near an all-time low.
-Without enough good jobs, more Americans are becoming dependent on the government.  If you can believe it, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from about 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.
-Overall, the United States has run a trade deficit of more than 8 trillion dollars with the rest of the world since 1975.
And things continue to get even worse.  The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index declined to 49.0 in May.  Any reading below 50 indicates contraction.
That was the lowest reading that we have seen since June 2009.  Just like most of the rest of the world, we are rapidly heading toward another major economic downturn.
And if you want a perfect visual example of what deindustrialization is doing to America, just look at the city of Detroit.
It was once one of the greatest manufacturing cities in the history of the world, but now it is a rotting, decaying, festering hellhole.
According to the New York Times, there are now approximately 70,000 abandoned buildings in Detroit, and at this point the city is so broke that there is talk that the female giraffe at the Detroit Zoo could be sold off to help pay the bills.
For much more on how deindustrialization is ripping the guts out of the U.S. economy, please see the following articles...
1) "55 Reasons Why You Should Buy Products That Are Made In America"
2) "40 Ways That China Is Beating America"
3) "Show This To Anyone That Believes That 'Things Are Getting Better' In America"
4) "10 Amazing Charts That Demonstrate The Slow, Agonizing Death Of The American Worker"
5) "22 Stats That Show How The Emerging One World Economy Is Absolutely Killing American Workers"
What Barack Obama is trying to do is a mind blowing mistake.
The "one world" economic agenda that he is pursuing is destroying the American worker and the American middle class.
U.S. workers are being thrown into a global labor pool with workers on the other side of the planet that live in countries where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.
Do you want to directly compete with a worker on the other side of the globe that is doing your job for a dollar an hour with no benefits?
If not, you need to stand up and make your voice be heard.
There is no way in the world that American workers should have to compete for jobs with workers making slave labor wages in communist China.
What we desperately need are some red-blooded economic patriots to arise and to tell both political parties that we do not want this "one world" economic agenda.
So what do you think?
Will the American people wake up, or will our economy continue to lose thousands of businesses and millions of jobs?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...