Depression is in your Mind not your Brain

Depression is NOT a chemical imbalance in your brain - Here's proof


April, 7 2011
mercola.com
Dr. Joseph Mercola




This powerful video contains interviews with experts, parents and victims. It is the story of the high-income partnership between drug companies and psychiatry which has created an $80 billion profit from the peddling of psychotropic drugs to an unsuspecting public.  How did these drugs, with no target illness, no known curative powers and a long and extensive list of side effects, become the go-to treatment for every kind of psychological distress?

This is an excellent documentary detailing how the psychiatric drug industry was born and its powerful and profitable partnership with the drug industry, which has turned psychiatry into an $80 billion drug profit center.

• But is any of it based on real medical science?
• How valid are the psychiatric diagnoses being handed out?
• And are the drugs safe?

Unfortunately, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against psychiatric drugs. It's becoming ever clearer that most of today's psychiatric diagnoses and subsequent drug treatment is a sham, successfully promoted to make you believe it's based on some scientific truth.

But it's not...

Read more at Dr. Mercola.com.

Jesse Ventura speaks out about 9/11 on ABC

Editors Note: The 9/11 conspiracy theory and its adherents (pejoratively refered to as "truthers") as of late have garnered more attention than ever before.  Both Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News have recently aired concerns and devoted segments to exploring what really happened on that day and more specifically what happened to WTC building 7.


April 4, 2011
ABC News
George Stephanopoulos


In his new book, "63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read," former wrestler turned governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura takes a close and at times disturbing look at major historical events. Ventura draws on public but often overlooked information about such events as John F. Kennedy's assassination and the 9/11 attacks, offering fresh, often intriguing insights.

Here is an excerpt from "63 Docrments the Goverment Doesn't Want You to Read":

There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."

 – John F. Kennedy

Read the rest of the story at ABC News.

Related video...

Memo suggests FBI had mole inside ABC News in the 1990s

John Solomon and Aaron Mehta

The Center for Public Integrity 

April 5, 2011

A once-classified FBI memo reveals that the bureau treated a senior ABC News journalist as a potential confidential informant in the 1990s, pumping the reporter to ascertain the source of a sensational but uncorroborated tip that the network had obtained during its early coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing.

The journalist, whose name is not disclosed in the document labeled “secret,” not only cooperated but provided the identity of a confidential source, according to the FBI memo — a possible breach of journalistic ethics if he or she did not have the source’s permission.

The ABC employee was even assigned a number in the FBI’s informant database, indicating he or she was still being vetted for suitability as a snitch after providing “highly accurate and reliable information in the past” and then revealing information the network had obtained in the hours just after the 1995 terrorist attack by Timothy McVeigh.

The journalist “advised that a source within the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service advised that the Oklahoma City bombing was sponsored by the Iraqi Special Services who contracted seven (7) former Afghani Freedom Fighters out of Pakistan,” an April 17, 1996 FBI memo states, recounting the then-ABC journalist’s interview with FBI agents a year earlier on the evening of the April 19, 1995 bombing. (The Iraqi connection, of course, never materialized.)

The memo recounts multiple contacts between the FBI and the journalist over a one-year period in 1995-96 but does not name the network insider, instead using the informant number NY290000-SI-DT and a simple description as “a senior official employed by ABC News for over 15 years.”

ABC News told the Center for Public Integrity that it is not certain about the identity of the journalist involved in the 1995-96 episode, but does not believe he or she still works for the network. Spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said the FBI description of its interactions with the reporter raises serious concerns about intrusions on the First Amendment.

“If true, it would certainly be of grave concern to us that the FBI would have created an informant file based on information gleaned from a reporter,” Schneider said. “It certainly would be very troubling for the FBI to recruit a news employee as a confidential source.”

“It can create a perception of collusion between the government and the news organization. It would put journalists everywhere at risk if people believed that journalists are acting as government agents. And it could raise the specter of the government trying to spy on a news organization,” he added.

Read entire article at The Center for Public Integrity...

Lion Of Liberty Says...

"War is just one more big government program." – Joseph Sobran (1946 - 2010)

Joseph Sobran was a former columnist for the National Review and senior fellow at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute and famously complained about "a more or less official national obsession with a tiny, faraway socialist ethnocracy [Israel]." 


Just love that quote! 

Obama Announces Reelection Bid - 582 Days Away

It is 582 days until the 2012 Presidential Election and Barack Obama is in.  With a fitting recycled logo and staff of elite consultants he's off and ahead of the field in the 2012 race for the White House.  

Obama launches this effort amid much tumult and if not economic depression certainly a ubiquitous psychological depression in the minds of Americans.  This malaise, albeit similarly acute in the 1970s, has for the first time (since professional polling began) shown more American's to be pessimistic about the idea that their children's future will be brighter than their own.  

Since its passage the American public has consistently rejected Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment – most want Obama's health care reform repealed.  Real unemployment as opposed to government numbers is around 18% frankly meaning those able to work are not, regardless of whether they are on the proverbial dole, disgruntled, underemployed, or have taken early retirement.  The end result is these people are not producing and in a country where we love to spend, the math doesn’t look good.

On the international stage, although many are confoundingly reticent to admit Obama has engaged us in yet another “war” in the Middle East, there is consensus that he most certainly has had trouble extricating our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, this failure to deliver on a key campaign promise is magnified after another embarrassing and demoralizing gaff paralleling George W’s Abu Ghraib fiasco at the hands of the "rogue" US Stryker Team in Afghanistan.  Additionally the ex constitutional scholar not only took direct marching orders from the UN, but didn’t even consult Congress before engaging in his “kinetic military action.”  What a line!

The atmosphere is much different for Obama than it was in 2008. The national anxiety was palatable then, the Republicans and George W. Bush had to go, America was ready for change.  Barack Obama and Co. hijacked that feeling and manifested it in campaign slogans, songs, and chants around the country, but after the last 2 1/2 years it is unlikely those bombastic slogans and soothing earth-blue tones will drum up the same command and euphoria they once enjoyed.

According to Marc Ambinder of the National Journal:

“The trajectory of Barack Obama’s presidency was supposed to be vertical. He would reform the way Washington worked, restore a sense of pride in government, and bolster the liberal nostrum that government can be effective, efficient, and helpful. He would reform health care and use his Democratic majorities to put a price on carbon. People would feel better.”

The fact is while Obama has served up a different dish than George W. Bush the diet is still the same; unhealthy bloated government sticking their hands in places they don’t belong.  Unfortunately the crux of Ambinder’s hope that things would have changed in Washington, that somehow Americans after centuries of distrust for government would have some how come around to finding a “sense of pride in it” and that Obama with all the powers vested in him could convince anyone that “government can be effective, efficient, and helpful” in the face of a mountain of contemporary and historical evidence to the contrary is as naïve as it is benighted.

Obama will be a one-term president and he knows it.

Ex CIA Officer Outlines Libya Fraud on CNN

The American Dream
April 4, 2011

Every once in a while, establishment control of the mainstream media cracks for a moment.  In an effort to achieve higher ratings, mainstream news programs will invite guests on that promise to be “interesting”, but then they will say something that is not part of the script and the entire system will go into a state of chaos for a moment. One example of this happened recently when two CNN “infobabes” interviewed former CIA officer Michael Scheuer about the situation on the ground in Libya. They asked Scheuer some questions regarding the role of the CIA in Libya, but the interview rapidly moved in some directions that the “infobabes” were not anticipating.  Instead of sticking to the “Republican” or the “Democrat” script, Scheuer ripped both parties and he detailed many of the reasons why we should have never gone into Libya at all.

The “infobabes” grew increasingly uncomfortable as Scheuer described how large numbers of the resistance fighters in Libya have fought against U.S. troops in the Balkans, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  They did not seem pleased at all when Scheuer declared that the civil war in Libya is “none of our business” and that to the rest of the world this conflict looks like “Americans killing Muslims for oil” all over again.

The funniest part of the interview was when Scheuer accused one of the “infobabes” of “carrying the water for Mr. Obama”.  After that statement, the female anchor that Scheuer was addressing was visibly flustered and quickly went to a commercial.

Video of this CNN interview with Michael Scheuer is posted below.  This is a video that should be shared with everyone you know….

Wasn’t that hilarious?

When a big time establishment news network such as CNN goes “off script” it can be a beautiful thing to watch.

Of course Scheuer was exactly right.  We never should have gotten involved in the civil war in Libya.  It was none of our business.  When the rebels picked up arms and started shooting at government forces, they should not have been surprised when Gadhafi’s forces started shooting back.

Over the past few decades, there have been some very real genocides happening all over Africa, but the U.S. never seemed to care about any of those.

But now the mainstream media has been trying really hard to spin the civil war in Libya into a “great humanitarian crisis”.

Well, that might fool some of the American people, but as Scheuer aptly pointed out, the rest of the world sees this as just another U.S. war in the Middle East for oil (and banking).

But instead of getting a balanced view of the war in Libya, most of the time the corporate media has focused on an endless parade of establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats that fully endorse the war.  Of course the Republicans all try to score some political points by questioning how Obama is going about doing things, but in the end most Republicans and most Democrats are fully on board with what is going on in Libya.

Nearly everyone in the mainstream media seems to be fully on board with this war as well.

Why?

Well, because virtually all of the major media outlets are owned by the establishment, and the establishment wants this war.

Have you ever noticed that the news seems to have the same “flavor” no matter what channel you turn to?

There is a very good reason for that.

In an article that I previously authoried entitled “Who Owns The Media?“, I explained that six incredibly dominant corporations control most of the news that we see today….

Back in 1983, approximately 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the United States.  Today, ownership of the news media has been concentrated in the hands of just six incredibly powerful media corporations.  These corporate behemoths control most of what we watch, hear and read every single day.  They own television networks, cable channels, movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, music labels and even many of our favorite websites. Sadly, most Americans don’t even stop to think about who is feeding them the endless hours of news and entertainment that they constantly ingest.  Most Americans don’t really seem to care about who owns the media.  But they should.  The truth is that each of us is deeply influenced by the messages that are constantly being pounded into our heads by the mainstream media.  The average American watches 153 hours of television a month.  In fact, most Americans begin to feel physically uncomfortable if they go too long without watching or listening to something.  Sadly, most Americans have become absolutely addicted to news and entertainment and the ownership of all that news and entertainment that we crave is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands each year.  The six corporations that collectively control U.S. media today are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.  Together, the “big six” absolutely dominate news and entertainment in the United States.

Read the full article posted at End of the American Dream.

The CIA's Libya Rebels

The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
TARPLEY.net
March 24, 2011

Washington DC, March 24, 2011 — The current military attack on Libya has been motivated by UN Security Council resolution 1973 with the need to protect civilians. Statements by President Obama, British Prime Minister Cameron, French President Sarkozy, and other leaders have stressed the humanitarian nature of the intervention, which is said to aim at preventing a massacre of pro-democracy forces and human rights advocates by the Qaddafi regime.

But at the same time, many commentators have voiced anxiety because of the mystery which surrounds the anti-Qaddafi transitional government which emerged at the beginning of March in the city of Benghazi, located in the Cyrenaica district of north-eastern Libya. This government has already been recognized by France and Portugal as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people. The rebel council seems to be composed of just over 30 delegates, many of whom are enveloped in obscurity. In addition, the names of more than a dozen members of the rebel council are being kept secret, allegedly to protect them from the vengeance of Qaddafi. But there may be other reasons for the anonymity of these figures. Despite much uncertainty, the United Nations and its several key NATO countries, including the United States, have rushed forward to assist the armed forces of this rebel regime with air strikes, leading to the loss of one or two coalition aircraft and the prospect of heavier losses to come, especially if there should be an invasion. It is high time that American and European publics learned something more about this rebel regime which is supposed to represent a democratic and humanitarian alternative to Gaddafi.

The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?

Since many of the rebel leaders are so difficult to research from afar, and since a sociological profile of the rebels cannot be done on the ground in the midst of warfare, perhaps the typical methods of social history can be called on for help. Is there a way for us to gain deeper insight into the climate of opinion which prevails in such northeastern Libyan cities as Benghazi, Tobruk, and Darnah, the main population centers of the rebellion?

West Point study reveals the nationalities of foreign fighters

captured in Iraq. Per capita, Libya leads the way, eastern 

Libya, Benghazi and Darnah to be more precise.

It turns out that there is, in the form of a December 2007 West Point study examining the background of foreign guerrilla fighters — jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers — crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. This study is based on a mass of about 600 Al Qaeda personnel files which were captured by US forces in the fall of 2007, and analyzed at West Point using a methodology which we will discuss after having presented the main findings. The resulting study¹ permits us to make important findings about the mentality and belief structures of the northeastern Libyan population that is furnishing the basis for the rebellion, permitting important conclusions about the political nature of the anti-Qaddafi revolt in these areas.

Read the rest of Dr. Tarpley's article at Tarpley.net