Saturday, November 28, 2015

A World Upside Down, The Devil Running Loose, and Life in Liberal America By David Risselada

Liberals insist we disarm ourselves and rely upon government to keep us safe; while simultaneously advocating for and enacting policies which make the world a more dangerous place to live.
David Risselada
new picture
My reaction to the latest shooting was probably similar to many people’s; a tense anticipation to Obama’s call for more gun control, and the fear that it could have been retaliation against Planned Parenthood and their brutal practice of selling baby body parts. That would have been a liberal’s dream come true. An actual right wing conservative going on a murder spree would have provided the needed justification for why conservative Christians are labeled as potential extremists. It turns out however, that our “Dear” shooter was just another in a long line of liberal whackos taking out their frustrations with society and feelings of self hatred on everybody else. You see, Mr. Dear self identifies as a woman and is not registered with any political party, so the leftwing narrative of a disgruntled Republican nut job going off has once again, been proven false. It must be real frustrating for the left to know that real right wing Christians are not committing acts of terror that they can blame on us. Liberals would love to say that that the so called hateful speech concerning the exposed practices at planned parenthood are responsible for the shooting.  If this is the case then wouldn’t the same be true for Obama’s rhetoric concerning Islam and Black Lives Matter? I’m sorry, but the left can’t have it both ways.
President Barack Hussein Obama is an apologist for radical Islam who has stated on several occasions that the west’s offensive language and intolerance is responsible for the violent behavior and hate fueled attacks committed by the Islamic State. If the shooter had attacked Planned Parenthood in retaliation for selling baby body parts, would it not, according to this logic, be somewhat excusable as well? John Kerry even justified the Charlie Hebdo attacks using this reasoning.  He said that there was at least a rationale for the shooting based on the idea that the cartoon was offensive toward the Prophet Mohammed.  Hillary Clinton blamed an alleged anti-Islamic video for the Benghazi attacks because it too was offensive. Well, what if the shooter had found Planned Parenthoods indifference towards the life of innocent baby’s offensive? What if white America is offended by being called racist continually by Democrats, when we all know that it was the Democrat party that is responsible for this country’s tainted past when it comes to racism? Would we then be justified in the type of violence committed by ISIS? If you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion the answer would obviously be yes. Apparently, violence is justified when people take offense to things that hurt their little feelings, or else it is when being governed by leftist radicals anyway. They use the pretense of offense to launch their social activism in their efforts to transform America from a nation of rugged individualism to collectivism. This is what is occurring in our universities today. Black Lives Matter activists are begging for segregation on the pretense that they are oppressed, and in fact, in danger because of white privilege. It does not get any more absurd than that, and yet, here we are.
President Obama, along with Al Sharpton and Eric Holder also took the same approach to the violence we witnessed in Ferguson Mo. and Baltimore in response to the deaths of Freddie Gray and Michael Brown. Barack Obama would have us believe that police are systematically targeting black people for extermination and that Jim Crow type segregation laws are still alive and well. It even came to light that George Soros funded the racially motivated protests in order to stir up civil unrest.  Private property was damaged and local businesses were burned to the ground in these protests, and instead of holding these people accountable, President Obama once again blamed American society for being too racist. What if we took offense to these lies and the fact that we are called terrorists even though we don’t burn cities to the ground? What if we found it offensive that George Soros is funding these events in an attempt to transform our nation? We all know that more white people are killed by police than blacks, so do we get to go on a rampage and burn down a city because we are being oppressed by lies and dehumanized in the process? Of course not, nor would we even want to. Our universities are justifying black on white racism under the guise of “white privilege” and truthfully, this contributes to the unruly behavior and misguided narrative that all whites are racist. It is in fact, quite offensive. Please show me where racist, bigoted white people are targeting blacks in response to being treated like a bunch of racists?
Looking at the facts at hand I would argue that it is Barack Obama’s failure to hold people accountable for their behavior and his justification of violence based on “offensive and intolerable language” that is the most responsible for the atrocities we have been witnessing, even if it had been a right wing conservative that had shot up Planned Parenthood. Barack Obama has taught the world, through his divisive tongue, that violence is justified when offense is taken to intolerance. That is how he has handled radical Islam by blaming it on free speech and videos, and justifying the burning of cities, and murder of police officers, because black people allegedly still live in a racist America.  You see, Obama and other followers of the radical community organizer, Saul Alinsky, believe that the ends justify the means and that there isn’t any true moral principles which exist in the world. In fact when it came to morality and principles Alinsky said this in Rules for Radicals-
To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.
It doesn’t matter to them what damage they cause or who gets hurt, or who loses loved ones. All they care about is their desired ends, even if they can’t exactly describe what they are. Like I wrote in my last article, they simply want to destroy the existing society and obtain mass amounts of power. They operate on the premise that corrupting themselves somehow proves they have a superior morality, yet their superior morality prevents them from gaining a little hindsight and looking at the damage they are causing. To believe that a better, more perfect world can emerge from corruption and telling lies is to believe in a system run by Satan and not by God.  This of course is why Saul Alinsky wrote the following dedication in Rules for Radicals-
Lest we forget an over the shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins-or which is which) the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Understanding Alinsky By David Risselada

Alinsky 7-28-15
Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no longer obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity. Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals pp. 128
That is quite a telling statement; one that implies exactly what the left thinks of Christianity that was written by a man who was a master of social change; Saul Alinsky. To the left, Christians are hypocrites who are unable to live to up to the values they espouse. That is what is meant by this statement, they believe the Christian religion is one of oppression, where the teachings of the Bible actually restrict freedom through its rigid, moral standards for human behavior, which were set by God. True Christians on the other hand, understand that liberty and the exercise of free will is dependent on these moral standards, for without them chaos would reign. Without concepts like personal responsibility and an understanding of an absolute morality, freedom could not exist; therefore, these ideas must be destroyed in the minds of Men. As Karl Marx said in the Communist Manifesto, “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses.” Alinsky, like other leftists, believed that the United States and its economic system, capitalism, represents oppression of the highest order and if there ever was to be true equality, the system must be destroyed. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, from which the above statement is taken, is the play book in which Barack Obama and other leftists are using to bring this nation down.  There are a total of thirteen rules in the chapter simply entitled “Tactics” where Alinsky educates disciples on the art of destroying political opposition and destroying your opponent’s moral base. Clearly, the rule listed above involves making a hypocrite out of your opponent while using their values against them. This has been the most successful tactic employed by the Obama administration as virtually everything we believe in is twisted and made to appear as if our values actually represent racism and hatred.
The most recent example of this is the refugee debate. While we certainly know that these people coming from the Middle East are anything but refugees, this doesn’t stop president Obama from employing this tactic. It is done in such a subtle way most people never see how we are being made to look like hypocrites. Conservatives argue that the refugees are too dangerous to be let into America without a rigorous background check. (That’s the key word here, background check. ) This is certainly a credible argument as there is no way to vet all of these people. In other words, there is no way to determine which of these refugees will commit terrorist acts; therefore, none of them should be admitted into the country. Ironically, the conservative right is making the same argument about the refugees that the liberal left makes about gun control, and we don’t even see how we are being set up. The left argues that gun sales should be restricted for all Americans because there is no way of knowing who among the millions of gun owners is capable of committing murder. They harbor a deep resentment because we have successfully beaten back many of their attacks by counter arguing that gun ownership is a protected constitutional, human right. As far as the left is concerned, and according to the Immigration Act of 1965, which completely changed the way immigrants were allowed into the country incidentally, immigration into the U.S. is also a human right. Essentially, the left is making us look like hypocrites, (at least they think they are) because we are allegedly discriminating against one group of potentially dangerous people, while arguing for unrestricted gun rights. This argument makes much more sense when considering the fact that the left believes people are not capable of self governance, which is one of the principles of liberty this nation was founded on. So to them, anyone with a gun is a potential murderer.
alinsky picture
This is but one example of how the left twists logic and uses our own rules against us. Another example is more of a direct assault on the fundamentals of liberty themselves. Our Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights; of which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  We all know of course that all men are not equal. The way the right and left views these concepts are radically different. The right understands that the term equality means that all people, no matter how rich or poor, no matter what color, are protected equally under the law and that the governments job is protecting individual rights equally, no matter an individual’s current lot in life. To the left, the term equality offers an opportunity to push an agenda based on moral relativism and multiculturalism. Today, we see a radical re-definition of equality as the left argues to make depravity a human right. The rights of pedophiles are protected under the umbrella of “equal protection” in much the same way that the rights of violent criminals are now protected over the victims they harm in the commission of their crimes. Boys who feel like girls now have a right protected by the federal government, to use girls’ bathrooms and showers in public schools in the name of “total equality,” and minority groups now have the right to openly discriminate because they are oppressed by “white privilege.” This is how the left uses equality to make us look like hypocrites, and they kill us politically every time they do.
This is the tactic being employed to silence opposition and it is very effective because no one wants to be a hypocrite. Americans are very tolerant and open minded people. We don’t need the left to tell us we have to be more open minded. There are more cultures and ethnicities in this country than in any other. Americans; or Americans who love their country rather, are not the ones threatening violence against those who do not share their world view.
While the left portrays their agenda items as a fight for equality in a world dominated by phobias and ism’s, the truth is radically different. It is all about the culmination of political power and the remaking of America. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky and called it “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” What this title means is that the issues are only used to gain attention and that underneath the issue is the larger agenda, which is the revolution.
From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, breathes and sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed this mass power base he confronts no major issues. Rules For Radicals pp. 113
It is hard to understand why anyone who claims to care about human rights would view a nation that espouses individual liberty and property rights as oppressive; however, that is how the left views this country. David Horowitz writes in his ebook “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model”  that Saul Alinsky was taken in by the mob and worked for the likes of Al Capone and his enforcer, Frank Nitti. Alinsky viewed the mob and other criminal organizations as being the result of a capitalist system. Like other leftists, his belief was that private property rights and an alleged “meritocracy” held people down and forced them into a life of crime. Today, Barack Obama is releasing thousands of criminals into the streets. He is doing this because he shares these beliefs. To him, these people were wrongly imprisoned and were forced into a life a crime because they are oppressed by the capitalist system. He gives no thought whatsoever to the potential consequences of such an action, the only thing he cares about is the creation of a mass power base, or voting base to be more specific.
The left is operating on a completely different moral base than what most Americans are able to understand. To them, there isn’t necessarily a desired end outside of destroying the existing society in pursuit of a better, more ideal one. It is the means in which they do this that matters to them. Alinsky taught his followers that to care about corrupting themselves in pursuit of political objectives meant that they were not committed to the cause, and the willingness to corrupt one’s self in the pursuit of a better society was in some ways, a higher level of morality. Barack Obama knows that he and his administration are corrupt; however, he also believes that the United States is oppressive and in need of fundamental transformation. To corrupt himself in pursuit of this higher “ideal,” is, in a twisted sort of way, a higher level of righteousness.
In action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of personal salvation; he doesn’t care enough for the people to be corrupted for them. Rules for Radicals pp. 25
This explains Barack Obama and his actions perfectly. He, along with the rest of the professional left, believes they are superior in every way. They believe the vision they have for society is ideal and because they are willing to corrupt themselves in its pursuit, they believe they are better than the rest of us because they care about us so much. They become filled with delusions of grandeur as their ideas of “utopia” guide their actions and blind them to the consequences of the policies they enact. They then begin to harbor a deep resentment because their visions never come to fruition and they can’t get the people to go along with their insane ideas. The anger and hatred they then begin to display towards society is actually a deeply rooted hatred of themselves because they have allowed themselves to become corrupt in the first place. This is the insanity that ensues when leftists govern because they enact policies not based on truth and precedent, but on fairy tale visions of a perfect society where they are willing to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want while destroying anyone who stands in the way. The left may have many opinions about the conservative right, but at least we understand a perfect society cannot be created with corrupted methods and that is the truth of absolute morality that guides real freedom.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

The Leftist Agenda Drives On David Risselada

new picture

Forward: Before I go on with this article I want to take a moment and offer my prayers to the families of those killed in France. This is something we all knew was coming, we could feel it in our bones. Yet, despite our protests, the governing elite who feel they live above us somehow drove on with an agenda that led directly to this event.  Through the tainted lens of extreme Marxism, weak minded leaders motivated by power and greed alone paved the way for this to happen by catering to an alien ideology in the hopes they would bow to the altar of liberalism. The perpetrators of this terror attack are the same type of extremists our so called president just allowed access to nuclear weapons.  The French president should be hanging his head in shame as he governed over a disarmed, helpless population while hiding behind the protection of a firearm.  Let it be known that an attempt to pull this off in America will not result in helpless people sitting back in fear. We will fight you whether we are armed or not. I pray that God helps the families of those ruthlessly killed find peace.
Instead of trying to prove some point about liberalism, or make connections between communism and the Obama administration, I wanted to share a personal story that I experienced this past week. I have a degree in social work, and as I wrote in my book “Not On My Watch: Exposing The Marxist Agenda in Education” there is a massive effort to indoctrinate college students into the tenants of Marxism. We see this playing out at the University of Missouri right before our very eyes. Students are literally being conditioned to believe that America is an evil place and that it is our constitution and bill of rights that are causing minorities the so called oppression they claim to be experiencing.  Anyone with gray matter between the ears knows this is baloney; however, the attitudes of the students making these claims are a testament to the effectiveness of psychological propaganda. In the book I not only share personal stories of being educated by leftists; I also explore some of the methodologies of brainwashing and touch briefly on the history of progressivism.
obama communist flag

I’m watching the scenario play out at the University of Missouri and I have got to tell you, it is exactly what I was warning about in my book. These folks are literally the Nazi’s of our time and they are deliberately being organized in an effort to stage a communist revolution. I was listening to the Michael Savage show this week and an old lady from China called claiming to be a survivor of the Chinese Cultural Revolution where nearly, if not more than, sixty million people were murdered in the name of communism. She said that what was happening at that school was the same way it began in China and it rapidly turned into utter chaos and violence due to the constant agitating of communist revolutionaries. You see, the Chinese at the time were being fed a lot of the same Marxist dribble we hear today from the Obama administration. Life was unfair, there were certain people that benefitted from society more than others and the old ways and traditions were holding people down. Mao had a grand vision for a perfect, communist paradise and all that opposed simply stood in the way, so they were murdered. After listening to this woman’s story I became curious about just what these young college students knew about the ideology they were giving lip service too; so I called the university and had a few conversations. By the way, I wasn’t surprised to find out they were completely clueless.
15 july article #1

First, I spoke with the president’s office. I was a little disappointed when what started as a promising conversation ended up with yours truly being hung up on. I started by explaining my educational background and my knowledge about white privilege and social justice. I then asked this particular person how in the world people who are receiving a free education because they can play football could possibly claim to be oppressed. Believe it or not, she hadn’t hung up on me yet. She actually allowed me to counter all of the leftist arguments being made until; she asked me how to stop the students from rioting. I said, “Well first of all you teach the truth. You tell them that it was the Democrat party” and before I could finish with “that started the KKK,” she hung up on me.  You see, this is a testament to a truth we all know. Democrats will never admit the truth about their racist past and frankly, most of them have been so dumbed down by a leftist controlled education they wouldn’t know how to find the truth even if they wanted to.
annoy a liberal
I then called the diversity office where I spoke with a young black man. He was polite enough and to his credit, he let me say my peace. I started by asking him if he had ever heard of Mao Tse Tung. He of course had not. This is why we are seeing these events play out; history is being eradicated before our very eyes. I explained to this kid who Mao was and how he transformed China into a communist state.  These kids have absolutely no idea that 100,000,000 people were killed by communists preaching the same garbage they are getting from their professors.  Anyway, I told him that if his university were to teach him about Mao there would be no way he would accept the baloney being pushed down his throat, and that there was a reason they don’t teach that history. I talked about the constitution and the three fifths compromise. He had no idea that that particular clause actually limited the number of representatives slave states could send to the congress. I also expressed my feelings that these students are spitting directly in the faces of people who stand on yellow footprints, swearing an oath to a document that protects their rights to be idiots. These kids are taking out thousands of dollars in loans and getting trained in leftwing activism disguised as education, there’s your real oppression. They are being told over and over again that they are victims and that they must rise up in order to create a more fair and just society.  The professors are expecting them to take their activism skills to the streets to affect “social change” while working to create the same communist utopia sought after by the likes of Mao and other communist revolutionaries.
TPP picture 3
There is no way to stop this except by standing up to these people and treating them like the bullies they are. We must be willing to either counter their ridiculous arguments with facts and reason, of which many of them have no interest in understanding, or be ready to stand our ground and fight them head on. In “Plunder and Deceit,” Mark Levin makes the case for turning the fight for liberty into a civil rights movement. That is kind of the same Argument I made in “Not on My Watch,” as well as in other articles. I argue that the left operates on a principle of no morality representing the highest form of morality. This means that they are willing to corrupt themselves and sacrifice their own salvation, if they even believe in salvation in the first place, in order to push for the creation of a perfect world where everyone is perfectly equal. They will lie cheat and steal if in the end, they believe it contributes to the creation of this world. We on the other hand, or at least our politicians, can’t even defend the truth in order to save a country we allegedly love. We better step out of that box and realize it is going to take each and everyone one of us getting involved on a personal level in an effort to reach out to all who will listen and teach them the truth.  There is no other way. If you are waiting for politicians to fix this you are part of the problem. If you are sitting idly by, watching this go down without saying anything, you are part of the problem. We already know the left will be the left, the question now is, “What are you doing about it?”The time for sitting on the sideline is over. If you love this country you need to get involved and do something, yesterday.
From the 45 goals of the communist takeover of America:  Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
In this case it is the student loan institution, the universities themselves and the bill of rights under communist attack as the students demand free college, guaranteed A’s and an end to free speech so their feelings don’t get hurt.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

The Gay Rights Movement and Child Sexual Abuse By David Risselada

picture for second article
The issue of pedophilia is once again making its way into the mainstream. Researchers are now claiming that it is normal for men to feel a sexual attraction to young, pre-pubescent children.  As the homosexual rights movement continues to gain ground, we hear more and more about the normalization of pedophilia in our culture.  There is a definite agenda to normalize sexually deviant behavior while pushing for pedophile rights. Pedophiles are actively seeking to lower the age of consent laws when it comes to lawful sexual behavior with another. They claim that sex with children is not only a natural desire felt by adult males, but that in many cases, the children affected may actually benefit from it as opposed to experiencing harm. Many gay rights activists also push the idea that child sexual abuse committed against young boys is not a homosexual problem, but one of heterosexual males instead. This is a sick, twisted agenda being pushed under the guise of a human rights campaign backed up by fallacious research supporting the desires of sodomites.  If not stopped, this could have dire consequences for the future of humanity.
It has long been understood that children who have suffered from child sexual abuse were likely to experience severe trauma from the event. Researchers have long concluded that feelings of sexual confusion, worthlessness, depression and suicidal thoughts were associated with sexual abuse. In many cases, even post traumatic stress disorder has been thought to be a consequence. The rates for reported mental health issues, according to a report published in the Journal of Pediatric Health Care, is higher for people who self report for child sexual abuse. The rates are higher for women, 56% as opposed to 47% for men. The rates for mental health issues among those with no history of child sexual abuse are significantly lower, 32% for women and 34% for men. This report also finds that boys will most likely experience a fifteen fold increase in suicidal tendencies as opposed to those who have not experienced sexual abuse while girls have a threefold increase for suicidal behavior. This is generally after introducing treatments for depression and other symptoms. Based on these findings, and what has generally been known about child sexual abuse, children suffer greatly when abused by adults. This is the reason pedophilia has long been treated as a crime. Things are rapidly changing. Pedophilia is now considered more of a “sexual orientation” among many in the scientific community. The latest edition of the DSM, the DSM V, was going to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation but revised its decision after receiving backlash from the public. This doesn’t change the fact that there are still those seeking to normalize sex with children.
2n for 2
Lately, many academic papers have been surfacing which claim to dispute the findings that sexual abuse is harmful to children. In fact, many of these papers claim that there is a benefit to children under certain circumstances and that harm is generally only experienced when a child is molested against their will.  The Journal, Pedophilia Unbound: Theory, Research and Practice  is a collection of these types of fraudulent “scientific papers.”  In the first chapter entitled “Tabooed Child Sexuality,” the author writes that the sexual experiences of children are not less important than adults and that children, like adults, are normal sexual beings. The chapter itself seems to suggest that because pedophilia is a common occurrence around the world, it is normal and child sexuality should be studied.  The author comments on the difficulties of taking on such an endeavor when child sexuality is hampered by so many taboos. This is the type of sick, demented thinking that is currently plaguing our society. Just because sex between adults and children may be a normal occurrence across the globe does not make it right. On page 79 of this publication is a paper published by Bruce Rind and Robert Bauserman entitled An Estimate of Consequences of Adult–Non adult Sex for the Non adults in the General Population. This paper claims that sex between adults and children can be beneficial, especially between men and young boys.  They cite studies which claim that the effects of adult child sex are based on several different factors including, how knowledgeable the child is about sex, the level of willing participation, and the child’s personal views on the negative connotations about sex, especially in the western world.  This of course implies that the western world’s views on sex, particularly sex between adults and children is outdated.  This paper further suggests that studies proving harmful affects of child sexual abuse are based on the biased samples of the population, meaning that the studies proving harmful effects are all from children who have “self reported” child sexual abuse, and that they were likely to already have problems. Children who have allegedly experienced no harm from adult child sex generally do not see a clinician; therefore, few studies are conducted on the benefits of such experiences.  Other studies cited by this paper also claim that many boys benefit from sexual relationships with older men because it provided the opportunity to have a positive, influential relationship.  To Rind and Bauserman’s credit they also admit that such samples are also based on a bias because researchers that support this may be deliberately seeking out people who have had positive experiences.  The fact that sexual activities of children is even studied, encouraged or considered a normal part of their being is indeed, disturbing all together.
3 of 2
There is also the issue of homosexuals claiming that pedophilia is a heterosexual problem as opposed to a homosexual problem.  According to Steve Baldwin in his paper entitled “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,” homosexual activist groups claim that the accusations of child molestation being a homosexual thing lends credibility to the idea that there is an effort to demonize and discredit the homosexual movement.  This would be an example of the homosexual activists playing the victim role if you will. Research on the subject, according to Baldwin, suggests however that male homosexuals are far more likely to molest young boys as opposed to heterosexuals.  After all, as Baldwin writes in his paper, it is generally gay men that advocate for the lowering of age of consent laws and not straight men.
“Using twisted logic, pro-gay academics argue in various social science journals that the molestation of boys is not a gay lifestyle issue and that such men are not really homosexuals. It is simply amazing that gay propagandists and sexology "experts" are successfully bamboozling the public and the media into believing that a man’s exclusive focus on young males should not be defined as homosexuality! But if an exclusive attraction of a male to other males of any age is not homosexuality, what is?” (Baldwin)
Furthermore, gay rights groups, according to Baldwin, are actively seeking to lessen the penalties for sexual activity with under aged boys claiming that it is a violation of civil rights. This is the consequence of moral relativism and multiculturalism coming home to roost. The fact is that attraction to young boys is almost exclusively a homosexual problem. Baldwin writes that very few homosexuals are attracted to older men, and that according to the journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, cited by Baldwin, 86% of pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual.
As the gay rights agenda moves forward little attention is being paid to the possible consequences concerning the safety of our children, and more attention is being paid to the idea of feeling like we are not being overly judgmental. Homosexuality is not conducive to good health as they are more prone to suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and environments that may not be clean and sanitary. According to the Family research Center, these facts point to homosexuality creating risk for others as well.
We certainly do not want to create a hostile environment toward homosexuals in general; however, it must be recognized that there is an element of that population that has in its sights, the lowering of age of consent laws and normalizing pedophilia in order to satisfy their sexual desires. If there is not an effort to stop this, and the idea that this is a human rights issues moves forward we could be causing untold damage to generations of children who should look to adults for protection, not live in fear of them, or have sexual relationships with them. This is sick.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Psychiatry and Psychotropic Meds: A Nation Under Conquest By David Risselada

Today in America, it seems that almost everyone is prescribed some type of mood altering drug to deal with their problems. The use of psychotropic drugs has become as commonplace as taking an aspirin to relieve a headache. Over the past couple of decades there has been an enormous push to advertise these drugs on television. It’s almost as if the entire nation is mentally ill because there is a psychiatric drug for almost anything, and people seem to believe they need them. In fact, the DSM IV (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) lists a total of 297 different mental health disorders for which of course, there is a drug that can be prescribed. The latest edition of the DSM, (Diagnostic Statistical Manual) the DSM V, has an additional 15 new disorders added to it. Many of these disorders are no different than normal, everyday emotions we feel on a day to day basis. For instance, “somatic symptom disorder” is a label used to describe an individual who worries too much about their own medical conditions. [1]  There is even a disorder for those who use the internet too much with a drug ready to prescribe as well. “Internet use disorder” [2]is characterized by many of the same symptoms as any other addiction. Just as it is with other alleged disorders, labeling this a mental illness will make the prescribing of a drug billable to insurance companies, thus increasing profit margins for pharmaceutical companies.  Americans make up 66% percent of the world’s population that consume psychotropic medications; this earns the pharmaceutical industry a whopping sixteen billion a year.[3] This offers huge incentives to create new needs for medications to treat illnesses that don’t really exist, as well as new, inventive ways to market them.
psychiatry 7 nov #1
Who is defining what the term “mental health” means, and how do they suddenly come up with new disorders? The thing that people need to understand is that mental health, and in particular psychiatric disorders, are tools of the pyschopolitician being employed against the United States in order to further their aim of transforming us into a communist state.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand. Communist goal number 38 26
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose communist goals. Communist goal number 39[4]
A report issued in 2011 by Medco Health Solutions[5] shows that one out of every five adults are using at least one psychiatric drug to treat some type of mood disorder. The drugs taken are being used to treat anxiety disorders, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and many other types of alleged mental illnesses. The ratio in women is a little higher with one out of every four taking these drugs. These numbers show a significant increase in the number of people being prescribed psychiatric medications since 2001, a twenty two percent increase to be exact. While women make up the largest population of adults taking drugs, it was young men between the ages of 20 and 44 that saw the highest percentage of usage increase, 43 percent since 2001. The use of these drugs among children has varied as there was a drop in use among kids after it has reached its highest point in 2004. This was due to an increase in warnings from the Food and Drug Administration highlighting the potential of the drugs to cause suicidal and violent behavior in children. Since 2010 however, there has once again, been an increase in the usage among children. Alarmingly, there is also increasing evidence that suggests the use of psychiatry is actually contributing to an increase in suicide rates among those seeking treatment. For instance, according to a study conducted in the UK, there was a direct correlation between the increased funding of mental health services and suicide rates.[6] Though, the biggest finding is that this was mostly related to nations where the increase in funding was done legislatively. Another study, published in the Journal, Social Psychiatry[7] by Matthew M. Large and Christopher J. Ryan further demonstrate a relation between psychiatric care and suicide rates.  This study found that patients receiving in patient services in psychiatric hospitals were 44 times more likely to committ suicide.
7 nov #2
"It must be carefully hidden that the incidence of insanity has only increased since these scientific practices have been applied."[8] Laventia Beria
There is also evidence to suggest that the use of mental health medication is contributing to the increase in mental health diagnosis. Psychotropic drugs interfere with your brains ability to process normal, biological functioning by upsetting the way the neurotransmitters operate.
"After several weeks on psychoactive drugs, the brain's compensatory efforts begin to fail, and side effects emerge that reflect the mechanism of action of the drugs. For example, the SSRIs may cause episodes of mania, because of the excess of serotonin. Antipsychotics cause side effects that resemble Parkinson's disease, because of the depletion of dopamine (which is also depleted in Parkinson's disease).
As side effects emerge, they are often treated by other drugs, and many patients end up on a cocktail of psychoactive drugs prescribed for a cocktail of diagnoses.The episodes of mania caused by antidepressants may lead to a new diagnosis of "bipolar disorder" and treatment with a "mood stabilizer," such as Depokote (an anticonvulsant) plus one of the newer antipsychotic drugs. And so on.[9]"
The question arises, looking at the increase in the number of drugs being prescribed, if there is actually an increase in the number of actual mental health cases or is there something else going on? Some doctors may have you believe that there is more sophisticated methods of detecting and diagnosing these illnesses; however, many prominent psychiatrists interviewed in the film “Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging[10] also admit that what they do is purely trial and error and that there is no sound scientific method in which they use to diagnose mental health conditions. This also pertains to the dosage being prescribed. Take the words of Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University Of Massachusetts Medical Center when being interviewed on the criteria of diagnosing mental illness.
“A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.” [11]
What Dr. Barkley just admitted is that psychiatry is not a science at all because medical science and disease research has traditionally been backed up by the notion that results can be proven with lab tests.[12] This is the scientific method, and what Dr. Barkley is admitting is that there is no scientific method being employed to diagnose mental illness. In fact, he admits that this is true with all 297 disorders listed in the DSM. This is also true with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which millions of our school aged children are being prescribed Ritalin for. This is alarming because Ritalin is classified as a schedule II narcotic by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Having this classification puts the drug in the same category as cocaine and amphetamines. [13] It is admitted by the drug’s manufacturer that it may create dependency and it carries severe side effects including nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, loss of appetite, pulse changes, heart problems and weight loss.[14] If this isn’t alarming enough, the drug is actually linked to a 500% increase in sudden death among children.[15] If this is the case why do psychiatrists continue to insist on its use? Why are psychiatrists prescribing our children a drug that has the same effects on the brain as cocaine? Sadly, there only appears to be one answer and that is to dumb down the population to the point where they are compliant enough to accept their own servitude.  In 1967 some of the world’s most prominent psychiatrists met in Puerto Rico to discuss the latest advancements, mostly in the use of mind altering, psychotropic drugs. During this conference Dr. Wayne O Evans was quoted as saying, “We see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning and will to act.”[16] Dr. Evans is of course referring to the use of psychotropic drugs and their ability to subdue a population of once thinking people into acceptance of things they normally wouldn’t accept.
7 nov #3
What is potentially the most alarming aspect of this is the attitude of schools towards children taking Ritalin. In many cases public school administrators will argue that Ritalin will help improve children’s performance because it will calm them down and help them focus.[17] This however, has never been proven.[18] In trends that are becoming increasingly concerning, schools are looking for quick fix solutions to children’s problems, and because disadvantaged schools often have state funded social workers and psychologists on hand, it is all too easy to go down the ADHD route and have these children prescribed Ritalin.[19]  Studies have also shown that children receiving state aid, or who are in foster care are up to 39% more likely to be prescribed a psychotropic drug as opposed to those who receive no state welfare.[20]  There is also little incentive to help these children off of these drugs as foster parents caring for children on psychotropic medications are paid a considerably larger amount of money for taking these children into their care.[21]It isn't uncommon for parents who question the use of psychotropic drugs to be harassed by schools and child protective agencies for refusing to drug their children. In some cases, parents even lose their children after being charged with child abuse and neglect for refusing to go along with the so-called authorities. [22]
It is disturbing to think that the first solution to solving a child’s problems would be the use of psychiatric drugs. While the use of Ritalin was at one time the most commonly used drug prescribed to children, more and more we are seeing kids prescribed powerful anti-psychotics and anti-depressants for conditions like Bi-Polar disorder. A report published by the National Institute of Mental Health[23] in 2007 claimed that among people ages 19 and younger, there was a forty percent increase in the diagnosis of Bi-Polar disorder. This is comparable to the adult rate. The question arises; how was there suddenly such a massive increase in diagnoses? One of the most common drugs used to treat children diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder is Depakote. According to the drugs own website[24] one of the side effects of Depakote is suicidal thoughts and behaviors, among others that the website lists as very serious. These others include serious liver damage that can cause death within the first six months of use, serious damage to unborn children and inflammation of the pancreas that may cause death.  All in all, when it comes to the use of psychotropic drugs among children there is a twenty percent increase in suicides that can be directly attributed to their usage.[25]  Alarmingly this ratio also applies to children under the age of five as this makes up the fastest growing segment of the population being prescribed psychiatric medications.[26] Children as young as four years old have attempted suicide due to the devastating effects of prescription drugs.[27]
Bi-polar disorder is among the most controversial and is considered by many in the field to be a fake diagnosis. Characterized by prolonged periods of either euphoric happiness or sadness[28], Bi-polar is a perfect example of a mental disorder being diagnosed on the premise of presenting normal, everyday emotions.  The same is true of ADHD.[29] This isn’t to suggest that the symptoms or behaviors exhibited by these so called illnesses may not be real, but that the causes of the behaviors are not biological in nature, which what would be required to classify it as an actual illness in any other practice of medicine. Rather, as mentioned before, these behaviors are most likely caused by traumatizing life events of some sort and prescribing brain altering drugs disguised as medicine only further harms the individual.
Again, the question as to why so called “doctors” in the field of mental health wish to drug up the population with drugs that appear to do harm than good, arises. The answer is simple. Psychiatry and psychology are not real sciences at all. Rather, they are tools of the psychopolitical operator being used to subdue an unsuspecting population by convincing everyone they are “mentally imbalanced” or “mentally ill” and in need of treatment. The treatment (psychiatric drugs) is designed to strip people of their individualism and will to act. Remember the quote from Wayne O Evans?
This is exactly what they set out to do, and they have been very successful.  The effects of these drugs on the population have been devastating; not only when it comes to suicides and violent behavior, but in terms of general intelligence as well. We have an entire generation of people in the United States who view communism as a legitimate form of government and they appear to advocating for it. Essentially, the goal of psychiatry is to condition people into the acceptance of a “one world government.”
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas...”
Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health[31]
Drugging the individual produces an artificial exhaustion, and if he is drugged, or shocked, or beaten and given a string of commands, his loyalties themselves can definitely be re-arranged”[32]
[6] Shah, Ajit ; Bhandarkar, Ritesh ; Bhatia, Gurleen The Relationship Between General Population Suicide Rates And Mental Health Funding, Service Provision And National Policy: A Cross-National Study International Journal Of Social Psychiatry  Volume: 56   Issue: 4   Pages: 448-453   Doi: 10.1177/0020764009342384   Published: Jul 2010