Why Donald Trump Does Not Actually Want To Win

On June 16, 2015, @realDonaldTrump started #Trump2016 amidst sensational controversy solely to increase the value of the Trump brand. Once you realize that #Trump2016 is all about #TrumpBranding then all his attention grabbing behavior makes sense. Trump never expected that his bad behavior, outspoken misogyny, bigotry, indecisiveness and lack of a consistent policy would be given a pass by the #GOP constituency. But surprise, surprise they did!

So he had to actually stay in a race he never really intended to win. He merely wanted the additional business clout and notoriety being known as the businessman who stood up to the political establishment and once ran for president would bring. Now he has really bitten off more than he wanted to chew and he’s afraid he actually might win! Something he never really wanted in the first place.

The presidency is a full time job plus overtime, weekends and holidays. It carries more weight and responsibility than any business deal that can be put together. It requires decision making that effects not just the livelihoods of thousands, but indeed the very lives of hundreds of thousands. The shear responsibility of the presidency ages you and turns your hair to gray. More important to Donald Trump than the presidency, the populous and America itself is the Trump brand. Actually winning the presidency would take him away from what means the most to him? Actually winning the presidency might mean he’ll have to move his factory back to the US from Mexico? Actually winning the presidency may decrease the value of the Trump brand as the presidency might tarnish his popularity and public standing? Actually winning the presidency could prove to be detrimental to Donald Trump monetarily? Actually winning the presidency might expose Donald Trump as someone who really did not possess the business and political acumen to deliverer on the grandiose promises made to an enamored constituency? Donald Trump might see that actually winning the presidency could be a bad deal and a losing proposition, over the long term, from a strictly business point of view?

That explains why his policies are merely a short sighted to-do list, written in pencil, that have no real depth. That explains why he can contradict himself by the time he gets to the end of his sentences. That explains why seldom a day goes by that he does not say or do the most obviously and blatantly outrageous things that would never be done in a serious and sincere presidential campaign.

Psychologists call it ‘approach-avoidance’. The thing you say you want is the very thing you’re afraid you’ll achieve. So to prevent achieving it, you sabotage any efforts that might lead to its achievement. You lash out and blame any person, organization or entity as being complicit in forming impediments against your progress. You openly claim they are all ‘against’ you but secretly you hope any opposition would actually succeed. Then you’d have someone else to blame and a legitimate reason for ‘failing’. You can then be the biggest loser and still save face. 

The mistakes and missteps of #Trump2016 are deliberate attempts to derail the #TrumpTrain, by the hand of its conductor, @realDonaldTrump. Donald Trump always says he is a smart person, and I believe him! I believe he knows exactly what he’s doing. And I believe he is doing it all obviously wrong, in order to intentionally lose the race for the presidency.

If you read this and conclude the operation of the Trump campaign is not an act of deliberate sabotage, then the only other conclusion is that those running the Trump campaign are indeed inept and stupid. Perhaps too much so to actually lead America? 

Written by:

americansunlimited.wordpress.com facebook.com/freedom.now twitter.com/Freedom_Rings 
Let freedom ring!

Term Limits

Three terms is way too long for ANY politician to stay in office. I think ALL politicians should have term limits. Otherwise, they get too comfortable and too rich with corporate money. 

Regardless of the party they claim, they vote to serve themselves and their donors rather than their constituents. 

Congress members themselves readily admit that on their first day in Congress they find their offices. Then on their second day, they start campaigning for the next term. 

As it stands now, we have the best congress that money can buy. So, instead of a representative government, we have ended up with ‘Congress, Incorporated’.

Written by:

@freedom_rings

http://AmericansUnlimited.WordPress.com
Let freedom ring!

One Nation Under God? Which God?

The idea of the United States being founded on the Christian religion has been propagated for decades. However, the following facts illustrate the fabric of America was not woven with the ideology of any particular religious belief. But, the idea of denominationalism was later infused into the fabric of America primarily for political and ideological reasons.

1797 Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
In 1797, six years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the United States government signed a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that contained the following statement (numbered Article 11 in the treaty):
“As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the states never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.”
The inclusion of these words in the treaty had no negative political ramifications for the treaty whatsoever. On the contrary, the treaty was approved by President John Adams and his Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and was then ratified by the Senate without objection. 
If the treaty were contrary to the ideals of the founders of America, certainly John Adams would have vehemently objected. But no such objection was ever tendered.
The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped. 

Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of allegiance to the Flag of the United States and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.[1] The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954 when the words “under God” were added.[2]

Official Versions:
1892 (first version)

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
1892 to 1922

“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
1923

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
1924 to 1954

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”
1954 (current version)

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The recital of the original version was accompanied with a salute to the flag known as the Bellamy salute, described in detail by Bellamy. During World War II, the salute was replaced with a hand-over-heart gesture because the original form involved stretching the arm out towards the flag in a manner that resembled the later Nazi salute.
Bellamy himself was a Christian socialist who “championed ‘the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.'”[3] 
We should remind ourselves that, while acknowledging the creator, no one religious system was ever chosen to represent America or its citizens. 
In 1779, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom expressed the sentiments of the founding fathers as it declared: “Jesus never coerced anyone to follow him, and the imposition of a religion by government officials is impious”
The founding fathers, perhaps aware of the misuse of the power of the church in Europe, deliberately set out to avoid any vestiges of a theocracy. Taking absolute power away from both the church and the state, they placed it where it belongs…in the hands of the people.
—–
1. “Society & Community. Faith in America: The Legal Dilemma”. NOW with Bill Moyers. PBS. June 29, 2002.
2. “The Pledge of Allegiance and Our Flag of the United States”. Their History and Meaning. Archived from the original on 2006-09-23. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
3. Jones, Jeffrey Owen and Meyer, Peter. “The Pledge: A History of the Pledge of Allegiance”.

Researched by:

@freedom_rings

Corporatocracy

Corporatocracy (pronunciation: /ˌkɔrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/) is a term used to suggest an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] 

It is a generally pejorative term often used by critics of the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] 
The term has been used by liberal and left-leaning critics, but also some economic libertarian critics and other political observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] 
Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the US as a corporatocracy in his book The Price of Civilization.[18] 
He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, big corporate money financing election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance away from workers.[18]
The term was used by author John Perkins in his 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, where he described corporatocracy as a collective composed of corporations, banks, and governments.[4]
This collective is known as what author C Wright Mills would call the Power Elite. The Power Elite are wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in Corporatocracies. 
These individuals control the process of determining society’s economic and political policies.[19]
The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[20] 
It has been used by critics of globalization,[21] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[22] or unfair lending practices,[20] as well as criticism of free trade agreements.[21]
—–
1. ^ “Corporatocracy”. Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved May 29, 2012. “/ˌkôrpərəˈtäkrəsē/ …. a society or system that is governed or controlled by corporations:”
2. ^ a b Jamie Reysen (October 4, 2011). “At Boston’s Dewey Square, a protest of varied voices”. Boston Globe. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… Corporatocracy is the new Fascism …”
3. ^ Will Storey (October 6, 2011). “D.C. Occupied, More or Less”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… we’ve surrendered our nation to a corporatocracy …”
4. ^ a b John Perkins (July 18, 2011). “Economic Chaos, Loans, Greece and Corporatocracy”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… bailouts in our own U.S. crisis have only benefited the corporatocracy, with CEO’s paying themselves outrageous bonuses. …”
5. ^ Linda A. Mooney; David Knox, and Caroline Schacht (2009). Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Lerning. p. 256. ISBN 9780495504283.
6. ^ Bruce E. Levine (March 16, 2011). “The Myth of U.S. Democracy and the Reality of U.S. Corporatocracy”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-10. “Americans are ruled by a corporatocracy: a partnership of “too-big-to-fail” corporations, the extremely wealthy elite, and corporate-collaborator government officials.”
7. ^ David Sirota (November 17, 2010). “The Most Honest — and Disturbing — Admission About the Corporatocracy I’ve Ever Seen”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
8. ^ Will Oremus (Oct. 19, 2011). “OWS Protesters May Demand “Robin Hood” Tax: The magazine that sparked the protests calls for a 1-percent levy on financial transactions.”. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
9. ^ Scott Manley (March 3, 2011). “Letters to the editor: Union busting”. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
10. ^ Robert Koehler (December 18, 2011). “The language of empire: In official statements and in media reporting, continued war and ongoing American domination are a given”. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… the corporatocracy and its subservient media. …”
11. ^ Carl Gibson (November 2, 2011). “The Corporatocracy Is the 1 Percent”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “Note: spokesman and organizer for US Uncut”
12. ^ Andy Webster (November 10, 2011). “Yearning to Breathe Free on the Web”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
13. ^ GrrlScientist (3 November 2011). “GrrlScientist + Cancer”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
14. ^ Naomi Wolf (5 November 2011). “How to Occupy the moral and political high ground: The worldwide protest can be a critical force for change if it follows some simple rules”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… one per cent – a corporatocracy that, without transparency or accountability, …”
15. ^ Naomi Wolf (2011-11-01). “The people versus the police”. China Daily. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… Their enemy is a global “corporatocracy” that has purchased governments and legislatures …”
16. ^ Anita Simons (October 24, 2011). “Occupy Wall Street will go down in history”. Maui News. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “… we all have different personal objectives, such as ending corporatocracy, …”
17. ^ Katy Steinmetz (November 9, 2011). “Wednesday Words: Herman’s ‘Cain-Wreck,’ Male Cleavage and More”. Time Magazine. Retrieved 2012-01-04. “…Occupy vocab: corporatocracy. …”
18. ^ a b Sachs, Jeffrey (2011). The Price of Civilization. New York: Random House. pp. 105, 106, 107. ISBN 978-1-4000-6841-8.
19. ^ Doob, Christopher (2013) (in English). Social Inequality and Social Stratification (1st ed. ed.). Boston: Pearson. pp. 143.
20. ^ a b John Perkins (March 2, 2011). “Ecuador: Another Victory for the People”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
21. ^ a b Roman Haluszka (Nov 12 2011). “Understanding Occupy’s message”. Toronto Star. Retrieved 2012-01-04.
22. ^ Andy Webster (August 14, 2008). “Thoughts on a ‘Corporatocracy’”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-01-04.

Researched by:

@freedom_rings

http://AmericansUnlimited.WordPress.com

Neo-Colonialism

Neo-colonialism (also Neocolonialism) is the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to influence a country, in lieu of either direct military control or indirect political control, i.e. imperialism and hegemony.[1] 

The term neo-colonialism was coined by Ghanaian president Kwame Nkrumah, to describe the socio-economic and political control that can be exercised economically, linguistically, and culturally, whereby promotion of the culture of the neo-colonist country facilitates the cultural assimilation of the colonised people and thus opens the national economy to the multinational corporations of the neo-colonial country.
This philosophy is the cornerstone of globalist organizations like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The Project for the New American Century was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. established in 1997 as a non-profit educational organization founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[2] 
Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[3] 
With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[4][5]
This is just on example of just one globalist group and their ability to influence the power balance of a country and thus the world.
—–
1. Sartre, Jean-Paul (2001-03-27). Colonialism and neo-colonialism. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-19146-3.
2. “About PNAC”, newamericancentury.org, n.d., accessed May 30, 2007: “Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project’s chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.”
3. Home page of the Project for the New American Century, accessed May 30, 2007.
4. “Empire builders – Neoconservatives and their blueprint for US power”, The Christian Science Monitor (2004), accessed May 22, 2007.
5. The PNAC was often identified as a “neo-con” or “right-wing think tank” in profiles featured on the websites of “left-wing” and “progressive” “policy institute” and “media watchdog” organizations, which were critical of it; see, e.g., “Profile: Project for the New American Century”, Right Web (International Relations Center), November 22, 2003, accessed June 1, 2007.
http://99getsmart.com/tag/debt-collection-and-colonization/

Researched by:

@freedom_rings

http://AmericansUnlimited.WordPress.com

Right Wing

Why does America, and Americans, feel that they have the divine right to be right and are the guardians of what is right in the world to the degree that we impose that ‘right’ upon other peoples and nations to the direct exclusion of their own right to pursue their own meaning of what is right for themselves and their own self determination? 

Do we think that our might makes right, for everyone else?

Commentary by:

@freedom_rings

Let freedom ring!

Is Seeing Believing?

Is Seeing Believing?
Look at these videos:
As you watched the video, your eyes did their job and told your brain that there was no fully loaded passenger airliner wreckage or bodies at the Pentagon ‘crash’ site.
But your brain, filled with political rhetoric, fueled by patriotic fervor and righteous indignation rationalizes a whole passenger airliner out of a few pieces of aircraft parts and dismisses the absence of bodies in order to justify what you’ve been told about it all having been “vaporized” on impact.
Is there really such a thing as mass delusion?
Given what you’ve just seen, you tell me.
Commentary by:
@freedom_rings

Dr. Mary S. Sherman’s Strange Connection To JFK

Mary Stults, the daughter of a voice teacher, was born in Evanston, Illinois in 1913. A highly intelligent student, at the age of sixteen she went to France to study at the L’Ecole de M. Collnot before working on a masters at the University of Illinois. At this time she married Thomas Sherman.

Mary Sherman went on to do graduate work at the University of Chicago. As Edward Haslam points out in Dr. Mary’s Monkey: “In 1937, it (University of Chicago) produced the first sustained nuclear reaction for UC physicist Enrico Fermi. This is where Mary Sherman did her post-graduate work. She was trained at the headquarters of nuclear, bio-chemical, and genetic research in America.” During this period Sherman did ground-breaking research into botanical viruses which lived in soil.

Mary Sherman became Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, and practiced medicine at UC’s Billings Hospital. Sherman’s research was brought to the attention of Dr. Alton Ochsner and she was invited to become a partner in the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans where he was carrying out research into the causes of cancer. She was also offered the post of Associate Professor at the Tulane Medical School. Sherman accepted Ochsner’s proposal and started work for her new employer in 1952.

Sherman’s career prospered and she was elected to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS). Soon afterwards she was appointed as chairman of the Pathology Committee of the AAOS.

Edward Haslam argues in Dr. Mary’s Monkey that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. This work included using a linear particle accelerator located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Public Health Service Hospital in New Orleans. According to Haslam there was a second-lab working on this project. This was being run by David Ferrie on Louisiana Avenue Parkway.

Mary Sherman was murdered on 21st July, 1964. She had been stabbed in the heart, arm, leg and stomach. Her mattress had been set on fire, but her massive burns could not have come from the smoking mattress. The crime has never been solved. Sherman’s death occurred on the day the Warren Commission came to her city (New Orleans) to obtain testimony about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In 1995 Edward Haslam published Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus : The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory. In 1999 Judyth Baker revealed her involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy to individuals outside her family and to CBS Sixty Minutes investigators. In late 2000, newsgroups learned who she was and began speculating on what she had to say. She asserted she had been (at first unwittingly) recruited by Dr. Alton Ochsner and Dr. Mary S. Sherman into a get-Castro project that had the backing of the CIA and of the Mafia in New Orleans.

Judyth was offered a summer medical internship with Dr. Sherman by Ochsner: she accepted, and came to New Orleans in April, 1963. There, she met Lee Harvey Oswald, who introduced her to Sherman’s friend, David Ferrie. Judyth accidentally learned about the clandestine side of the project before Ochsner, who was out of town, was able to steer her to the legitimate side. She then became a willing participant in the project. At the same time, Oswald and Judyth began to fall in love. Neither had a happy marriage (Judyth was recently married to a man who promptly left her alone in New Orleans, and who in other ways neglected her). Oswald became linked to the project, partly to be close to Judyth.

According to Judyth Baker the research into the biological weapon was hidden by using two or more secret mini-labs which were set up when Ochsner’s Clinic made a massive move into new facilities in March, 1963. Equipment, animals, etc. were ‘misplaced’ during the move, the second-largest in the history of New Orleans. The basic project was set up March 23, 1962, using conventional facilities, which then expanded out of the loop for its final phases.

Baker adds that Lee Harvey Oswald learned how to handle the materials safely and keep them alive. He volunteered to courier the materials to Mexico City, where a medical student, doctor or intern was scheduled to take the materials to Cuba. Oswald made frantic efforts to get the materials, which had a short shelf-life, into Cuba himself when his contacts failed to appear. The project, in fact, had been called off because of Hurricane Flora, which devastated Cuba at this time. Oswald was ordered to Dallas: his “desire to go to Cuba” was never mentioned again by him. His transit visa to go to Cuba was approved in mid-October, but by then, Oswald had no more need to go to Cuba: he never used the approved visa, which arrived too late to be of any use in saving the biological materials.

Judyth Baker claims that she and Lee Harvey Oswald planned to divorce and marry in Mexico after he had done all he could to help thwart the plans of an assassination ring, which he had volunteered to investigate. He believed he would have the help of the CIA to escape after providing information, but instead, due to his Pro-Castro activities in New Orleans, which had been under the handling of Guy Bannister (in order to identify Pro-Castroites in New Orleans), Oswald became the perfect patsy, even though he was on record as having admired John F. Kennedy.

According to Judyth, Oswald volunteered to continue to penetrate the ring, even when he realized his life was in danger. Oswald could only speculate on who organized the conspiracy. He was aware that Mafia, Texas oil moguls, and conservative racists put up money to finance an assassination ring that seemed to include a wide variety of planners and participants. He was kept from learning the identities of the leaders, but expressed opinions that Carlos Marcello (godfather of New Orleans and Dallas) and his Mafia friends in Chicago and Miami, along with anti-Castroites and elements of the Secret Service and CIA, were well able to assassinate Kennedy, if those at the highest levels in government cooperated to allow the assassination to take place for their benefit. Oswald told Judyth he would do what he could to try to get the mission aborted, and that he had others who were going to help him to abort the assassination.

After the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, Judyth Baker received a phone-call from David Ferrie warning her that she would be killed if she told anyone about her knowledge of these events.

In 2007 Edward Haslam published Dr. Mary’s Monkey, an updated account on the death of Mary Sherman. Haslam believes that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. This work included using a linear particle accelerator located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Public Health Service Hospital in New Orleans. Haslam argues that Sherman had an accident while using the linear particle accelerator. This explains why her body was so badly burnt. In an attempt to cover-up her secret research, Sherman was stabbed in the heart and then moved under cover of darkness to her apartment. A small fire was then started in an attempt to explain the burns on her body.

Researched by:
@freedom_rings

U.S. Can’t Stop Afghanistan’s Opium Economy

An article by:
Ted Galen Carpenter
October 11, 2010

The 2010 Afghanistan Opium Survey, which the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime recently released, is a classic case of bad news and illusory good news. The principal piece of faux good news was that the production of opium (the raw ingredient for heroin) had declined a whopping 48 percent over the past year. However, that decline was not because of any decision by Afghan farmers to abandon the cultivation of opium poppy crops or because the Afghan government’s drug eradication efforts were more successful. The amount of acreage devoted to opium poppies was unchanged from 2009, and the Karzai regime’s eradication campaign (largely a response to Washington’s prodding) remained as desultory as ever. The report concedes that the production decline was entirely the result of a fungal blight that dramatically reduced crop yields. Needless to say, drug warriors can’t count on that factor every year.

The blight actually appears to have been a financial blessing for poppy farmers, since it diminished the supply glut that had developed over the previous two years. With the onset of a modest shortage, prices are soaring. The income to drug crop farmers this year was $604 million—up from $438 million in 2009. In essence, the blight had the same economic effect as U.S. Agricultural Department price support programs that bribe American farmers to take acreage out of production.

The drop in supply has also restored the gap between what Afghan farmers can earn growing opium poppies and growing competing crops. Because of the glut in 2008 and 2009, the price advantage of opium over wheat—the main competitor—had shrunk to 3 to 1. It’s now back up to 6 to 1. Although that is still a long way from the heady initial years of the U.S.-led occupation when the ratio reached as much as 12 to 1, it is still clear that Afghan farmers can make far more money growing poppies than any alternative.

And therein lies the principal problem for those in the Obama administration and Congress who press U.S. military commanders to make anti-drug efforts a high priority in the overall mission in Afghanistan. The brutal reality is that opium is a huge part of the country’s economy. Most estimates place the commerce in illegal drugs at between one-quarter and one-third of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product. UN surveys over the years have concluded that nearly half a million Afghan farmers are directly involved in the drug trade. Given the role of extended families and clans in that society, about 30 percent of the population has some stake in the trade.

Such economic realities mean that calls to make anti-drug efforts a higher priority jeopardize the more important anti-terrorism mission. Proponents of a crackdown argue that a vigorous eradication effort is needed to dry up the funds flowing to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Those groups do benefit financially from drug trafficking, but they are hardly the only ones. NATO forces rely on opium poppy farmers to provide information on the movement of enemy forces, especially in southern Afghanistan. Escalating the counter-narcotics effort would risk alienating those vital sources of intelligence.

Equally important, many of President Hamid Karzai’s key political allies also profit from drug trafficking. Indeed, cynical Afghans refer to the elegant homes of those power brokers in Kabul and other cities as “poppy palaces.” Karzai’s allies include regional warlords who backed the Taliban when that faction was in power, switching sides only when it was clear that the U.S.-led military offensive in late 2001 was going to succeed. Targeting such traffickers creates a powerful incentive for them to switch sides yet again.

Although it might gall a good many U.S. officials, the best course of action is to avert one’s eyes to the pervasive commerce in illegal drugs. Our primary objective must remain the weakening of al Qaeda and a prompt exit of American forces from Afghanistan. The last thing we need to do is become bogged down in a futile crusade against opium poppies.

Researched by:
@freedom_rings
http://AmericansUnlimited.WordPress.com

Dr. Feel Good, Physician To The Famous and Powerful

Max Jacobson (July 3, 1900 – December 1, 1979) was a German-born[1] New York physician, nicknamed “Miracle Max” and “Dr. Feelgood”,[2] for the “vitamin injection” treatments that made them happy and gave them seemingly limitless energy. Jacobson’s panacea was 30 to 50 milligrams of amphetamines – the mood-elevating neural energizers also known as speed.

After fleeing Berlin in 1936,[3][4] Jacobson set up an office on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where he treated a number of famous names including Yul Brynner, Truman Capote, Maya Deren, Cecil B. DeMille, Marlene Dietrich, Eddie Fisher, Alan Jay Lerner, Mickey Mantle, Marilyn Monroe, Zero Mostel, Elvis Presley, Anthony Quinn, Nelson Rockefeller, and Tennessee Williams.[5][6][7]

Waiting for a booster shot in Jacobson’s office was not unusual. He did business at all hours: When Alan Jay Lerner was working around the clock on a musical, he might see ‘Miracle Max’ five times daily, sometimes as late as 11 p.m. Truman Capote found Jacobson’s shots caused “instant euphoria. You feel like Superman. You’re flying. Ideas come at the speed of light. You go 72 hours straight without so much as a coffee break.”

Dubbed “Dr. Feelgood”, Jacobson was known for his “miracle tissue regenerator” shots, which consisted of amphetamines, animal hormones, bone marrow, enzymes, human placenta, painkillers, steroids, animal organ cells and multivitamins.[8][9]

Of course Jacobson’s mixtures merely concealed his patients’ symptoms without meeting their emotional needs. Moreover, long-term use of amphetamines in Jacobson-size doses can cause paranoia and symptoms of schizophrenia, and discontinuing it suddenly often causes sudden extreme depression and reappearance of the symptoms that led to amphetamine use in the first place.

Still, short-term relief is better than none to him who suffers, and particularly to him who carries a heavy burden of responsibility. And so it was that Jacobson came to treat the First Patient.

It’s now well-known that John F. Kennedy’s vigorous public image was a facade. In fact, it concealed infirmities that often left him unable to climb a flight of stairs or put on his own socks. His pharmacopoeia was terrifying, as historian Robert Dallek writes: “Steroids for his Addison’s disease, pain-killers for his back, antispasmodics for his colitis, antibiotics for urinary-tract infections, antihistamines for allergies and, on at least one occasion, an antipsychotic … for a severe mood change that Jackie Kennedy believed had been brought on by the antihistamines.”

Mutual friends introduced JFK to Jacobson during the 1960 campaign. John F. Kennedy first visited Jacobson in September 1960, shortly before the 1960 presidential election debates.[10] The first shot elevated his mood. From then on, it was clear sailing. Jacobson was part of the Presidential entourage at the Vienna summit in 1961, where he administered injections to combat severe back pain. Some of the potential side effects included hyperactivity, impaired judgment, nervousness, and wild mood swings. Kennedy, however, was untroubled by FDA reports on the contents of Jacobson’s injections and proclaimed: “I don’t care if it’s horse piss. It works.”[11] Jacobson was used for the most severe bouts of back pain.[12] By May 1962, Jacobson had visited the White House to treat the President thirty-four times.[13][14]

Jacobson himself became increasingly bizarre during the late 1960s. His amphetamine purchases became sufficient for more than 100 strong doses daily. He was buying a weekly average of 1,270 needles and 650 syringes. Favored patients could describe their symptoms by mail or telephone; Jacobson mailed them vials and disposable needles without an examination. According to one of his nurses, “When he gave an injection he would just spill … his medical bag on the table and rummage around amid a jumble of unmarked bottles and nameless chemicals. … He would see 30 patients or more a day. He worked 24 hours a day, sometimes for days on end … he was injecting himself with the stuff.”

As one patient later recounted, “My last shot was a blood-red thing about a foot long. I went blind for two days, and when my eyesight finally came back, I threw away all my speed and hung up my works on the living room lampshade.”

In 1969, one of Jacobson’s clients, former Presidential photographer Mark Shaw, died at the age of 47. An autopsy showed that Shaw had died of “acute and chronic intravenous amphetamine poisoning”.[13]

In early December 1972, Jacobson’s practice was exposed in the city dailies. Under questioning Jacobson’s staff admitted to buying the large quantities of amphetamines to give many high level doses. He was charged with 48 counts of unprofessional conduct. The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs seized Jacobson’s supply, and his medical license was revoked in 1975 by the New York State Board of Regents.[15]

Jacobson attempted to regain his license in 1979 but was denied. A state spokesmen stated that the then 79-year-old Jacobson didn’t seem ready to enter into the “mainstream of practice” again. Jacobson died in December 1979.[13]

—–

1. Hastedt, Glenn P. (Nova Publishers). White House Studies Compendium. 2007. p. 289. ISBN 1-60021-680-3.

2. William Bryk (September 20, 2005). “Dr. Feelgood: Past & Present”. The New York Sun. p. Online edition (not paginated).

3. Bly, Nellie (1996). The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets. Kensington Books. p. 103. ISBN 1-57566-106-3.

4. Leamer, Laurence (2002). The Kennedy Men: The Laws of the Father, 1901-1963. HarperCollins. p. 527. ISBN 0-06-050288-6. “Dr. Jacobson was a German Jew who had fled Berlin before the war…”

5. Richard A. Lertzman & William J. Birnestitle (May 2013). Dr. Feelgood: The Shocking Story of the Doctor Who May Have Changed History by Treating and Drugging JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, and Other Prominent Figures. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62087-589-6.

6. Pendergrast, Mark (2000). For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and The Company That Makes It. Basic Books. p. 255. ISBN 0-465-05468-4.

7. Rabinovitz, Lauren (2003). Points of Resistance: Women, Power &Politics In the New York Avant-garde Cinema, 1943-71 (2 ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 87. ISBN 0-252-07124-7.

8. Bly, Nellie (1996). The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets. Kensington Books. pp. 103–104. ISBN 1-57566-106-3.

9. Richard A. Lertzman & William J. Birnestitle (May 2013). Dr. Feelgood: The Shocking Story of the Doctor Who May Have Changed History by Treating and Drugging JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, and Other Prominent Figures. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62087-589-6.

10. Leamer, Laurence (2002). The Kennedy Men: The Laws of the Father, 1901-1963. HarperCollins. p. 450. ISBN 0-06-050288-6.

11. Kempe, Frederick (2011). Berlin 1961. Penguin Group (USA). pp. 213–214. ISBN 0-399-15729-8.

12. Reeves, Richard (1993), President Kennedy: Profile of Power, pp. 42, 158-159.

13. a b c Bryk, William (2005-09-20). “Dr. Feelgood”. The New York Sun. Retrieved 2009-03-05.

14. Giglio, James M. (2006-02-20). The Presidency of John F. Kennedy (Second Edition, Revised ed.). University Press of Kansas. p. 80. ISBN 978-0-7006-1436-3.

15. Post, Jerrold M.; Robins, Robert S. (1995). When Illness Strikes the Leader: The Dilemma of the Captive King. Yale University Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-300-06314-8.

Further reading:

Richard A. Lertzman & William J. Birnestitle (May 2013). Dr. Feelgood: The Shocking Story of the Doctor Who May Have Changed History by Treating and Drugging JFK, Marilyn, Elvis, and Other Prominent Figures. Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-62087-589-6.

Researched by:
@freedom_rings