Friday, 26 September 2008

Vaccines, Their Side Effects, & The State

'If the truth be known'....

I'd like to deal today with vaccines.

The subject is 'up' for me because of (a) recent reports out of both the US and the UK that the authorities, spooked by more parents starting to refuse vaccinations for their children, are mooting making the vax schedule mandatory; and (b) two letters I have written this week to two different papers, regarding articles they ran on this subject - ie, articles that interface with this subject, unbeknownst to the journalists involved.

More on that subject area later. First, the letters:

[This to the (Scotland) Sunday Times on the occasion of an article of theirs on a study linking paracetamol to asthma and other allergies]

21 September 2008

Dear Editor,

I must take exception to Lois Rogers' statement that "there remains no glimmer of an explanation of the origins of (allergies)" (Comment, September 21).

Studies have shown that with the increase in the vaccination schedule there was an increase in levels of allergies/asthma and full-blown anaphylaxis. Other studies have uncovered the connection: ingredients in vaccines - whose job it is to elicit an inflammatory response, thus triggering the body's antibodies - when administered with a food protein, result in long-term sensitization to that food antigen.

This explains why babies and toddlers react on their first exposure to the peanut or other antigen: the babies have been sensitized by their vaccines to the proteins through breast milk or formula ingested at the time of vaccination. This also explains why children are anaphylactic to a variety of proteins, such as different treenuts, peanuts, egg, legumes, milk, seeds, etc, depending on what proteins the mother ate at the time of vaccination; and also on the molecular-weight similarity to ingredients in the vaccines themselves; and also to the latex stoppers in the vials.

Why isn't this link being recognised? I think it's obvious: the health authorities don't want anything jeopardizing their vaunted medical modality of vaccinations. Not even the truth about the full extent of their side effects. Not very scientific.

We need a major debate on this issue, especially because we're not just talking about allergies as adverse events to various vaccines. We're talking about a whole host of autoimmune and neurological-development conditions associated with them. That debate is long overdue - and is not helped by newspaper articles that continue to promote ignorance about these matters.

As for the calpol link: It is given when babies have fever. Many babies run a temperature from their jabs. To look solely at paracetamol as the potential culprit is to be myopic - or deliberately obfuscatory.

Yours etc; including a

P.S. An excellent website for info in this regard is


[And this, to The (Glasgow) Herald, on a feature article on dyspraxia]

25 September 2008

Dear Editor,

"According to experts, there are references to dyspraxia in medical literature dating from the 1950s and 60s, yet still little is known about it today" (Hands-on experience essential, Focus, September 25). That is because the medical authorities don't want to know, and would prefer to leave such conditions to therapy, including drug therapy.

Anybody who has studied this matter, of the likes of ADD and ADHD and dyslexia and dyspraxia and ASD and PDD-NOS and a whole host of such neurological-development acronyms, knows that they date in large from the beginning of the rollout of the mass vaccination programmes at that time.

Much of this could have been avoided if the authorities had instituted long-term studies of this new medical modality. Alas, they chose to believe that the benefits of various vaccines 'far outweighed' their risks - whatever all those risks proved to be - and so they have stonewalled any legitimate consideration of debate on the matter.

With studies finding "up to 8.5% of UK children [suffering] from dyspraxia" ('Harrowing delays' in dyspraxia diagnoses, report finds; same edition) and comparable figures for the other, similar conditions, this assumption - of the benefits-vs-risks of vaccines - is far from a settled matter.

Fortunately, attention is being paid to this issue wit the rise of ASD. But it's all way past time. In the meantime, parents should start doing their own research on these matters. And with the principle of informed consent to a medical procedure still in force in western countries, they have not only a right to, but a responsibility to.

It's a shame we can't trust our authorities in this area. But it's obvious that it's the same in all areas of society. Sad; but true.

Yours, etc


[As for this matter of neurological-development conditions being dated back to the 1950s time period, I think it relevant to quote an email I sent over a year ago (February 28, 2007) to Dan Olmsted, former UPI journalist and one of the founders of a website dealing with autism called Age Of Autism]

Wed. 28/2

Dear Dan,

I have just read the NAA's mailing of today, containing your article on the early days of the autism story. VERY good work in bringing all this to light.

[ Ed. note: Dan had done a study of the first few case histories of autism reported on in child psychiatrist Dr Leo Kanner's research, first reported in 1943 - a time when vaccination against whooping cough was becoming increasingly popular and widespread. But I'm getting ahead of myself...Dan's article highlighted the families's connections with mercury, esp. - at that time - in fungicides.]

There is another side to the story of Kanner's noting that many of the parents were "intelligent...well-educated...". This side was gone into in Harris L Coulter's important book 'Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain' (1990). If you can't get hold of a copy of it (though I encourage you to move heaven and earth, and old/used-book sites to do so), or don't have it handy, this is the relevant portion.

It's from his Chapter 1, section entitled A Puzzling Feature (pp 51-3):

"An unexplained feature of autism on its initial apearance [sic] was its curious frequency in well-educated families - especially professionals such as physicians, lawyers, professors, and accountants.

"Of Kanner's first 100 cases, 96 of the fathers were high-school graduates, 87 had attended college, 74 had graduated from college, and 38 had done graduate work. Of the mothers, 92 were high-school graduates, 40 had graduated from college and eleven had done graduate work. This was an astonishingly high level of educational attainment, especially for women and especially for the 1930s. Also unexpected was the finding that 70 of the women had taken jobs, while many had continued working even after marriage! 'To this day,' Kanner observed in 1954, 'we have not encountered any one autistic child who came of unintelligent parents.'

[Ed. Note: This factor, of the educational attainment of the first families, is undoubtedly what led Dr Bruno Bettelheim to his psychoanalytical concept of autism being due to a 'refrigerator mom'.]

"In 1964 Rimland concluded that 'the parents of autistic children form a unique and highly homogeneous group in terms of intellect and personality.'

"In 1967 a systematic study was done proving that Kanner's observations were correct. A 1970 study made a similar finding - that 47 percent of the parents of autistic children had completed college, while a number had done advanced study for the M.A. or Ph.D. This contrasted sharply with the parents of other categories of mentally disturbed children, where as few as nineteen percent of the parents were college graduates.

"Attempts have been made, but without success, to link this skewed distribution of cases to genetic factors in the middle-class or upper-class population of parents.

"One point insufficiently stressed in the early surveys was the high incidence of parents working in medicine or connected with it. Kanner's first 100 cases included eleven physicians (five psychiatrists), three Ph.D.'s in the sciences, one psychologist, and one dentist; of the mothers one was a physician, three were nurses, two were psychologists, one a physiotherapist, and one a laboratory technician.

"But there were other medical connections which did not necessarily appear in the statistical breakdown...[etc.]

"Kanner noted: 'Many of the fathers and most of the mothers are perfectionists...The mothers felt duty-bound to carry out to the letter the rules and regulations which they were given by their obstetricians and pediatricians.'

[Ed. note: What a remarkable observation. Too bad more wasn't made of it earlier on!]

"But these early data showing a proponderance of educated parents have now been superseded; since the 1970s the skewed distribution no longer obtains. In the United States autism is now evenly distributed, with no social class or ethnic group being particularly favored.

"Hence the conclusion is now reached that the earlier data were mistaken, 'based on outdated research...No social or pschological characteristics of parents or families have proven to be associated with autism.' But is this correct? Was the earlier research done badly, or did the source population for autistic children change between 1940-1950 and the1970s? This latter possibility has not been investigated.

[And now here it comes:]

"A real shift in the socio-economic distribution pattern of autism can readily be explained in terms of childhood vaccination. When the pertussis vaccine was first introduced, being offered by the occasional forward-looking pediatrician to parents anxious to do 'everything possible' for their children and avid for the latest wonders off the medical assembly-line, who were the first takers? Not the blue-collar workers, who could not afford these frills and are, in any case, often suspicious of doctors. Free vaccination at public health clinics (where today the vast bulk of lower-class children get their shots) was still for the future. Only the prosperous - who could afford private physicians - were in a position to request this vaccine. And these same prosperous and educated parents, especially educated and ambitious mothers with some exposure to medicine, would have insisted on it.

"This explains the skewed distribution of autistics in the early decades. Kanner, who was such an acute observer in all other respects, was no less so in this one.

"As vaccination programs expanded and became obligatory in nearly every state, rich and poor alike could seek the benefits of the DPT shot. The incidence of autism evened out, and researchers assume that the earlier statistics were incorrect!"

In this book, and in his earlier one (1985) co-authored with Barbara Loe Fisher titled 'DPT: A Shot in the Dark', he is particularly suspicious of the damage done by the pertussis element in that particular vaccine. But it would be a helpful investigation to look at the thimerosal element as well, in the vaccines of the period. [Ed. note: At least one of the DPT shots in current time still has thimerosal in it. And at least two have aluminum as well; both neurotoxic.] Indeed - as you state in your article - vaccines themselves are not the only factor; and therein lies the environmental role of such as mercury. But Coulter's book is an excellent source for looking into the roots of autism (and other Minimal Brain Damage conditions, like ADD, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc etc - which all took off in the 1950s period; precisely when the mass vaccination programs took off).

Keep up the excellent work, Dan (etc.)


I rest my case. Except to point out that from these tell-tale beginnings, we have gone on to discover vaccine linkages as well with the following side effects:

Arthritis/arthralgia. Convulsions/seizures/epilepsy. CFS/ME. Type 1 diabetes. Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Lupus. Multiple sclerosis. OCD. And. And. And...

How much?

Not easy to find out. (Although the Classens have identified the Hib vax, with its connection to type 1 diabetes, as clearly of greater risk than the benefits. And Rita Hoffman of has pointed out its introduction, and later, enhanced versions, being connected to the increase in food anaphylaxis in children.)

Why not?

It's obvious. The authorities don't want to go there. They're cutting the incidences of the childhood diseases, and that's good enough for them.

Not good enough for a growing number of parents, who are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any longer.

And good for them, for bringing this matter to our attention.

This matter, in general, of the growing authoritarianism over our lives.

As Ayn Rand said:

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Thanks; no thanks.

Thursday, 18 September 2008

COMMENTARIES ON OUR TIMES - Current events & the US Constitution

Current events - the presidential election campaigns - the Republicans and Sarah Palin:

Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have a fundamentalist religion believer - whose belief system posits that an Armageddon-type scenario is a Good Thing - a heartbeat away from the US presidency. In fact, I don’t think it’s a good idea at all, never mind my personal feelings on the subject.

But this brings up another issue...


‘If the truth be known...’

America is in trouble. She needs to be helped out of her troubles, and back on the higher road to her spiritual destiny (as opposed to her collapse in ignominy). But to do that, we need to understand some basics about the ‘mid-course correction’ she needs. And that brings up the subject of her history.

Re: the state of the US Republic in our day and age; my kid’s eye looking at the matter:

‘Hang on a minute. These Bill of Rights enumerated items are examples of a limitation on the Federal Government by the States, as generally summarized, in confirmation, by the 9th and 10th Amendments. How did the Bill of Rights ever get turned on its head, to apply as limitations from the Federal Government to the States?’ The States had their own constitutions, which regulated their legal life (and in point of fact, were guaranteed, by the Constitution, “a Republican Form of Government”, to do that very sort of thing in their state legislatures); so - what happened along the way to our place in time?

This question came to me fairly early on in my life, after I had left university (pre-Med) abruptly - the day of my 21st birthday, in unintentional point of fact - and started on a search for ‘Truth’, in general and specifically, as to ‘the meaning of life’. One of my areas of interest was ‘America’, and her role in the world, spiritual and secular. I knew that there had been a question about something called ‘States’ rights’ in the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, when ‘the South’ objected to various pronouncements from the Federal Government regarding racial issues (‘Jim Crowism’, whatever that was precisely); but I didn’t know the ins and outs of that argument, except that - as came around again during JFK’s tenure in the early ‘60s - it had something to do with ‘the commerce clause’ of the Constitution.

In trying to research this development, I went first to my local library, and then to the Law School Library at UCLA (whilst living in Southern California at the time), where I looked at various laws which came up in the 1930s - that watershed era in American politics - and were either affirmed or rejected by the Supreme Court. I found that for quite some time in that decade - and to the chagrin of FDR, who felt constrained by the court of his day (and thus tried to ‘pack the court’, a maneuver that didn’t get through the screen of public opinion; but not for lack of trying) - the court was, still, ‘conservative’ in its outlook - ie (as far as I am concerned regarding that term), under the mental sway of what has come to be known in our time as ‘strict constructionism’ (as opposed to...what. Liberals? Non-strict- constructionists? Believers in a ‘living document’? Anyway, you get the drift) - and it struck down some cases that were an attempt to widen the scope of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution and give the federal government more power over that area than it had had theretofore. So, that constitutional attitude was still holding sway at that time. And then - as I subsequently discovered by reading some literature developed by the John Birch Society (firm believers in ‘less government, more responsibility, and, with God’s help, a better world’) - the changeover apparently started in the very early ‘40s, when there was a law passed by Congress regarding the treatment of the US flag, which apparently overruled the state-vs-federal norm to that point in time. And the deus ex machina, as it were, seemed to involve the 14th Amendment.

A later reading of one of the (excellent) books by Judge Robert Bork gave me my substantive picture of the matter. In it he talked about a juridical ‘principle’ developed (apparently by some liberal law professors) given the name ‘incorporation’. The 14th Amendment - which in the aftermath of the Civil War sought to redress some racial grievances - stated, in part: “...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law [ie, it can’t be arbitrary in its decisions, must adhere to the law]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The ‘original intent’ of this legislation seemed to be to strike down state laws that differentiated between the races, ie, having one set of laws referring to blacks and one set referring to whites. (This is what is called ‘de jure’ discrimination, ie ‘according to law’, as opposed to ‘de facto’ discrimination, which is not in place due to any legal determination but simply due to ’existing in fact’.)* So the 14th Amendment started a constitutionally legal policy that said, in effect, that ‘the law’ needed to be color blind; that it could not distinguish between the races.

So far, so good, in making all citizens equal in the sight of the law. But the amendment was used by some central-government ideological types who wanted it to go further, and act as a foot in the door for greater federal control over the people. (Ie, one size to fit all; and thus save having to try to change the law on some social issue in all the states individually.) The gimmick they used to overturn the original, lawful emphasis of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights - ie, that it was primarily a brake on the power of the federal government - was to argue that ‘the due process clause’ in the 14th Amendment (“...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law”) meant, in effect, that the terms in the Bill of Rights referring generally to ‘life’ and ‘liberty’, eg, now applied wholesale FROM the federal government TO the states (were all ‘incorporated’ into the 14th Amendment’s intention). That the federal government was now the guarantor of our rights - and its judicial branch could determine the definition OF those rights (through a Supreme Court made up in its majority - hopefully, to the liberals behind this usurpation-by-stealth - of persons ‘constitutionally’ inclined to substitute their personal socio-political proclivities for the law, and thus bending ‘the law’ - the Constitution - to their whim).**

The old shell game. Follow the switched-around pea, if you can.

Sweet. And corrupt.

Now I grant that this tension, between the states and the federal level of government, was/is a bit of a block to the development of the American nation to its fullest potential, in unifying a continent and creating a national citizenry. But that conundrum was pretty well dealt with in the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Within that change, there was still a tension between the levels of government; but it became more of a healthy ‘checks and balances’ than a stumbling block - part of the overall genius of the American system, in setting the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government in check of each other. However, this ‘incorporation’ funny business fundamentally altered the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government, and put the US on a path that has led near-inevitably to this day and age, where the executive has assumed powers far beyond its constitutionally-allotted basis, and is getting away with it primarily because of this switch in emphasis, from a devolved system to a unitary, centrally-controlled system. It was never meant to be that way. But here we are.

On this point, a point about the Bill of Rights. Madison (the historically accepted ‘Father of the Constitution’) was initially against such a thing - a bill of rights - because it would potentially lend credence to the idea that the proposed federal government had such powers granted to it by the proposed constitution in the first place that it needed to be hedged around against such exercises of power. (The federal government as proposed had only those powers delegated to it; was a government of limited and delegated powers. Paraphrased quote from Madison, in The Federalist Papers: “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined [my emphasis].”) How prescient is that?

Let me clarify. If the people of the American republic want(ed) an amendment to their Constitution saying something like: ‘The powers previously reserved to the States or to the people shall now reside in the federal government’, the Constitution allows for such amending. The way that ‘amending’ was done, however, was pure sleight of hand. And unfortunately, in particular because of the caliber of the teaching of UnIted States History & Government in the public schools of the country (at least in my day), but also largely due to the failure of the country’s ‘free press’ to do its job (and especially in a democracy, where self-government can only work with a literate and knowledgeable populace, or it will deteriorate into mobocracy; as the Founders well knew from their reading of history), the vast majority of the American citizenry, I would wager, don’t have a clue how this fundamental changing of their system of government took place - or even that it DID take place. I would make that wager, because even someone as curious and interested in these sorts of things as I, didn’t understand what had happened - or even that it HAD happened - until I took the trouble to do a search for it; reading the Bill of Rights through the eyes of the little boy who called the emperor on his new clothes, and wondering, ‘Now how did these clear statements of limitation of power TO Congress and the federal government get turned around and applied FROM the federal government to the states?’

Anyway. Not good enough. And time for a change. Either back to the Constitution as it truly is - to get away from the spirit of ‘I am the law’, ie, the rule of men, back to the rule of law - or for a change in the contract duly authorized by the terms of the Constitution.

Or do you REALLY want to live in a country where the president can get away with saying, about your Constitution, that “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper”?

As to the de jure vs de facto contretemps in America. I am not a supporter of manipulating the law to try to accomplish ‘good’ ends. Every tyrant down through the ages has ruled by the ‘principle’ that the ends justify the means. Any means. Including torture, and assassination,*** and so forth.

I will have none of that.

Nor should America.

End of lesson for today.


- O -

P.S. In reading through what I have written here, I realize that I feel a need to emphasize my main point a little more, and not let the major thread get lost in some of the more extraneous details.

My main point is: So what does all of this have to do with our day and age? Well, for one: We’re in danger of a ‘unitary executive’ taking over the whole country in one fell swoop - quite similar to how Hitler and the Nazis took over the German federal republic. It can’t happen here? But it has. Not ‘but it could’. IT HAS. All the pieces are now cleverly in place for a declaration of martial law, and boom - the US has been purloined. Not a noble outcome.

So the example of Hitler should be instructive, for those who would learn from history: The electorate needs to dismantle the surveillance state, not build on it; needs to elect representatives to Congress who will roll back the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act, and so forth - all the pieces of the oppression just waiting to be fastened on the populace, in claiming the pre-eminence of safety over liberty.

The call to political arms is clear. We must heed it, before it’s too late, and the jackboot descends from on human high.


In sum. The individual states in the American federal republic are healthy entities, for two main reasons:

(1) They can be laboratories for experiments on various ways of dealing with life issues, such as health care and welfare provisions; and

(2) They are a stumbling block to a unitary executive.

As to this latter point: During the 21st century Bush administrations, the Powers That Be have ingeniously managed to override individual state governors and take over their states’ National Guards at King George’s call - and we have bought it, hook, line and sinker.

So much for being awake, as opposed to ‘letting George do it’.

Got it? ‘It’: the Founding Fathers were no dummies. And had had enough of the King George of their day.

Madison said that 'If men were angels, we would not need constitutions'.+ And another wise observation is apt here; this by a quintessential Englishman, Lord Acton: Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It’s time to take our country back, from those PTB who would take it away in furtherance of their own ends. Which is primarily to establish a New World Order, along fascist lines, ie, a nexus between government and the corporate world; where cronyism reigns, and The People are reduced to serfdom, to keep them quiet, docile, and safely consuming - safely, for their overseers.

And a socialist form of fascism - ie, rule by workers’ collectives - is no better a form of government, either. The Mob (literally and figuratively) can be just as dictatorial as the Boss. We would be better custodians of our magnificent legacy if we steered a course between the Scylla of the Right and the Charybdis of the Left. And went neither right nor left but up, to a level engaging our higher selves in our daily lives.

But that’s a subject for another time. And only so to speak.

- O -


* This distinction, incidentally, would sorely be tested later on - in the aftermath of the 1954 Brown vs. (some) Board of Education decision outlawing ‘separate but equal’ schools in the South - with the move to bus school children to schools to effect ‘racial balancing’, which caused a severe rent in the social fabric of America, between ‘strict constructionists’/’conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, and between the races; which is still playing out in our day and age, with such ‘principles’ as ‘affirmative action’, aka to ‘conservatives’ as reverse discrimination (and de jure discrimination rather than merely de facto at that). More on all this aspect of this business below.

** Shades of Alice in Wonderland, with Humpty Dumpty declaring, “Words mean what I say they mean, neither more nor less.” Or of Hitler’s declaration: “I am the law.”

*** Assassination can also be of a political nature. Example: what happened to New York State governor Eliot Spitzer.
The story given to the public was merely that he was caught with his pants down, in a prostitute encounter. The suspicion among some was that he was caught in a honey trap sting. Why? Who would want to eliminate him from the picture politically? One lead: His Op-Ed in the Washington Post of a few weeks before, wherein he accused the Bush administration of supporting banks in a predatory mortgage lending scam, and was leading a challenge to the poorly regulated policy by several states’ attorneys general.
Why would the Bush administration want to do all that, ie, cover for the banks in the first place, and have the motive to ‘rub out’ a crusading governor over the matter in the second place?
Anybody noticed what has happened recently? Where the financial system has been put in ‘play’ by just such a toxic financial factor?
Why would ‘they’ want to do that?
Ever hear of the ploy of crisis - opportunity? Of action - reaction?
The claim that I propose here: The Bush administration, in cahoots with the PTB, has been putting into place the means to cause a crisis in America, the better to take her over - to jettison the Constitution once and for all, and, under the cover of a declaration of martial law, complete the takeover of power. On the way to melding the United States into a North American Union, of the former US with Canada and Mexico. On the way to creating a region, among other regions, of their vaunted - and telegraphed - New World Order.
But more on that, anon.

+ And Jefferson warned us, about the Supremes and their judicial subordinates: “Bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Otherwise, the American people might see what we have in fact seen in our day and age. With ’penumbras’ and other exotic rationales employed to make words mean what the Supremes say they mean. Nothing more. And nothing less.

Brief bibliography:

American Government and Politics. Potter, A.; Fotheringham, P.; Kellas, J.
Faber Pb, 1981

Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. Monbiot, George. Pan Books, 2000

End of the Nation State, The. Ohmae, Kenichi. HarperCollins, 1995

Founding Brothers. Ellis, Joseph J. Vintage Books, 2002

Global Trap, The: Globalization and the Assault on Prosperity and Democracy.
Martin, H-P and Schumann, H. Zed Boks Ltd, 1997

Occult Conspiracy, The. Howard, Michael. Destiny Books, 1989

Private Planet: Corporate Plunder and the Fight Back. Cromwell, David. Jon
Carpenter Publ, 2001

When Corporations Rule the World. David C. Korten. Earthscan Publ Ltd,

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Initial Post

As carryover from About Me, and my reference to the emperor's new clothes:

'Shaddup, kid, you're drawing attention to us.'  Well; we need to have the attention drawn to us.  For if not us, who?  If not now, when?

Come with me in a little exploration of Things In Our Time.  And let me clarify from the start: I'm open to feedback on this journey together.  Because I'm serious in my basic premise: I'm  interested in the truth of things.  And nothing less.

Yes, 'the truth of things' can have different perspectives.  But let's try for an underlying/overarching meeting  place.  I'm going to call it 'the place where Louie dwells', after the line in  a drinking song from Yale University (The Whiffenpoof Song).  Or may we just agree to disagree; and keep it reasonably civil... 

Hold onto your hats.  And here we go.

P.S.  I will be talking mostly to the American people in this blog, but not exclusively so.  The themes affect us all.


Some of my basic premises:

* We have not been told the full story of the downside of vaccines.  That downside includes a whole range of autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders, the latter including autism spectrum disorder (ASD).   We need a major review of this subject area, and a reconfiguration of its governmental oversight structures, esp. in splitting off the double-hatted oversight responsibility of the US's Centers for Disease Control (CDC), for both the vaccine schedule and for their safety, and placing the latter responsibility in the hands of a new body, independent of both medical and drug industry control.

     A corollary of this theme is the need to get away from the near-monopoly of allopathic medicine in the western world, and come to a better place for health care, which emphasizes prevention over treatment.  (Costs alone are dictating this necessary change in emphasis.)  That can be called Complementary medicine, or Integrated medicine; which also includes the energetic modalities coming to the fore in our day and age.

* America has gotten off track from its founding principles, and needs to get back on track, to fulfill its role and spiritual destiny in the world, of being 'a light unto the nations'.  It needs to go, in short, neither right nor left but up.
     As currently constituted, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party is in a position to accomplish this goal.  A major recalibration of politics in America is necessary.  (And I don't mean just the Ron Paul (r)evolution; but he's on the right track, at least;  ie, wanting to steer the American ship of state in a course-corrected direction, in a sort of Back to the Future maneuver.)  

     A corollary of this theme is the need to investigate 9/11 more closely, and bring the real perpetrators to justice.  And that may well refer not just to the Bush administration, and the neocon desire for US-led world hegemony, but to another group of conspirators, who have a different 'take' on a New World Order.  We need to be wary, in short, of both the right and the left.  (Pres. Eisenhower - he of the military-industrial complex warning - had it only half right.)

* 'Global warming' is a larger story than has been largely accepted for now.  It includes solar system warming in general; it also includes the need -  and desirability - of moving to alternative energy sources, including what is called free energy devices.  Which is a vital part of the consciousness-raising influences going on in our day and age.  

I think I'll let it go at that for now.  That's enough for a start...

Am I talking about a New American Revolution? 

Indeed.  The corrupters of the dream have taken over.  It's time to put things back in kilter,  and on a higher level than heretofore.

We have only just begun....

...or, as the playwright said: "Affairs are now soul size."