By Peter Barry Chowka
EXCLUSIVE.
“These are the times that try men’s souls .” At the time of the American Revolution (1776), English-born American patriot, revolutionary activist, and pamphleteer Thomas Paine wrote those words in his influential broadside, Common Sense.
His words seem applicable to these current times. His writings back then helped to inspire action and ultimately a revolution. Now, effective action on the part of traditionalists-conservatives-patriots to restore the nation seems like it may not be possible.
On Monday, July 2, I went looking for new updates about the Occupy Portland ICE situation which I was following so closely last week and wrote three major articles about. Please read them here (Part 1), here (Part 2), and here (Part 3). It has taken a lot of work to get the story straight. Basically, as of today (July 3, 2018) the left wing status quo prevails. The encampment of hundreds of radical leftists outside Portland ICE HQ is still in place. It looks like it is going to be allowed to stay there indefinitely. The occupiers pledge that they are not going home until they and their “comrades” (yes, comrades) achieve total victory in shutting down ICE along with their other objectives. Read on.
The efforts of the left wing Communist Occupy zealots to close down ICE, is accompanied by their demands to close down the prisons and open the borders. It proceeds unimpeded. Portland, Oregon a.k.a. The People’s Republic of Portland is Ground Zero in this crazy pro-Communist effort that has now spread to many cities nationwide. Incredibly, many prominent mainstream Democrat politicians across the country are increasingly supporting these insane radical positions. Member in good standing of the Democratic Socialists of America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory in a Congressional primary election in New York last week is the tip of the spear in that regard. She openly supports no Ice, no borders, free health care, free college education, allowing illegal aliens invaders to stay here and import their large families with full benefits, and the impeachment of President Trump.
The shocking and obscene radical banner above about an ongoing occupy action in New York City is featured on the Portland Abolish I.C.E. PDX Twitter page. It calls for “no prisons no ICE no borders” and adds “chinga la migra” which translates as “f—k migra.” The word migra is a derogatory Spanish language slur for U.S. immigration officers often used by illegal aliens.
What accounts for these insane Communist positions becoming mainstream in the United States? One could cite many factors. An influential but often overlooked one is the profound demographic shift that has taken place in the United States of America.
Starting in the 1960s, at the hands of Democrat politicians when they controlled the Congress with veto proofmajorities, changes in immigration law kicked off that demographic shift. Slowly at first but later turbocharged by subsequent globalist administrations over the course of four or five decades, the country went from a majority of residents who traced their ancestry to Great Britain and European countries to a near majority of individuals from Mexico, Latin America, Africa, and other s—thole countries. That is an honest if politically incorrect description of the demographic shift. It is confirmed by accounts like the following published in the mainstream media with little notice.
According to Newsweek June 22, 2017, in an article titled “Will America Remain White? More Non-Hispanic Whites Died Than Were Born in U.S. Last Year:”
The non-Hispanic white population was the only race or ethnic group to experience more deaths than births between July 2015 and July 2016, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same time period, the Asian and Hispanic populations saw the largest increases, as the United States continues to become more diverse.
From the Baltimore Sun August 8, 2017, “Whites Will Soon Be the Minority in Number:”
The U.S. population has been predominantly white since the founding of Jamestown in 1607. As late as 1950, whites accounted for about 90 percent of the nation’s population, according to U.S. Census figures. But in the past six decades, whites’ share of the overall population has dropped to 61 percent. . . In certain places this [population shift to minority-majority] is already underway. Hawaii and the District of Columbia became majority-minority in 1980, California and New Mexico in 2000, Texas in 2004, and Nevada last year. The white share of Nevada’s population plunged from 83.2 percent in 1980 to 49.9 percent in 2016. Nonwhites are drivers of the demography of the national and state populations. For example, nonwhites accounted for nearly 96 percent of the 14.4 million people added to the U.S. population between 2010 and 2016. Latinos were responsible for close to half of the national growth. The white population rose by just over 650,000 during the six-year period, making up only about 4 percent of the increase. [Emphasis added]
These statistics, published in mainstream publications, are based on official U.S. Census statistics. They deserve serious consideration.
If the trends continue – and they surely will – the United States will be a totally different country soon. In fact, it already is. It is no longer the country whose people cheered when Democrat President John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural Address, on January 20, 1961, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”
Today, Democrats demand free health care, free college tuition, and, increasingly, free guaranteed annual income for everyone in the country including illegal aliens! And they want to impeach the duly elected 45thPresident of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The political platform of the Communist Party USA is close to being totally implemented in the country without a shot being fired.
As 2018 reaches its halfway point and we are on the eve of what should be a solemn and meaningful holiday, the 4th of July, Independence Day, a declining audience of mostly aging white people of European origin, with a very few independent-minded people of color thrown in, even pays attention to the meaning of the holiday. They are the ones who read the articles in publications like American Thinker, the Hagmann Report, and similar outlets, but little can be done to change the country’s direction. Too many people approve of that transformation, as President Barack Hussein Obama described it – the inexorable slide downward into Third World status that seems to be picking up speed. The power of the state is simply too great to resist. It is orders of magnitude greater than the power of the British occupiers during the Revolutionary War. And these days, despite President Trump being in the White House, most individual state power is aligned with the increasingly radical left – because the Shadow Government and the Deep State remain in power positions in many cases behind the scenes and in a lot of cases now, also quite openly feel comfortable in carrying out their dirty seditious deeds.
What’s happening in the numerous cities where anti-ICE actions are going forward is emblematic. Politicians and even police departments in those cities are now on the side of the lawbreakers, whether they are the occupiers or illegal aliens – or even criminal illegal aliens who are members of gangs like MS-13. Nancy Pelosi recently defended members of the savage murderous Latino MS-13 gang as children of God who should not be called names. The criminal illegal alien, previously convicted of 7 felonies and deported from the U.S. a half a dozen times, who killed Kate Steinle by shooting her dead on a pier in San Francisco was acquitted by an American jury on all charges relating to her death (which his defense lawyer admitted he was responsible for) in an act of jury nullification. Leftists supported and praised the jury’s verdict.
Last weekend, a small group of conservatives obtained a permit for a legal march in the city of Portland and a rally. There were only about 150 of them. A violent mob of Antifa goons showed up, wearing masks, black clothing, and helmets and carrying weapons, and descended on the legal march. What the police and media called a “riot” ensued and the coverage depicted the scene as “antifascist” demonstrators challenging an extreme right wing group as if the latter, peacefully and legally marching, were the cause. It was a text book example of Fake News reporting. This was the case both in mainstream print and Internet publications and Sunday evening on the CBS TV nationwide network news broadcast. It’s as if the Daily Worker (the house organ of the Communist Party USA) was ghost-writing the reporting.
An excerpt from Fortune, May 23, 2017:
Two years ago, two married Princeton professors, Anne Case and Angus Deaton, released an alarming study, showing that white middle-aged Americans were suddenly dying much more frequently than in the past. The results were surprisingly given that mortality rates for the U.S. population had in general been falling since 1900.
The authors partly blamed what they called “deaths of despair”—deaths from alcohol and drug poisoning, suicide, and alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis, which have risen dramatically for whites.
Happy Fourth of July, America. I hope that it’s not our last.
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture. He is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Peter is scheduled to make his next video Skype appearance on The Hagmann Report on Thursday, July 5, 2018 between 8-9 PM EDT. Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.
By Peter Barry Chowka
Although Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsements of far-left socialist Democratic Party candidates in Tuesday’s (August 7th) primary elections had mixed results, the 28-year-old darling of the Democratic Socialists of America and the mainstream media is still plotting her strategy for the critically important November Congressional elections that are now less than three months away.
The strategy of Ocasio-Cortez and her comrades is to keep the pressure on the Democratic Party to continue its hard left turn towards socialism – which is really Marxism, as my new article online today at The Epoch Times concludes.
The article’s title is The Democratic Socialists of America Are Coming: Do They Represent America’s Future? It’s my fifth article since July 12th published at The Epoch Times.
The article includes some exclusive quotes from Diana West, the distinguished author of American Betrayal and other books and a nationally syndicated columnist. Diana West has been a guest on The Hagmann Report program, most recently on July 31st (click here for video). I received an email from Ms. West with her replies to several questions I had asked her shortly before my weekly appearance on The Hagmann Report on Monday, August 6th and I read portions of her comments on the program, including these lines.
Diana West: “It’s quite clear to me that DSA is communist and Marxist both — and ‘progressive’ and Alinskyite and Fabian as well — in the sense that all of these groups and factions seek to remake America according to the same socialist, centrally planned, varyingly totalitarian vision, all of them creating the kind of tyranny that our Founding Fathers would have had to declare independence from all over again.
“While differences in tactics or presentation may absorb these Marx-influenced groups themselves, even pit them against each, such differences amount to little as far as anti-communists should be concerned. All of these groups pay homage to Marx; thus, they all pose existential threats to liberty, religion, tradition, free markets.”
To read my entire 1,100 word article without charge at The Epoch Times, The Democratic Socialists of America Are Coming: Do They Represent America’s Future? please click here.
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture. During the past year, he has been a frequent contributor to American Thinker. His articles are now appearing in The Epoch Times. Every Monday at 9 PM ET, Peter offers political and media analysis live on The Hagmann Report.Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.
By Peter Barry Chowka
UPDATED: On July 25th (online) and 26th (in print), The Epoch Times published my fourth feature article in two weeks. The title, “The Democratic Party in 2018: At War With Itself?,” indicates the content.
The article is a detailed examination of how the Democratic Party has recently taken a sharp and shocking turn towards the socialist (Marxist) hard left.
Which is not to suggest that the Democratic Party has in recent decades, not been a party of the left. But there is a qualitative difference between the party of John F. Kennedy, Henry (Scoop) Jackson, Walter Mondale – and even Bill Clinton – and its standard bearers today. All four of these well-known and powerful politicians from the 1960s through the 1990s were considered to be among the leading liberals and moderates of their times. But they were more traditional classical liberals who governed or legislated from the center-left of the political spectrum.
Since the ascent to total power of Barack Hussein Obama and his thousands of acolytes in 2008, a long decade ago now, the inexorable march towards socialism (which is a mask for Marxism and communism) has picked up considerable speed.
In 2018, a critical mass has finally been achieved as the Democratic Party is now embracing candidates who openly proclaim that they are socialists first and Democrats second.
The latest figure to grab the golden ring of the Party’s approval is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Her surprising victory over ten-term incumbent Rep. Joseph Crowley in a June Democratic primary election for Congress in New York, with the aid of the mainstream media, instantly catapulted this 28-year-old newbie politician wannabe into the national spotlight.
And the rest, as they say, is now history – which is being made right before our eyes.
Due to copyright restrictions, my entire article for The Epoch Times cannot be republished here. However, following the introductory paragraphs of the article, below, there is a link to the complete article, which can be read online for free.
The Democratic Party in 2018: At War With Itself?
By Peter Barry Chowka © 2000-2018 by The Epoch Times
The current rise of an active socialist base in the Democratic Party has led some observers to describe what’s taking place as an intraparty civil war.
The Democrats began to move decidedly to the left a decade ago with Barack Obama’s election to the presidency. Between 2009 and 2017, President Obama governed further to the left than any previous president since Franklin Roosevelt.
There was little opposition from fellow Democrats.
The strong showing in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was another indication that a substantial part of the party—generally referred to as the base—had turned hard left.
More recently, the move to political center stage of Congressional candidate socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and her embrace by many leaders of the party including Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez, appear to presage an even more important role for socialism in the party’s future. . .
The complete article at The Epoch Times may be read by accessing this link.
By Peter Barry Chowka
Is this woman – an avowed socialist – fit to be in the Congress or in the Oval Office?
The biggest political story of the week arising from last Tuesday’s primary elections was the David and Goliath take down of entrenched Swamp Dweller Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY) by someone who was initially given no chance. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 28, who last November was working as a bartender, not only beat Crowley, who outspent her by 10 to 1 – she trounced him by a 15 point margin. The New York Times, her hometown paper of record, had devoted exactly two mentions to her campaign in news stories prior to her surprise election victory.
Crowley wasn’t just anybody. He was a 10-term Congressman and an old political hand. He was thought to be a leading contender for the top Democrat leadership role in the House, and maybe the next Speaker, if Rep. Nancy Pelosi winds up being deposed by her caucus either before or after the November elections. Ocasio-Cortez’s win was immediately compared to the 2014 triumph of another unknown, Dave Brat, a Tea Party candidate and a professor at Randolph-Macon College who took down House Republican leader Eric Cantor in an 11 point landslide primary win. That election surprise may have signaled a tectonic out-with-the-old-type shift in the makeup of the Republican Party that, two years later, came under the control of the now iconic outsider Donald J. Trump.
The left and the media are greeting Ocasio-Cortez’s win, “the most shocking upset of a rollicking political season,” as a kind of second coming – that is, of Bernie Sanders. Vermont Sen. Sanders enthusiastically endorsed his fellow socialist Ocasio-Cortez, who had worked on his 2016 presidential campaign. For her part, Ocasio-Cortez had warm praise for her mentor Sanders. Republicans who are cheering this win because they think it presages trouble because the Democrats are lurching too far to the left should remember that Sanders, who ran as a Democrat but is really a hard core socialist, did extremely well and might even have beaten Hillary Clinton if the primaries hadn’t been rigged by the DNC.
Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, favors universal single payer health care (aka socialized medicine), tuition free for all four year college at state schools, the elimination of ICE, and the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. Her unconventional decision to eschew campaigning in the final days and fly to Texas to demonstrate in solidarity with illegal immigrants – at the time seen as an unwise move – is now being assessed as a brilliant political stroke. In a comparison that is not too far afield, like Donald J. Trump she acts impulsively and speaks her mind and so far the constituents in her Congressional district in Queens, N.Y. (70% of them are “people of color”) seem to approve.
Ocasio-Cortez is assured of making it to the House in November as her district is as safe for Democrats as possible. Once there, where will she go politically? I predict further on to the left. What has she got to lose? Plenty of other ambitious high profile Democrats are heading in the same direction. A majority of her party has no problems with socialism and the promise of a handout for all has often been a winning strategy for Democrats (ask Barack Obama), who in recent years have remade themselves into Democrat Socialists. Remember the Newsweek cover at the time of Obama’s first inauguration? “We Are All Socialists Now.”
And what about Ocasio-Cortez’s future ambitions? In estimating this aspect, she reminds me of President Obama. He exuded hipness, he was considered by many voters to be attractive and articulate, he came out of nowhere when America seemed to crave something new – and he was the right color for the country’s emerging demographic shift that is slowly and inexorably transforming to minority-majority.
The thought of aiming for the very top job has apparently not escaped soon-to-be Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. On Thursday, basking in the glow of her daughter’s impressive victory, the newly minted pol’s 55-year old mother, Blanca Ocasio-Cortez, told the New York Post, “Her aspiration is to be the president.”
A friend of mine who is an astute observer of American politics with a sense of realpolitik, and who despises socialism because of what it did to her country in the last century, offered these observations about Ocasio-Cortez:
She is looking like a total construct. Groomed and primed in secret, and prepared for this political world. See how much she smiles, see how happy and young and healthy she looks. If you vote for her, you will also feel young and happy and healthy and smiley. That is the strategy and it will work, because socialism is a multi-generational strategy, and the advancing phalanx of socialist voters is FOUR generations deep.
Let’s hope that my friend is wrong. But at this point, can anyone be sure?
Addenda: On June 29, Yahoo News published a 4,000 word article titled “The Democratic Socialists of America show their muscle in New York congressional upset.” It has detailed information about the background of the DSA and its plans to support Democrat party candidates this fall who can prove their commitment to socialism as part of the DSA’s ongoing agenda to transform the United States into a completely Socialist country like Sweden, Venezuela, or Cuba.
Another important part of the Ocasio-Cortez New York primary victory story is contained in the ZeroHedge article “’Girl From The Bronx’ Ocasio-Cortez Called Out In Fact Check; Actually Grew Up In Wealthy Enclave,” also published on June 29.
Peter Barry Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, and popular culture. He is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Peter is scheduled to make his next video Skype appearance on The Hagmann Report on Thursday, July 5, 2018 between 8-9 PM EDT. Follow Peter on Twitter at @pchowka.
By Peter Barry Chowka
There is a mad push on in this country by Democrat/socialist politicians to complete the job that Obamacare started and saddle us with single-payer socialized medicine. This is nothing but communism light and it would mean the end of individual freedom, freedom of medical choice, and the free market in medicine that has made the medical care system here the most advanced in the world.
I’ve been reporting on socialized medicine for three decades. For insight on the issue, I often turned to one of the most knowledgeable and accomplished practitioners of primary alternative medicine, the late Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. Gonzalez was a brilliant medical student, receiving his medical degree from Cornell Medical College in 1983. Hecontinued post graduate studies in immunology under his mentor, the founder of immunology Robert A. Good, M.D. As a research project, Gonzalez evaluated the work of William D. Kelley, D.D.S., who pioneered an original, highly individualized nutritional and enzyme-based treatment for late stage cancers based on metabolic typing. After studying the results of Kelley’s therapy on seriously ill patients, Gonzalez concluded that there was significant demonstrable merit to Kelley’s approach.
Unable to get the medical establishment interested in his detailed review of Kelley’s patient records, Gonzalez began practicing the enzyme-based nutritional therapy himself, treating patients in a small office in New York City starting in 1987. Over the next 28 years, with his clinical colleague Linda L. Isaacs, M.D., Gonzalez treated thousands of people with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Reports of their clinical success were abundant, and led to significant coverage in the popular press and preliminary interest on the part of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
Gonzalez never quite got the professional attention or the fair evaluation of his approach that he deserved – a story in itself which he documented in his 2012 book What Went Wrong – The Truth Behind the Clinical Trial of the Enzyme Treatment of Cancer. He died suddenly in July 2015 at age 67.
His work is being carried on by Dr. Isaacs, who remains in clinical practice, and by his widow, Mary Beth Gonzalez, who has established a tax exempt foundation in her husband’s name and posthumously published three significant volumes of his work.
Nick was a friend as well as a frequent interviewee and the subject of many of my articles over the years. He was not only a brilliant and original researcher and clinician, he was a remarkably clear thinker and an articulate voice on political and social issues. His work was also informed by his strong Christian faith and his encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible.
Nick and I often discussed the dangers that socialized medicine – lately given the name “single payer” – poses to a free society. The interview that follows is a transcript of one of our conversations from late October 2005. It is shocking to consider in retrospect that only three years after that conversation about the threat of socialized medicine, the United States would elect as president Barack Hussein Obama, who cut his teeth on radical socialism and vowed to “transform” America once he gained power. His first legislative initiative would be to ram government-controlled medicine, a.k.a. Obamacare, down our throats.
The interview with Nicholas Gonzalez, published online on November 1, 2005, with my original introduction begins here:
(November 1, 2005) In the summer of 2005, the legislature in California, the nation’s largest state, started to consider a serious proposal to outlaw private medical insurance in favor of a mandatory, state government-run and -controlled “single payer” system of universal health care that would cover all residents including millions of illegal aliens.
Surprisingly, there was widespread support for this scheme by many so-called stakeholders in the world of complementary alternative medicine (CAM). State-run medicine should be of utmost concern to truly knowledgeable and principled proponents of alternative and natural healing and people who rely on natural medicine. The fact is that primary alternative and natural medicine, medical freedom, and consumer choice would all be clearly restricted and ultimately threatened possibly to the point of extinction by a government takeover of health care.
After four decades of propaganda, support for government-controlled medicine apparently runs deep. On October 20, 2005, a Harris Interactive poll found that U.S. residents overwhelmingly support a variety of government-run health care programs. The online poll, which included responses from 2,242 adults, found that 96% of respondents “strongly” or “somewhat” support Medicare and that 91% support Medicaid. The poll also found that 75% of respondents support universal health insurance, compared with only 17% who oppose it.
Previously, I reported that organizations like the California Association of Naturopathic Doctors support state-run medical care. Even more shocking, the influential Foundation for Alternative Medicine cites the communist dictatorship of Cuba as the best model for complementary alternative medicine in the United States!
To discuss socialized medicine, I turned to Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. Gonzalez trained as an immunologist and since 1987 he has practiced as a clinician in New York City, mainly treating cancer patients, exclusively with dietary therapies. I first met Gonzalez almost sixteen years ago and have been reporting on his work ever since. He is very smart and he is not afraid to speak his mind. He has a clear, incisive view, not only of the practice of clinical natural medicine but about history, philosophy, politics, and ideology – all of which influence the medical field.
I began the conversation by expressing my dismay that California was seriously considering legislating a mandatory socialized medical system, with its proponents citing Canada’s single payer system as a model.
NICHOLAS GONZALEZ, M.D.: Medical science always thrives when there’s freedom to think independently. Socialized medicine doesn’t allow that because it requires physicians to practice according to pre-set standards. That’s the way the Canadian system is. You can’t deviate from those standards at all. The trouble is that medicine is not a fixed science. It requires creativity, originality in thinking in new ways. Socialized medicine doesn’t allow that. If socialized medicine worked, they would have had to build a Berlin Wall to keep people out. Instead, they had to build the Berlin Wall to keep people in because they were trying to escape socialism and socialized medicine.
A lot of liberals forget why the Berlin Wall was built. I guess they think it was built to keep people out because everyone wanted to go in there and get the free medical care. The people that had the free medical care in East Berlin and North Korea can’t wait to get out. They had to build a wall to keep them in.
The Berlin Wall probably says more about socialized medicine than anything – because, if it worked, you know, all of the illegal immigrants would have been going to Russia and North Korea and Cuba and East Germany instead of coming here. So why they want to recreate a failed system is beyond me.
When is the last time anyone heard of a great major advance coming from Cuba, North Korea, or East Germany?
PETER BARRY CHOWKA: It’s interesting that you mentioned Cuba. I don’t know if you’re aware of this: Berkley Bedell’s Foundation for Alternative Medicine sent one of their doctors to Cuba and they published a report rhapsodizing the Cuban system of medicine, claiming, in effect, that Cuba is the promised land for complementary alternative medicine. Meanwhile, Cuba, needless to say, is a Communist dictatorship with not only a lack of freedom at every level but a history of summary arrests, torture, and even grisly forms of execution. According to a recent PBS documentary on Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, a favorite method of executing political prisoners today is to let them die a slow and painful death from hunger and thirst in their prison cells.
GONZALEZ: A holistic way of death.
CHOWKA: In my opinion, for anyone to cite Cuba as a model for anything in a free country is madness.
GONZALEZ: A couple of things about Cuba. The only reason that Cuba even has a medical system, although it’s falling apart, is that Russia, when it was the Soviet Union, put $2 billion a year into Cuba. That’s why they were able to buy anything because Castro’s economy is a total failure. So they’re still living off of the days when the Russians were supporting them.
Secondly, if Cuban medicine were so good, they wouldn’t have had that episode of blindness about ten years ago where fifteen or twenty thousand Cubans – it might even be as many as thirty thousand – went blind because of a vitamin deficiency. There wasn’t a single Cuban doctor who could diagnose it properly. It took a charitable team of American doctors that were allowed to go in there to diagnose it. It was such a simple thing.
The fact is that Cuban medicine is in shambles. The machinery is starting to wear out. They no longer have the influx of $2 billion a year to support it. It may have looked like an ideal situation but the Soviet Union was going bankrupt supporting these states.
So that’s so much for Cuba. If Cuban medicine were any good, you wouldn’t have had fifteen or twenty thousand people going blind from a vitamin deficiency.
[Note: In fact, an epidemic of optic neuropathy in Cuba in 1991-’93 caused 50,000 cases of blindness. An international team of experts, after a trip to Cuba to investigate the epidemic, identified the cause as a vitamin deficiency. According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on November 2, 1995, “The epidemic of optic and peripheral neuropathy in Cuba between 1991 and 1993 appears to be linked to reduced nutrient intake caused by the country’s deteriorating economic situation and the high prevalence of tobacco use. . .The number of new cases decreased after the initiation of vitamin supplementation in the population.” Another scientific article, published in May 1994 in the Archives of Opthalmology, reflecting the more dominant, internationalist, politically correct view, concluded “Recent political, economic, and social changes in Cuba may have contributed to the nutritional and/or toxic compromise of mitochondrial function of an acquired nature.”]
GONZALEZ: This says several things. First, that their diet is so inadequate because of the economic straits they’re in. Secondly, that their medical system is totally inadequate. They have fancy equipment and, yes, they use herbal stuff and all of that. They use it because they can’t afford anything else. That’s good that they’re interested in alternative approaches. It hardly says anything positive about the Cuban health system. Nobody could make the correct diagnosis there! That was a big scandal. In a Western country, tens of thousands of people went blind because the doctors were so incompetent and uncreative that they couldn’t identify a vitamin deficiency.
CHOWKA: I was thinking of how the powers that be who are ramming socialism down our throats claim “Oh, this will take care of the crises in medicine, and the costs – you know, who can afford medicine today unless the government is paying for it?” You’re an interesting example because the therapy you offer is non-toxic, naturally based, completely alternative, and curative. You’re offering it as a treatment, not as an adjunct. And most important to this discussion, the cost of your treatment is tiny compared to what the typical cancer patient spends, for therapies that mostly don’t work, I might add.
GONZALEZ: Look, a bone marrow transplant can cost anywhere from $150,000 to a half a million dollars with all of the supportive care. Our nutritional therapy for the first year, which is the most expensive year, might run $8,000 which includes buying a juicer and a water filter which everyone should have anyway. In subsequent years it gets cheaper. It’s very inexpensive, comparatively. One course of standard chemotherapy can cost $20,000 to $25,000. Six weeks of radiation therapy can cost $15,000 to $25,000. Oncology is a very lucrative profession. Six weeks of radiation would support three to four years on my complete therapy and the patients get better results.
Again, you have to remember that if everyone was so happy with socialized medicine, they wouldn’t be dying to leave it.
CHOWKA: When I discovered recently that California was well along the path to outlawing private medical insurance and having the state take over medical care, I mentioned it to several friends, including Rollye James, who hosts a national radio talk show. She hadn’t heard about it, either. We both searched the Internet and could find hardly any opposition to the California socialized medicine plan. Surprisingly, there was also very little reporting about it in the media, especially for something so significant.
What we did find was support for single payer on the part of hundreds of special interest groups representing every liberal left wing constituency, and also on the part of complementary alternative medicine groups like the California Association of Naturopathic Doctors. These groups all have their Web sites and they link to various think tanks, academics, and publications (fancy sounding white papers, studies, and phony economic analyses) all supporting single payer. One might think that there has to be some opposition to this, on the part of Libertarians, or Republicans, or somebody. One looks in vain for it. The reality is that you can count the opposition on one hand.
I found two op ed columns published in California newspapers mildly opposing the single payer plan – and that was basically it.
I downloaded the latest version of the single payer bill SB840 from the California legislature’s Web site. It’s like a light version of the Clintons’ failed 1993 national health care reform plan. It’s shorter but the devil is in the details.
GONZALEZ: The Canadian model, which is the model for all of these things, is falling apart. You have to wait eighteen months to get gall bladder surgery in Canada. Even standard therapies, like cancer chemotherapy – ovarian cancer patients have to wait 2-3 months to start chemotherapy. They could be dead in that time. Too bad. That’s been the case in every socialized state.
CHOWKA: Rationing.
GONZALEZ: Forgetting alternative versus orthodox, the best medical system in the world has always been American. That’s why, when Gorbachev’s wife developed leukemia, she wasn’t treated in Moscow. She flew to the West. When Boris Yeltsin had heart problems, he flew a team of doctors in from Boston. All of these dictators and tyrants always want to come to the U.S. We have the best medical system in the world. A free market medical system allows for creativity, either alternative or orthodox. You always get the best medical system. Socialism destroys creativity.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is, as Hamilton said, in capitalism there is a reward for achievement. In socialized countries, you get punished for achievement. The more you succeed, the more you’re disliked and the more they take away from you. In England, as in Cuba, doctors are clerks. I know doctors in England. They work nine to five. There’s no incentive to work late. It’s not your own thing, you’re not in charge. They come in at nine, and at five o’clock they’re out of there. It’s a nine to five job like a clerk; that’s how they essentially see themselves. They’re lackadaisical. Creativity and originality are punished.
CHOWKA: And the proposed regulations and the laws, like the one in California, are a complete straitjacket. All you have to do is to read the documentation. Plus, the creators of these schemes leave themselves a lot of loopholes. In California, the bill’s authors say, in effect, “Well, we expect that this is going to save X billions of dollars compared to the status quo and that’s how we’re going to fund it but if something unforeseen comes up or we don’t save the money that we expect to, then we reserve the right to ration care and to raise taxes as required in order to achieve universal coverage.” They leave themselves a lot of outs.
GONZALEZ: In Canada, they ration. In England, they ration. They have to ration.
CHOWKA: Right. And here, if they have to start rationing, they’ll say, “Well, it was in the small print in the law.”
GONZALEZ: If anyone wants to see the end result of socialized medicine, all they have to do is to study socialized medicine in the Soviet Union. That was Marxism at its best! Free medical care for everybody. The trouble was that it was free medical care according to an eighteenth century standard. Now that they have capitalism, they’re starting to get really good quality medical care.
Actually, it’s ironic: The former Soviet Union is moving towards free market medical care and we’re going the opposite way, toward their kind of failed system. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, doctors were making less than cab drivers and they behaved accordingly. They weren’t even sterilizing their hypodermic syringes.
CHOWKA: When we point out that proposals for single payer plans and universal health care are socialistic and communistic, the proponents always deny that. They say, “No, no, you’re name calling, this is mainstream, this is single payer, this is ‘health care reform.'” They’ve so brainwashed everybody that we can’t understand or identify collectivism when it’s right in front of us.
GONZALEZ: Just so that you feel more relaxed, the good thing about it is that it will totally fail.
CHOWKA: A disturbing element of statist control of medicine that I’ve been reporting on is the need for electronic data basing, everyone and everything they do medically from cradle to grave. Electronic medical records (EMRs), everyone with his number, everyone with his electronic medical history recorded and saved and accessible in a government data bank.
GONZALEZ: The good news is that it’s going to fail, just like it did in the Soviet Union. When is the last time anyone flew to North Korea to get their medical care? No one would. It’s Third World, eighteenth century medical care.
CHOWKA: Maybe one way to look at it is that we’re getting the kind of health care system that’s reflective of this country, as it becomes more like a Third World country.
GONZALEZ: That’s right. That’s exactly right. It will fail, and then it will have to go, just like the Soviet Union – they’ll have to reinvent free market capitalism that was discovered and fostered in the U.S.
The biggest problem with socialized medicine is that it takes the responsibility for health care away from the patient. You know, if you smoke and abuse your body, well, the government’s going to come and spend $300,000 on useless chemotherapy and take care of you. The trouble is, as they learned in England and in Canada, there comes a point where you just can’t afford to pay for everyone’s mistakes. If hundreds of thousands of people are getting lung cancer every year because they smoked, first, they can’t save them because they don’t have good treatments and, second, they can’t spend $150,000-200,000 per patient. You wind up with a situation where people who really watch their health and take care of themselves support people who don’t. Kind of a paternalistic baby state where no one has to take responsibility.
CHOWKA: I follow the British press online. Almost every day there are articles about the British National Health Service, its failures, the desperate attempts to reform it. It’s on its last legs.
GONZALEZ: There are two tiers to health care in England. There’s the private health care, which they allow; people pay for it. They go outside the system. The doctors I know in England are all outside the national health care system. In Canada, you can’t do that. You have to be part of the system. The Hillary Clinton health care plan [1993] would not have allowed physicians to be outside the system. That would have been a criminal act. Canada’s the same way. But in England they allow doctors to practice privately. The California plan will bankrupt the state.
CHOWKA: In California they are also going to offer free care, including dental, eyeglasses, etc., to everyone including illegal immigrants. There are millions of illegal immigrants in California.
GONZALEZ: That’s terrific. See, what will happen is that taxes will go up, businesses will leave the state, there won’t be any tax base, and California will collapse, like England is collapsing now.
CHOWKA: California is rapidly becoming like Mexico El Norte and this will just hasten that.
GONZALEZ: It will collapse.
CHOWKA: There will probably be even more illegal immigration if this plan passes. All of the Mexicans and others will want to cross the border for free comprehensive medical care. It will be like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina – they’ll hold out their hand to the federal government to bail them out.
GONZALEZ: The federal government will reach a point where they can’t do it anymore. The thing to be optimistic about, and why I kind of shrug about it, it’s going to fail. It’ll be a total fiasco.
CHOWKA: Won’t things like this put you out of business?
GONZALEZ: New York state isn’t going in that direction. There’s always that danger.
CHOWKA: If this plan passes in California, wouldn’t it be difficult for you to work there?
GONZALEZ: It’s illegal for me to work in California now anyway because it’s a felony there to treat cancer with alternative medicine. That law is still on the books. So I couldn’t practice there anyway. So my attitude is, Let them bankrupt the damned state. They deserve it.
I’m still optimistic, though. Anytime socialism has been tried, it’s always failed. Liberals are so stupid. They blame conservatives for living in the past. The trouble with liberals is that they never learn from the past. All over the world, socialism has failed. It’s not like it’s an untried experiment, a new adventure – “we’re going to try this new adventure and bring peace and tranquility and wealth to everyone on earth.” It’s already been tried all over the world. In fact, a majority of counties have been socialistic, not free market capitalist. And the places that fostered socialism, like China, are desperately trying to turn themselves into the U.S. model. Meanwhile we’re trying to get rid of it. It’s amazing. People in government are so stupid; all they need to do is to read the newspapers. China is trying to develop a capitalist system and we’re trying to get rid of it [laughs].
CHOWKA: Western Europe is experimenting now with less socialism.
GONZALEZ: Even Germany, because they’re in chaos! They’re in chaos.
CHOWKA: And many of these countries have had a free ride because we’ve picked up the tab for their defense.
GONZALEZ: That’s right.
CHOWKA: So they can’t even make the socialist paradise work even though they don’t have the big costs of national defense.
GONZALEZ: That’s right, they can’t even make it work when they don’t have to have big defense budgets to defend themselves.
CHOWKA: And they’ve had, at least until recently, more homogenous cultures.
GONZALEZ: Everywhere socialism is tried, it fails. It’s destined to fail. It will fail in California. Like the welfare state in New York. Under [former Gov. Mario] Cuomo, New York was a welfare state with a million people on welfare in New York City alone. And what happened, as always happens with socialism, businesses got taxed more and more and they left the state. The economy almost collapsed. The voters got rid of Cuomo and then things got stable. There are far fewer people on welfare in New York City now. People actually have to work.
What will socialism do to alternative medicine? Alternative medicine is already under assault in California anyway.
CHOWKA: Alternative medicine has been so watered down –
GONZALEZ: It’s collapsed.
CHOWKA: It’s increasingly difficult as a journalist to find anyone to report on who is doing truly alternative work –research or clinical practice in primary alternative health care.
GONZALEZ: They want to do complementary – they all want to be part of the medical system.
CHOWKA: Many CAM proponents are pro-statist socialists. If they can shoehorn what’s left of alternative medicine, renamed complementary alternative (CAM) or integrative medicine, into the system, that’s all they want. But CAM to me is an offensive term and concept. And how can you even prove that it works? Medicine, Inc. is so preoccupied with testing single agents. How can you ever hope to test complementary approaches that combine supposed alternatives with orthodox therapies?
GONZALEZ: You’re implying that they have the capability to think, which they don’t. You have to change your perspective. You have to expect people to be stupid [laughs].
CHOWKA: Medicare proponents claim the overhead is only 4 percent.
GONZALEZ: They cook the books on that one. It’s enormous. It’s tens of billions of dollars a year basically to take your money away and to give a little bit of it back to you. People think that’s a good thing. Instead of just saving money yourself, and going to the doctor you want. It’s just like buying a car – you buy the car you want, you buy the service you want. That’s why American medicine was the envy of the world. Our medical system, whether it’s orthodox or alternative, is still the best in the world. It was the best in the world because it was a free market enterprise that allowed doctors to think creatively and that’s why all of the great medical achievements came out of here. They didn’t come out of North Korea, or East Germany, or the Soviet Union – or out of Cuba, for that matter.
Whenever the state controls medicine or science, it becomes like – Hitler! Hitler was a perfect example. Nazi Germany was a national socialist state where medicine and science were controlled by the state. Look how it degenerated. That’s what always happens when the state controls medicine as opposed to in the U.S., where it flourished. I mean, I may not agree with orthodox medicine but still you have the smartest people doing the best work in the world in the U.S.
CHOWKA: When you combine the wonkish bureaucratic elitist agenda-driven policy makers with the medical Establishment, you get the worst of both worlds.
GONZALEZ: Yes, that’s right. When I hear people like Hillary Clinton talk about the Canadian system, although she hasn’t done it recently, I wonder which world she’s living in. All you have to do is read the newspaper. It’s a disaster. It’s a disaster even for orthodox medicine. It’s collapsing. The doctors hate it because they’re treated like civil servants, the patients hate it because they’re treated like crap.
CHOWKA: In England it’s even worse. The reports that filter through, despite the mostly left wing British press – the doctors sound like they’re indentured servants.
GONZALEZ: In the free market capitalist system, when you go and buy a car, you go to the place that sells cars and you buy the car you want – you pay the guy who sells the cars. It’s very simple. What socialism does is, you don’t buy the car directly. You have to give all of the money to the government and they hire a whole team of people that study buying cars and then they give you a little money back, much less than you put in, and tell you which car you can buy. That’s what socialized medicine is. Medicare alone – to run Medicare costs billions and billions of dollars. You have to pay for the buildings, for the computers, for the employees. The Medicare bureaucracy alone, just hiring people and having the buildings with tens of thousands of Medicare workers just to fill out forms, costs billions of dollars a year. When you think about the hundreds of billions of dollars that are wasted on the Medicare bureaucracy, that could have gone into research – that could have gone into health care. It doesn’t go into health care, it goes into the bureaucracy of health care. And that’s the tragedy. All of that money is lost.
CHOWKA: And it’s a blank check for people to demand more and more medical care and coverage without taking any personal responsibility.
GONZALEZ: That’s right. It fosters irresponsibility, the same way welfare does. What happened in New Orleans [following Katrina] is a perfect example – the end point of a state welfare system where people are so dependent on the state that they haven’t even got the sense to leave.
CHOWKA: Or the common sense to fill a couple of bottles of water so they wouldn’t be dying of thirst after two days.
GONZALEZ: They’re so dependent on the state and on welfare for their entire lives.
CHOWKA: Proponents of government medicine claim that a huge percentage of health care spending in the current system is eaten up by insurance company bureaucracy.
GONZALEZ: I think insurance companies, too, are a problem. But that’s optional. People don’t have to have it. And the idea that little, uninsured Tommy is going to die on the street – That’s not true. America is the most generous country on earth. When people have freedom, they get to be very generous. Sloan-Kettering, whatever I think of the place, is totally subsidized by donations. It’s the most well-funded hospital in the world because free market capitalists pay back their success. There are hundreds of millions of dollars donated to that hospital.
Whenever the government takes over something in the sciences, they start legislating what the truth is. And that immediately destroys the opportunity to see what the truth is because the truth, like anything else, has to withstand competition. And if the government is the only game in town, supporting all of the science, then there is no competition. That’s what’s happened at the National Institues of Health.
Earlier this month Barry Marshall won the Nobel Prize for his work on the infectious nature of ulcers. During the 1980s he was hated by gastroenterologists – they thought he was crazy when he suggested that ulcers were an infectious problem. He’s now been proven correct. In an interview in the New York Times, he said the last place you’re going to find creative work is at the NIH. He said bureaucracies exist to destroy creativity. He’s a Nobel Prize winner now; he can say whatever he likes. There were no platitudes or bromides, because he lived through it. They tried to destroy him. And he survived and won the Nobel Prize and they’re still third-rate government bureaucrats. He came out of a very small university in Western Australia and he said that if he hadn’t come out of nowhere, he never would have been able to do what he did – that he would have been so imbued with the bureaucracy and the dogma, he never would have done his original work. He said the best thing that happened to him was that he came from nowhere.
Peter Chowka is a veteran reporter and analyst of news on national politics, media, health care, and popular culture. Follow Peter on Twitter @pchowka Peter’s latest interview on The Hagmann Report from Nov. 15, 2017 can be watched here.
By Peter Barry Chowka
In the midst of the myriad destructive elements that are plaguing modern society or quickly coming into play, the looming transformation of the medical system in the United States into a single-payer socialist nightmare is one of the most alarming developments facing us.
The inability of the Republican-controlled Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the increasing popularity of a single-payer system, suggest that socialized medicine cannot be kept at bay for much longer. Leaders of the Democratic Party, including prominent contenders for the party’s 2020 nomination for President, now support the concept of single-payer. The current debate in the media and political circles — dominated by disagreements over costs, how many people might “lose coverage,” the issue of preexisting conditions, and cuts to Medicaid — overlooks a key point: the fact that government-run socialized medicine at its core is evil. Once enacted, it will be one of the final nails in the coffin of Americans’ increasingly tenuous hold on individual liberty and freedom.
The threats to freedom of choice that single-payer represents will impact not only the availability and quality of life-saving drugs, surgery, end of life care, and other mainstays of the American health care system. It will also adversely impact the growing field of alternative medicine that — largely under the radar of official attention — has gained the interest and support of about one-half of the adult population.
It’s All About Control — and Making Money
On March 21, 2009 Obamacare was rammed through an overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled Congress on a straight party line vote. Obamacare represented a major step forward in the long march toward socialized medicine — helping as it did to establish widespread public acceptance of the concept of “health care as a right.”
H.R. 3590 The Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (2009-2010) Photo credit
The day after the Obamacare vote, the senior member of the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), a strong supporter of government-run health care since he first got elected to the Congress in the mid-1950s, appeared as a guest on a local Detroit radio program. I learned about the Dingell interview courtesy of someone in Detroit who heard the broadcast and posted a comment about it at a blog that I stumbled upon. After some research, I was able to identify the Detroit talk show — it was the Paul W. Smith program on radio station WJR — and locate an audio file of the Dingell segment on WJR’s Web site before it scrolled offline.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/singlepayer_socialized_healthcare_what_would_it_mean_for_innovative_and_alternative_medicine.html
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Tune to any television or talk radio program, or visit any website driven by political agendas. You will find self-styled experts and pundits making predictions about the Supreme Court ruling regarding the health care bill. Their predictions are primarily based on the questions posed by the justices. While the legal disposition of this issue is arguably the most important in the history of our republic, and the attention is well deserved, real-world experience and three-dimensional thinking appear to be mostly absent from the analysis.
Those who are basing their predictions on the questions posed by the judges obviously lack real-world experience. Having occupied seats in numerous courtrooms in many venues, I would never attempt to predict rulings based on questions posed by judges or juries. While juries are unpredictable, judges often ask questions to trigger discussion or open debate. I’ve seen judges who appeared to take an adversarial approach to a certain aspect or element of a case and later rule in favor of that which they appeared to have a certain bias against. I suspect that the vast majority of seasoned lawyers would agree.
Yet, an article written by David Savage appeared in The Los Angeles Times yesterday titled “Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law.” The author’s premise was based on the questions raised in open court by Judges Scalia and Kennedy, suggesting that they have all but formalized their ruling against the constitutionality of the matter.
But wait, socialists and progressives, it might be premature to rend your garments. And hold on, all you conservatives, the premature celebration could be embarrassing.
Real-world experience dictates that it would be a sophomoric mistake to even attempt to predict the outcome of any case, including one before the highest court in the U.S., based on questions in open court. But that’s mere thought candy – the trappings of an intellectually challenged media – or perhaps evidence of their complicity in the destruction of our country by failing to expose the core issue that few Americans appear to comprehend.
As Americans, we were given a tremendous gift by our founding fathers; a Republic, if we can keep it, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin. Have we, the people, become so intellectually hobbled that we are unable to understand that this case is not about health care at all?
The health care bill is not now and never has been about health care but about the systematic dismantling of our constitutional republic through unprecedented control. It has been in progress for decades, yet few have had the guts, will, or capacity to stand up and expose the agenda and people behind it. Anyone who dared to expose the agenda, identify the individuals or even hint at the objectives in play has been publicly mocked, ridiculed, marginalized, and muzzled by both sides of the fictitious two-party divide, conservatives and progressives alike.
The same conservative constitutional watchdogs who are now transfixed on the Supreme Court’s actions and pending decision on this landmark case fail to realize or admit that we arrived here, compliments of, in part, their failures. Their blind allegiance to one side of a false political paradigm and consequential inaction has facilitated enemies of our republic to destroy us from within.
The decision of the Supreme Court will indeed be pivotal, but arriving at this point was preventable.
If a post-mortem of our constitution is warranted, check your hands for blood stains and the autopsy report for your name. Just make sure that when the death certificate is posted online, it is genuine. If not, just ignore it, treat it as a fringe issue, and mock anyone who dares speak up.
You know, just stay the course.
