Mediaboss Marketing

"But you said you think it was a nail that cut you open...do you have any idea what tetanus lockjaw does to you? I've seen it, and it is terrible. There is no cure! I'm NOT letting you leave here without a tetanus shot."

"I will clean the cut out with povidine-iodine three times a day, I've had worse wounds than this. Besides, I had a tetanus shot within the last decade."

"Looking at your medical records right here, you haven't had one in twelve years. If you don't think you need it, than why did you come here?"

"Well, I thought I may have needed stitches, and I wanted to make sure the tendon had not been damaged."

"Ok....I still say you need a tetanus shot. You can still clean it every day with the Povidine surgical scrub, and in fact that is a good idea...but the tetanus may already be in your blood stream. You HAVE to get this shot! Of course I can't force you, but I'm telling you, you really should get the tetanus shot! Trust me, lockjaw is nothing to fool around with!"

"*Sigh*....alright, I'll take the shot"

"Perfect. I'll send the nurse in with it in a few minutes."

In my state of surrender and submission to his dogged insistence, I blithely signed the permission form in abject defeat without reading it, then gritted my teeth and let the nurse stick me with the vial of what I thought was just a tetanus shot.

Only after she withdrew the needle and bandaged the injection wound, did I bother to look down and read the release form I had signed just prior to the inoculation.

"They don't make a single Tetanus shot anymore. Besides, now your inoculated against Pertussis...you do know that it's been going around lately, don't you?"

Had I known you were giving me the DTaP vaccine, I would not have let you give me the shot!"

"You signed the release form where it clearly states you are receiving the DTaP, sir. It's too late now..."

"Ah well, what's done is done," I thought to myself as I left the hospital.

If only I got off that easy.

I spent the next two months suffering from an immune system that had gone haywire from the triple-dose vaccination. Every little potential allergen I encountered would cause severe reactions from an uncontrollable runny nose and puffy, watery eyes, to incessant asthmatic episodes causing me to go through my medication like candy.

Prior to the injury that lead me to submitting to the Pharmaceutical-Healthcare-Industrial-Complexes inoculation protocol, I had largely brought my lifetime conditions of allergies and asthma under control through careful, mindful eating of real food,and a vigilant routine of keeping my domicile as clean as possible.

In the past five years, an asthma rescue inhaler would last me six to eight months. I rarely had to use it...perhaps a dose or two once a week or so. Prior to the lifestyle changes I embarked upon since joining the Paleo-tard Cult, I had to use the damn thing about three to four times a day.

After getting vaxxed, I was using it six to eight times a day, just to keep breathing clearly. I also went through cases of kleenex dealing with incessant allergy attacks. A whiff of a strangers perfume or cologne...some errant auto exhaust, or the tendrils of cigarette smoke were all it took to trigger an asthma and/or allergy episode. Just the dust kicked up from scooping my chicken feed from the bin was enough to trigger an allergic event that had me scrambling for my rescue inhaler.

In addition to my hyper-sensitivity to allergens, I also contracted two different head/chest colds that had the latter episode turn into a case of bronchitis, as well as a bout of stomach flu. These are things that I have not experienced in years, prior to getting that damnable injection.

Which of course led me to once again donning my tin foil-constructed Conspiritard cap and log on to teh Interwebz and do some research. This time I went far more in-depth on the topic of vaccinations than I had before...and what I found was indeed mind bending.

When I first joined the Paleo-tard Cult, I noted the following:

So first things first, I research the DTaP vaccine. What I found was positively infuriating. Before I even went to the conspiratorial outposts of the lunatic fringes of teh Interwebz, I looked at the holy grail of Science -- The Institute of Manufactured Consensus -- a.k.a. Pub-Med, and found a rather illuminating abstract on the topic:

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Findings from animal and human studies confirm that diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis (DTP) and tetanus vaccinations induce allergic responses; associations between childhood vaccinations and subsequent allergies have been reported recently.

OBJECTIVE:

The association of DTP or tetanus vaccination with allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States was assessed.

METHODS:

Data were used from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey on infants aged 2 months through adolescents aged 16 years. DTP or tetanus vaccination, lifetime allergy history, and allergy symptoms in the past 12 months were based on parental or guardian recall. Logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate the effects of DTP or tetanus vaccination on each allergy.

RESULTS:

The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74). The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54). The associations between vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among children aged 5 through 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS:

DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect.

Only I wasn't. It only seems like it because I've been suffering with the affliction for almost four decades. But what I had forgotten...and now remember quite clearly, was my first real asthma attack that required an emergency room visit. I had been running around at recess playing kickball with my classmates when I was in the Fourth Grade while attending my local public school, and after taking my seat at the start of the next class period, I realized I was wheezing and had an acute shortness of breath. I had to go to the school Nurses office and my Mother had to come and pick me up and take me to the emergency room. After receiving an albuterol updraft treatment, I was given my first prescription asthma rescue inhaler.

This memory coincides with another one I had from that same time period. Just prior to that first asthmatic event, I had stepped on a nail when my friends and I were playing at a construction site near our neighborhood. My Mother took me to the hospital where I received a tetanus shot. I know my memory as far as my age is not suspect on this, because one of the things my Mother gave me when I became an adult and moved out on my own, was my immunization records that I still have in my safe with all my other legal documents. I checked before writing this....and sure enough, the date of my tetanus shot coincides with my time in the fourth grade...i.e. I was nine years old at the time.

"DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents."

The realization hit me like a lightning bolt. All of the suffering, middle-of-the-night emergency room visits, all of the drop-outs from events and activities because of my "condition" as a kid. The several hospitalizations I've endured when the rescue inhaler was not enough to stop the attacks. The endless experiments with a multitude of medications with a wide array of side effects, some unpleasant and others downright debilitating; all of it, most likely caused by that vaccination I initially received when I stepped on a nail as a little boy.

Over thirty years later, after getting vaxxed again, and suffering the auto-immune responses for months after, I for one am thoroughly convinced. I stand with the much vilified and ridiculed Jenny McCarthy.

My recent research on the topic of vaccinations had me delving into the history of the practice and events that have been linked to the practice of injectable "preventative medicine." As I am a veteran navigator of the fetid fever swamps of the Conspiritard fringes of the interwebz, I found a plethora of websites that attributed a number of historical events that are officially considered organic "outbreaks" of deadly and debilitating diseases...like the Spanish Flu and Leprosy, to the more modern era epidemics of AIDS, ebola, swine flu and bird flu... all linked to the practice of malevolent and diabolical "preventative medicine" by injection.

Anyone interested in looking into the same corners of the fetid fever swamps of Conspiritard land that I did, should start here: Online Books by William Tebb.

To summarize....from a mind shielded by my hand-fashioned tin foil barrier from the hysteria inculcated by mass media and converged institutionalized indoctrination, and understanding the way in which the controllers of our Brave New World Order use Abracadabra and their satanic principle of inversions, I've come to the inescapable conclusion in my Vaxx-fevered mind, that the very thing we are supposed to gaining protection from by getting vaccinated, is it's precise source!

Of course, I must end this post with the obligatory disclaimer. I am not a Doctor, nor do I play one on teh Interwebz. Don't take your healthcare management advice from me. I'm just a Wackaloon Conspiritard that dares to do my own research and think for myself and ignore the conventional wisdom of mass media approval and the scientific-community-consensus.

You've been warned.

See more here:
Hawaiian libertarian

By Tom Head

This is not a specific criticism of the Libertarian Party, mind you; the Democratic and Republican party platforms are much, much more turgid (to the point where they can't be read in one sitting), much more vague (to the point where they often sound as if they're advocating the same policies), and much more abstract (relying on Mom-and-apple-pie patriotic rhetoric instead of concrete policy proposals). But the difference is that the Democratic and Republican parties have enough money to pay people to run campaigns that give us an idea of what the parties stand for.

The Libertarian Party doesn't have that much money, so I'm proud to present the world's shortest platform summary of the party that brought you the World's Shortest Political Quiz.

Fiscal Policy: Very right-libertarian. The Libertarian Party opposes taxation in pretty much all forms, and deals with the revenue loss by opposing entitlement programs in pretty much all forms. This means that people keep more of what they earn, but it also means that there is no social safety net. And ambitious new proposals--such as universal pre-kindergarten and universal health care--are obviously not compatible with this objective.

Corporations: Eliminate all federal subsidies to private corporations, as well as all antitrust laws.

Public Services: Eliminate the Postal Service. Transfer all government services, from public schools to landfills, to private ownership.

Property Rights: Would restrict public domain to immediate public use, and sell or give away most public property to private owners.

Criminal Justice: Would eliminate all antidrug laws and legalize prostitution. Would end random police roadblocks.

Free Speech: Would abolish the FCC and allow private ownership of broadcast frequencies. Opposes all restriction of free speech, including free speech restricted in the name of national security.

Church and State: Calls for reduced IRS regulation and monitoring of tax-exempt churches.

Second Amendment: Strongly opposes all gun control, as well as regulation of alternative weapon technologies (mace, Tasers, and so forth).

The Draft: Calls for the abolition of the Selective Service System and amnesty for any citizen who has ever resisted the draft.

Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.

LGBT Rights: Opposes "don't ask, don't tell." Believes that marriage is a private contract, and should yield no government benefits regardless of the gender of the partners.

Immigrants' Rights: Argues that borders should be open but surveilled--everyone who does not pose a threat to public health or national security should be allowed to enter the country legally. Would eliminate all federal benefits to undocumented immigrants.

Read the original here:
The Libertarian Party Platform - A Quick Summary

As Nov. 8 looms, a dismayed, disconsolate America waits and wonders: What is it about 2016?

How has our country fallen so inescapably into political and policy gridlock? How did pandering to aggrieved niche groups and seducing blocs of angry voters replace working toward solutions as the coin of our governing class? How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation's political mainstream?

And the most pressing question: What should tens of millions of voters who yearn for answers do with two major-party candidates they disdain? Polls show an unprecedented number of people saying they wish they had another choice.

This is the moment to look at the candidates on this year's ballot. This is the moment to see this election as not so much about them as about the American people and where their country is heading. And this is the moment to rebuke the Republican and Democratic parties.

The Republicans have nominated Donald Trump, a man not fit to be president of the United States. We first wrote on March 10 that we would not, could not, endorse him. And in the intervening six-plus months he has splendidly reinforced our verdict: Trump has gone out of his way to anger world leaders, giant swaths of the American public, and people of other lands who aspire to immigrate here legally. He has neither the character nor the prudent disposition for the job.

The mystery and shame of Trump's rise we have red, white and blue coffee mugs that are more genuinely Republican is the party's inability or unwillingness to repulse his hostile takeover. We appreciate the disgust for failed career politicians that Trump's supporters invoke; many of those voters are doubly victimized by economic forces beyond their control, and by the scorn of mocking elitists who look down their noses to see them. He has ridden to the White House gate on the backs of Americans who believe they've been robbed of opportunity and respect. But inaugurating a bombastic and self-aggrandizing President Donald Trump isn't the cure.

The Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton, who, by contrast, is undeniably capable of leading the United States. Electing her the first woman president would break a barrier that has no reason to be. We see no rough equivalence between Trump and Clinton. Any American who lists their respective shortcomings should be more apoplectic about the litany under his name than the one under hers. He couldn't do this job. She could.

But for reasons we'll explain her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust we cannot endorse her.

Clinton's vision of ever-expanding government is in such denial of our national debt crisis as to be fanciful. Rather than run as a practical-minded Democrat as in 2008, this year she lurched left, pandering to match the Free Stuff agenda of then-rival Bernie Sanders. She has positioned herself so far to the left on spending that her presidency would extend the political schism that has divided America for some 24 years. That is, since the middle of a relatively moderate Clinton presidency. Today's Hillary Clinton, unlike yesteryear's, renounces many of Bill Clinton's priorities freer trade, spending discipline, light regulation and private sector growth to generate jobs and tax revenues.

Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Clinton's plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Spending just on debt interest would rise by $50 billion. Personal and business taxation would rise by $1.5 trillion. Sort through all the details and her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion.

Now as in the primary season, Clinton knows she is proposing orgies of spending, and taxing, that simply will ... not ... happen. She is promising Americans all manner of things she cannot deliver.

That is but one of the reasons why so many Americans reject Clinton: They don't trust what she says, how she makes decisions, and her up-to-the-present history of egregiously erasing the truth:

In the wake of a deadly attack on American personnel in Libya, she steered the American public away from the real cause an inconvenient terror attack right before the 2012 election after privately emailing the truth to her daughter. The head of the FBI, while delivering an indictment minus the grand jury paperwork, labeled her "extremely careless" for mishandling emails sensitive to national security. In public she stonewalled, dissembled and repeatedly lied several were astonishing whoppers about her private communications system ("There is no classified material," "Everything I did was permitted," and on and on). Her negligence in enforcing conflict-of-interest boundaries allowed her family's foundation to exploit the U.S. Department of State as a favor factory. Even her command and control of a routine medical issue devolved into a secretive, misleading mission to hide information from Americans.

Time upon time, Clinton's behavior affirms the perception that she's a corner-cutter whose ambitions drive her decisions. One telling episode among the countless: Asked by a voter if she was for or against the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, she replied, "If it's undecided when I become president, I will answer your question." As we've asked here before, will Hillary Clinton ever get over her consuming fear of straight talk?

Taken together, Trump and Clinton have serious flaws that prevent us from offering our support to either of them. Still, come Nov. 8, tens of millions of Americans willmake a draw that they consider beyond distasteful.

We choose not to do that. We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president regardless of his or her prospects for victory than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates.

With that demand for a principled president paramount, we turn to the candidate we can recommend. One party has two moderate Republicans veteran governors who successfully led Democratic states atop its ticket. Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible. "Most people are Libertarian," Johnson told the Tribune Editorial Board when he and Weld met with us in July. "It's just that they don't know it."

Theirs is small-L libertarianism, built on individual freedom and convinced that, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, official Washington is clumsy, expensive and demonstrably unable to solve this nation's problems. They speak of reunifying an America now balkanized into identity and economic groups and of avoiding their opponents' bullying behavior and sanctimonious lectures. Johnson and Weld are even-keeled provided they aren't discussing the injustice of trapping young black children in this nation's worst-performing schools. On that and other galling injustices, they're animated.

We reject the cliche that a citizen who chooses a principled third-party candidate is squandering his or her vote. Look at the number of fed-up Americans telling pollsters they clamor for alternatives to Trump and Clinton. What we're recommending will appeal less to people who think tactically than to conscientious Americans so infuriated that they want to send a message about the failings of the major parties and their candidates. Put short:

We offer this endorsement to encourage voters who want to feel comfortable with their choice. Who want to vote for someone they can admire.

Johnson, who built a construction business before entering politics, speaks in terms that appeal to many among us: Expanded global trade and resulting job expansion. Robust economic growth, rather than ever-higher taxation, to raise government revenue. A smaller, and less costly, federal government. Faith in Americans' ability to parlay economic opportunity into success. While many Democrats and Republicans outdo one another in opposing the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, we're amused by this oddity: Today the nation's two most ardent free-traders arguably are Barack Obama and Gary Johnson.

That said, Obama and Johnson are but two of the many candidates we've endorsed yet with whom we also can disagree. Johnson's foreign policy stance approaches isolationism. He is too reluctant to support what we view as necessary interventions overseas. He likely wouldn't dispatch U.S. forces in situations where Clinton would do so and where Trump ... who can reliably predict?

But unless the United States tames a national debt that's rapidly approaching $20 trillion-with-a-T, Americans face ever tighter constrictions on what this country can afford, at home or overseas. Clinton and Trump are too cowardly even to whisper about entitlement reforms that each of them knows are imperative. Johnson? He wants to raise the retirement age and apply a means test on benefits to the wealthiest.

What's more, principled third-party candidates can make big contributions even when they lose. In 1992 businessman H. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote on a thin but sensible platform, much of it constructed around reducing federal deficits. That strong showing by Perot the relative centrist influenced how President Bill Clinton would govern.

We wish the two major parties had not run away from today's centrist Americans. Just as we wish either of their candidates evoked the principles that a Chicago Tribune now in its 170th year espouses, among them high integrity, free markets, personal responsibility and a limited role for government in the lives of the governed. We hope Johnson does well enough that Republicans and Democrats get the message and that his ideas make progress over time.

This year neither major party presents a good option. So the Chicago Tribune today endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States. Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016.

Join the discussion on Twitter @Trib_Ed_Boardand onFacebook.

Read the rest here:
A principled option for U.S. president: Endorsing Gary ...

"Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments," the paper said. "They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible."

The Tribune has a long history of supporting Republican presidential candidates and did not endorse a Democrat for president until 2008 when then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama ran for president. They also endorsed Obama's re-election in 2012.

While the Johnson endorsement might be a hit for Illinois native Hillary Clinton, the refusal to back this year's Republican nominee also speaks to the paper's lack of support for Donald Trump.

The paper suggested that both Trump and Clinton have appealed to voters whose beliefs are not in the best interest of all Americans.

"How did pandering to aggrieved niche groups and seducing blocs of angry voters replace working toward solutions as the coin of our governing class? How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation's political mainstream," the paper asked.

"We recognize the Libertarian candidate is the longest of long shots with an electorate that has been conditioned to believe only Republicans and Democrats can win major offices," the News said. "But this is an endorsement of conscience, reflecting our confidence that Johnson would be a competent and capable president and an honorable one."

Go here to read the rest:
Chicago Tribune endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for ...

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson drew a blank during a live interview on MSNBC this morning when asked what he would do to address the situation in Aleppo, perhaps the most devastated city in the five-year civil war in Syria.

"What is Aleppo?" Johnson replied when asked how he would address the crisis there.

"You're kidding," journalist Mike Barnicle said.

"No," Johnson said.

Barnicle then explained that he was talking about the Syrian conflict, and Johnson quickly found his footing and explained what he believes should be done about Syria, which he called "a mess."

"I think the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia," Johnson said, "to diplomatically bring that to an end. But when we align ourselves with when we've supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists and then the fact that we're also supporting the Kurds, and this is, it's just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting and, inevitably, these regime changes have led to a less safe world."

"I'm incredibly frustrated with myself," Johnson later said, adding that he "feels horrible" and has to "get smarter."

Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, released an official statement explaining why he was initially confused by the Aleppo question.

"This morning, I began my day by setting aside any doubt that I'm human. Yes, I understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict I talk about them every day," he said in the statement. "But hit with 'What about Aleppo?' I immediately was thinking about an acronym, not the Syrian conflict. I blanked. It happens, and it will happen again during the course of this campaign."

He continued, "Can I name every city in Syria? No. Should I have identified Aleppo? Yes. Do I understand its significance? Yes. As governor, there were many things I didn't know off the top of my head. But I succeeded by surrounding myself with the right people, getting to the bottom of important issues and making principled decisions. It worked. That is what a president must do."

Speaking on ABC's "The View" hours after his MSNBC interview, Johnson said there's "no excuse" for his lapse on Aleppo while reiterating that he thought the question was referring to an acronym.

Co-host Joy Behar told him she thinks the gaffe is disqualifying, to which he replied simply, "Fair enough, fair enough."

"I guess people will have to make that judgment," he continued. "For those that believe this is a disqualifier, so be it. Absolutely, it's fair game. I'm running for president of the United States, and hey, it's how you deal with adversity that ultimately determines success."

Excerpt from:
Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Asks 'What Is ...