In 1836, former frontiersman and congressman Davy Crockett led a band of volunteers all the way from their home State of Tennessee to San Antonio, Texas, in order to join up with William Travis and his small company of soldiers, and help defend the Alamo–and Texas independence–from Mexican General Santa Anna and his army of over 5,000 seasoned troops. To men such as Crockett, Travis, Jim Bowie, and the rest, State independence and freedom was worth fighting and dying for. To a man, they each proved that. Therefore, it is fitting to wonder what Davy Crockett would think about his home State of Tennessee joining with federal agencies in establishing random checkpoints throughout the Volunteer State.

George Whitefield (1714–1770) was uniquely prepared for his role as the firebrand of the Great Awakening that would bring all the individual flames of revival together into one blazing inferno of Divine Awakening… At Oxford he had come under the tutelage of John and Charles Wesley and had experienced a dramatic conversion that forever changed his life. His gifted preaching ability drew great crowds and quickly launched him into leadership, along with the Wesleys, of the Methodist revival in England. Having eyes that were crossed, his critics poked fun at him calling him Dr. Squintum.

Describing a day in school, Twain wrote: "The harder Tom tried to fasten his mind on his book, the more his ideas wandered." His "heart ached to be free, or else to have something of interest to do to pass the dreary time." That's a text book so-called symptom of ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). A teacher today could refer him to a psychiatrist who would dope him with stimulants. Yet like any typical boy, Tom had no trouble focusing attention on something he found interesting – like finding a hidden treasure.

Tom's friend Huckleberry might fare worse. An avowed non-conformist, a psychiatric checklist could tag him with ODD – oppositional defiant disorder. And having run away from an abusive father, Huck would land in the hands of Child Protective Services who would sedate him on psychoactive drugs subsidized by government funds.

Although no brain scan, blood test or x-ray had been done, the psych doctors would claim the boys' mental illness stemmed from a neurobiological disorder involving chemical imbalances in the brain, probably hereditary.

Tom and Huck would likely experience insomnia, stomach aches, high blood pressure, stunted growth or some other "side" effects, and more drugs would be added to treat these. They would start feeling despondent and have mood swings, leading to probable depression or bipolar disorder diagnoses and more drug cocktails. The once spirited youths might end up as life-long pharmaceutical junkies.

Psychiatry revealed as an industry of fakers
Recently Harvard-trained psychiatrist Daniel Carlat exposed psychiatry as essentially a field of imposters. His book, "Unhinged; the Trouble with Psychiatry – a Doctor's Revelations about a Profession in Crisis," reads much like a confession – and rightly so.

Despite all their years in medical school, psychiatrists do not use any medical tests in diagnosing. Instead their labels are entirely subjective, opinionated and based upon a manual of disorders voted into existence by a psychiatric committee.

Yet these "experts" have transformed boyhood into "ADHD," shyness into "social anxiety disorder" and menstrual discomfort into "premenstrual dysphoric disorder." Some toddlers are labeled before given a chance to learn to talk.

Carlat states, "Psychiatrists have cordoned off the most painful versions of normal life, defined them as syndromes, and have given them medical-sounding names." Yes, there are people who suffer from severe mental disturbances, but he says it's "an illusion that we understand our patients when all we are doing is assigning them labels."

Where is the science in all this? He writes, "While the scientific literature contains thousands of papers proposing neurobiological theories to explain PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder], depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychiatric disorders, these theories remain unproven…" And he confides, "the shocking truth is that psychiatry has yet to develop a convincing explanation for the pathophysiology of any illness at all."

In regards the chemical imbalance rant, Carlat says this is nothing more than a "convenient myth" so psychiatrists can appear authoritative and avoid looking ignorant with their patients.

This is an industry riveted to drugs, drugs and more drugs. Forget really listening to and understanding a patient's troubles in life. Now it's all about lucrative fifteen-minute monthly med checks – about as personal as Wendy's drive-through.

Pharmaceutical industry influence has vast bearing on what medications psychiatrists use and how often. Carlat admits, "We have been seduced by the constant encouragement from drug companies to prescribe more medications…" Such seduction ranges from a drug rep bringing a doctor his favorite drink from Starbucks, to companies paying him up to a million or more to be their marketing mouthpiece.

Psycho-Pharma's drug obsession diverts society's attention off non-harmful solutions like teaching life skills, improving education, better nutrition and exercise, and addressing environmental factors.

In short, for all their diplomas, chic offices, puffed-up terminology and high fees, this is a field where greed and deception replace ethics and scientific methodology. Fortunately some like Daniel Carlat are blowing the whistle.

Most unforgivable is the dispensing of labels and drugs to millions of children. The leading gurus of this campaign have been psychiatrists deep in the pockets of Big Pharma, such as the exalted Dr. Joseph Biederman – flanked by an army of Pharma-paid "advocacy" groups.

Perhaps we should ourselves vote on labels to categorize such mentally-depraved individuals, such as conscience deficit hyper-lying disorder (CDHD) or better yet, false representation and underhandedness disorder (FRAUD).

(NaturalNews) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson dealt a severe blow to Obamacare today, ruling that the government's attempt to force citizens to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision puts the enforceability of Obama's health care system in doubt.

Obama's health plan was designed around a "minimum essential coverage provision" that seeks to force every American to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. This is essentially a Big Brother commerce requirement where the government dictates that private citizens must purchase a product or service even if they don't wish to. It also forces followers of natural medicine to buy into a system of drugs-and-surgery conventional medicine even if they have no intention of ever using it.

The Constitution limits the power of federal government
The United States Constitution, which is the document that grants the federal government powers, did not grant the federal government any right to force citizens to purchase certain products or services. Obama's health care insurance mandate, therefore, was an overreaching effort on the part of the federal government to dictate the purchasing decisions of private citizens in order to achieve a political goal.

Citizens who refused to comply with this requirement to purchase health insurance were to be punished by none other than the IRS. Fines would be issued to citizens beginning in 2014 if they failed to prove to the IRS that they had purchased health insurance. Thus, Obama's health care system put the IRS in charge of enforcing an unconstitutional mandate that private citizens buy something they did not want nor need.

This is what Judge Henry Hudson found to be unconstitutional. He found that the essential coverage provision "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

Tenth Amendment protections
He's right, of course. There is no such power granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if a specific power was never granted to the federal government, then that power remains with the States or the people. Since the Constitution never granted the federal government the power to dictate that private citizens purchase health insurance — and in fact Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and other founding fathers would have been horrified by such a power grab — that power remains solely with the States and the people.

What will the US Supreme Court rule?
With this ruling in place, the constitutionality of Obamacare will now likely move to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, is the body that interprets the Constitution and decides whether modern-day laws are allowed under its provisions.

If the justices of the Supreme Court actually abide by the Constitution, they must agree with Judge Henry Hudson and strike down the minimum essential coverage provision of Obama's health care law.

But if they choose to betray the Constitution and the People, they may decide in favor of Obamacare and thereby ratchet up the power of Big Government to control the private lives and purchasing decisions of American citizens. The Supreme Court has not always respected the language of the Constitution, of course, so it's not yet certain how the court will rule on this subject. Most likely, the more conservative members of the Court will rule it unconstitutional.

Conventional health care is so bad that you have to threaten people if they don't buy it
It is especially enlightening that the U.S. health care system is such an utter failure that the government must force citizens to buy into it under the threat of IRS penalties. If health care based on conventional drugs and surgery actually worked, you wouldn't have to threaten the citizens with punishment if they chose not to use it. The only reason IRS agents have to be used to bully people into buying health insurance is because our modern sick-care system doesn't work.

Obama's dictatorial approach to health care mirrors the health care system itself, in fact: Oppressive, punitive, widely hated and ridiculously ineffective.

Instead of forcing people to buy into a system that's already broken, Obama would serve the interests of the American people far better by ending the medical racket monopoly currently being operated by Big Pharma, the FDA, the quack medical journals and corrupt doctors, and instead legalizing healing by embracing health freedom and the world of natural medicine.

It is quite fascinating that even in a system where natural medicine isn't covered by insurance, and where natural therapies are widely discredited by the FDA, the AMA and most conventional doctors, record numbers of people seek out natural therapies anyway because they are more affordable, more effective, safer and more readily compatible with human biology.

The FDA and Big Government don't want people to have a choice in the matter, you see. They want to force everyone to buy into the failed pharmaceutical system that enriches the drug companies, even while keeping the U.S. population suffering from record rates of degenerative disease.

That's why we call it a "sick care" system. It's not about health. It's about making money off a diseased population while denying them access to natural treatments and cures that could save this nation from medical bankruptcy.

Sadly, the US Supreme Court won't be ruling on all that. They're only concerned with whether Obama's attempt to force people to buy a product they don't want and don't need is allowed under the US Constitution. And the answer should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the Constitution: No such powers were ever granted to the federal government.

To force the American people to buy into this broken, corrupt system of quackery and fraud is not merely unconstitutional; it is immoral and an affront to freedom.

Obamacare is, at its core, un-American; and it demonstrates a deep-rooted hatred for the principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded.

(NaturalNews) The discordant three part harmony being played out in the media concerning the Transport Security Association (TSA) involves a question of security vs. health vs. civil liberties. If you are a frequent flyer, the ability of the TSA to strike a delicate balance between the three should matter to you as the implications for your health are dire without it. While the TSA fixates on security at all costs as a maximum and proven deterrent to terrorism, they are doing little to address well founded concerns of violated civil liberties and the health implications of using machines emitting ionizing radiation.

 

In the lead up to the National Opt Out day protest on the 24th of November, the Blogosphere and Twitterverse were alive with horrific reports of enhanced pat downs that were invasive and embarrassing. Enhanced pat downs were the alternative if you opted not to go through the full body back scatter scanners. Stories of travelers being asked to remove colostomy bags, leg braces, prosthetic breasts and limbs were not uncommon. As indecent as these instances may have been, they pale in comparison to the cost of what lurks on the horizon if the intent of the TSA is to nuke every passenger before they board the plane.

The problem is the little white lie we've been fed about radiation. The same lie that got you to dismiss radiation as harmless provided it was kept below a certain amount. The same lie that prevents any real solution to jet lag from being found as no remedy currently factors radiation into the problem of jet lag. It is the same lie that the late Dr John Gofman, a foremost authority on radiation, spent the latter part of his career trying to dispel. Gofman's work led him to the conclusion that there is no safe dose of radiation below which the risk of malignancy is nil.

When you take this insight and place it in the context of life in the 21st century, with technology and gadgets all using or emitting radiation, you can see how increasing exposure to radiation is not in the interest of anyone's health. Dr Gofman and other experts went on to say that doses of radiation are cumulative. Therefore frequent flyers and airline professionals are more at risk than infrequent flyers. It should come as no surprise to you then to hear that two unions of American airliners advised their pilots to opt for enhanced pat downs instead of the full body back scatter scanners.

It is time to talk about the elephant in the room – radiation as a health risk to flyers. Flyers have a right to know the truth so they can weigh up the consequences, make an informed decision, or take action to protect themselves. Maybe when radiation is factored into the problem of jet lag more enlightened solutions can be found, which go beyond the hit and miss use of melatonin. Until then the elephant dung is stinking the house out and it is not pleasant. Airlines won't take the lead in this conversation. Any talk about the impact of radiation on health could open airlines up to group action lawsuits like those seen in the occurrences of DVT's; this is a further reason for them to ignore the conversation altogether.

The final balance struck by the TSA and similar worldwide bodies will have a telling effect on the health of all flyers for a long time to come. Influencing that conversation is the duty of all flyers frequent or otherwise.

But not to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She believes that her power to force Americans to purchase whatever products and services the government wants them to buy is somehow granted by the Constitution.

In what is now seen as a curiously instructive question-and-answer exchange, one year ago Nancy Pelosi engaged in the following dialog with CNS News:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."

CNS News goes on to report: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla…)

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Absolute power need not explain itself

What's clear from this exchange is that Nancy Pelosi believes Congress has absolute power over the people to simply invent whatever mandates, requirements or restrictions it wants, regardless of what powers were actually granted to the Congress under the US Constitution.

It is the Constitution, after all, to which Congress owes its existence in the first place. Certain, specific powers are granted to the Congress under the Constitution, with the remainder of powers being reserved to the People or the States. Nowhere in the Constitution do the founding fathers of our nation grant Congress the power to force the American people to spend their money on government-favored monopoly service providers — and that's precisely what Obamacare mandates.

The question of where Congress gets its authority to enact such mandates is an intelligent and reasonable question that any lawmaker should be willing to answer. But instead of answering this question, Nancy Pelosi simply dismisses it as ridiculous.

Her aide says, "That is not a serious question." But I disagree. I believe it is the most serious question of all. Because if the US Congress is now acting outside its limited powers and simply rewriting the Constitution to match whatever political whims it fancies at the moment, then the freedom of our Republic is lost and we already live under tyrannical rule.

Tyrants do not answer pesky questions from the little people

Time and time again, we now see modern bureaucrats dismissing the very notion that even asking about the source of their authority is a legitimate question. To question the authority of Congress now seems to be regarded as something of an act of terrorism. How dare you question your King?

Remember, it is the duty of all free citizens to slap the hands of government when it threatens to overreach its limited authority. With yesterday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson slapped the hands of both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, sending them a clear message that you cannot simply steamroll over the Constitution and mandate whatever laws and rules you'd like to see realized in your own megalomaniacal fantasies.

There are protections in the Constitution that were put there precisely to protect the People from tyrants. That is, in fact, the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights — to protect the People from the inevitably expansion of power by bureaucrats who always seek to control more, regulate more, and accumulate more power in taking over more and more areas of everyday life that should be left up to free people.

Your decision of what kind of doctor you wish to choose — conventional versus naturopathic or complementary, for example — is your decision, not the government's decision. For Big Government to mandate that all people must spend thousands of dollars a year to support a failed, disastrously harmful conventional medical system that actually kills over half a million Americans a year is extremely unethical if not downright illegal.

And yet that's exactly what Obama's health care law attempts to do. It seeks to force you to participate in a government-protected sick-care monopoly. And if you choose not to participate, you'll get a little visit from IRS agents who will simply extract the required money from your bank account… by force if necessary.

That such a scheme could be advocated by Nancy Pelosi and other bureaucrats in Washington tells you just how far they've already marched down the seductive path of government tyranny.

It is up to people like you and me to resist this tyranny and stand up for our Constitutional protections so that we may live as free citizens, with our free choice intact, and without the government forcing us to participate in a failed health care system that, statistically speaking, harms far more people than it helps.

Let us hope that the US Supreme Court will also have the wisdom to recognize the constitutional violations in this health care legislation and strike it down.

We'll keep you updated on this story here at NaturalNews.com, where the US Constitution remains alive and well in our minds, hearts and souls. We will defend liberty here on NaturalNews, even if we're the last ones left standing who dare to question the King.

Gary Milano, the federal security director for TSA at Tampa International Airport and several surrounding airports, told reporters at a press conference that the purpose of the new measure is "to sort of invent the wheel in advance, in case … there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here. This way, us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment's notice."

In other words, there really is no legitimate — or legal — reason for TSA agents be frisking passengers at bus stops, but as long as the cited reasons include "security", the public is simply supposed to accept the unwarranted checkpoints as a necessary evil for the sake of improved safety.

"What we're looking for are threats to national security as well as immigration law violators," explained Steve McDonald from the U.S. Border Patrol, also trying to legitimize the efforts to the public.

But the endeavor is really nothing more then yet another violation of civil liberties in the name of security. Harassing travelers and looking for "immigration law violators" without a warrant is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that "a search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional, if conducted without a valid warrant."

by Ben Taylor

This morning I received an email from a friend with an article toting the need for a Constitutional Convention to pass a 28th Amendment (read that article below). Such an amendment sounds great, but let’s not be foolish. A Constitutional Convention could be a trap! An Amendment process can be accomplished other ways; rather than by potentially opening up the Constitution to wholesale change. Does anyone think that we have any Jeffersons, Madisons or Adams around? I don’t see any. Who do you trust in government now to either take part or appoint someone to take part is such a convention? Both political parties have become so corrupted (that is why we have the problems we now face), there may be no more than a few dozen trustworthy people in state or federal government to engage in such a task who might be untainted by undue influences. Then, how can it be ensured that they are appointed to the convention process? Just look at what the Republican Party does to its own (i.e. Ron Paul) who actually tries to take us back to a Constitutional government. The National Republican Party seldom supports such candidates and often runs others against them in the primaries. 

What is first needed is for the people to realize that America is being destroyed from within by design by international federalist forces who have already bought and paid for control of our state departments, our judicial and our legislative processes (both state and federally). Next, we need to stop electing Republicans and Democrats because of their party affiliation. We then must determine which candidates believe that governments’ sole purpose is as enunciated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence. That sole purpose is to secure the god-given Rights of The People. ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,…” If we vote for anyone who does not believe this above all other concepts of American government, then shame on us; we will get what we deserve! ….On second thought we have gotten what we deserve!

We don’t need more Constitutional Amendments; rather we need for the current one to be followed using the ‘original intent’ of the Founders with The Declaration of Independence as the bedrock for any ‘amendments’ or legislation. The Constitution if mis-amended (as with the 14th Amendment), misinterpreted, and misapplied can result in disaster for our Republic. The Declaration of Independence cannot be revised or amended and is written clearly enough so that it is very difficult to mis-interpret. Could that be why we seldom if ever hear it talked about?

If we want to do something that might really change American political culture, we each need to educate 20 other people so that they will understand that The Constitution is simply a supporting document to help ensure that government does not violate the principles of The Declaration of Independence. If we all start talking about The Declaration of Independence first and foremost instead of the Constitution, then America might once again start to understand what our government should be.

Below is the email article I received.

———————-

The Time Has Indeed Come!

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them.  It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.  

An idea whose time has come!

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.  Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for  sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform … in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

A Constitutional Convention – this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.  And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed.  There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think.  That is irrelevant.  It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace…you and me.  Think about this…
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified!  Why?  Simple!  The people demanded it.  That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that  really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

 
 

by Ben Taylor

The Pharma-Industrial Complex and their cohorts in the so-called media are at it again. In their latest propaganda campaign to scare the American people away from natural remedies and toward patented drugs, the so-called consumer magazine, Consumer Reports, has published an obviously biased and unscientific hatchet job on twelve supplements that they call “the dirty dozen”. They claim to be independent experts, but I seriously doubt that is the truth. I see absolutely nothing scientific about their methods and their analysis of these supplements.

There is one glaring omission in their report; they failed to cite any deaths caused by these supplements and their claims of any health damage are suspect at best. Is it is also noticeable that 11 out of 12 of these are stated as being “likely unsafe” or “possibly unsafe”. The simple fact is they present no real evidence that these supplements are unsafe when used as suggested and even when using therapeutic amounts. Any element on planet Earth can be possibly unsafe or likely unsafe if used to excess. One can drink too much water resulting in death caused by dilution of the body’s electrolytes. One part two aspirin can get rid of a headache but if you eat a whole bottle they will kill you. The body cannot function and live without iron, but toxic levels of iron can be consumed that are detrimental.

Prescription drugs and over-the-counter (OTC) medications are well-documented to cause tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of deaths every year, but since they are approved by the FDA, then that seems to be an acceptable sacrifice. What we need to recognize here is that there is little if any scientific criteria for whether or not natural supplements or drugs are truly dangerous or even effective, but whether or not a government agency (FDA) controlled by the pharmaceutical industry gives its approval or not. Obviously the FDA is not going to give their approval to cheap natural remedies that are in competition to the patented drugs produced by the industry they are protecting.

If we will pay close attention, we can see the pattern as it develops with so-called national healthcare. In my opinion, the prime purpose of this system is to force every living American into their mainstream medicine system so that we will no longer have a choice of how to care for our health. The only option that will be available to us will be the disease management model of mainstream medicine. This current system owned by the Pharma-Industrial Complex that controls regulatory agencies has no desire to prevent or cure diseases; they simply want to manage your disease with their drugs for the rest of your life. In this manner you become a permanent consumer of their high-priced services and products.

At some point, the American people must stand up and think for themselves. We cannot let ourselves be led around by the nose as cattle by government agencies and their cohorts who are trying to control our every thought and our every action. To this cabal of gangsters, we are simply ‘consumers’ , we are not people with unalienable rights that include deciding how to best care for our own health. When government exceeds its sole mandate to protect the people’s God-given Rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence “to secure these rights governments are instituted …”, then We The People must refuse their nose rings. If enough of us stand up, there will not be enough of them to make us sit down!

[Below are links to a couple of articles that describe the death and carnage that is foisted on the American people by mainstream medicine.]

Death By Medicine

Statistics Prove Prescription Drugs Are 16,400% More Deadly Than Terrorists