I think so too. One thing that was nice when I lived in Bolivia is that the things one could buy over the counter without a prescription was much larger. I could go to a Lab and ask for a full blood test without having to visit a primary doctor and get his okay and all that. I was there last year and got the fullest test for about 30 dollars or twenty something. It is a wonderful feeling of freedom knowing that you are getting it for the asking and that you are avoiding the obstacle of the primary doctor visit and the problem that maybe he will disagree that you need a full test and just be willing to sign off for a partial one. My father was very ill ina hospital last year there. The doctor told the family that his antibiotic was not working and to go try to find another one he mentioned, saying it was hard to find. He did not write an order for it. They looked for it all over town, found it, bought it as in ‘over the counter.’ This is only anecdotical but I met a woman this year who told me she has been taking unapproved (or still being tested) drugs for more than 20 years in Bakersfield. She asks for her cancer treatment to be based on such drugs and the hospital gives them to her; Kern Medical is an ‘acute care’ health provider. Perhaps certain institutions like Kern Medical give access to unapproved drugs for things like cancer. Her cancer has been in remission since that long ago. She said she took a variety of them, “whatever was available” and she only wanted such “alternative” treatment. I don’t know how it is, or if it depends on each state, but maybe there is easy access to unapproved drugs through health providers like Kern Medical.
Coleman’s Laws: ...
Best Price: $5.19
Buy New $7.99
(as of 02:07 UTC - Details)
Kern Medical | Healthcare Services in Kern County, CA
Mises: “Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils?”
It was beautiful in the 80s, 70s and before. I really doubt Mises would have held the same position in this time. I think right now of the condom sales company that is getting an obscene amount of air time on MSNBC (just one such example). Scantily dressed gals appear saying how much they want him to buy the condom (small children should not watch it), a commercial unthinkable in the 70s and 80s. It’s so unusual that I wonder if they even pay for their air time like others would have to pay. Why would only they be interested in such air time? In 1980-1981, oil companies had TV commercials, cornflakes did, many businesses, but no condom or sexual dysfunction products. Today, it is basically only these that get air time. And we’re supposed to think it’s just business and not a demonic attack against our humanity. There are also the LGBTQ commercials. The insinuations mixed with a product name that is hard to remember because of the scenes presented are the normal thing today. A man enters his home. Another man inside walks out in his red underwear and just steps out through a back door and walks dancing towards the limits of the property and it ends with the camera filming his dance from behind. What is it all supposed to mean? What does it have to do with “business”? What kind of higher power does this company have to get so much air time? Who is behind such commercials? “Freedom” is the pathway for their control of the airwaves. But with such “freedom” (freedom would be to forbid such indoctrination), we have as a matter of fact a country with more mass murders and social pathologies than perhaps any other Western country. Maybe the rest get these from us.
I remember an oblique reference from Mises to a public housing project in Austria which had been closed to homosexual people. They had been expelled. It seemed to me that he agreed and liked that normal families would now live there instead of them. He did not embrace in that instance the idea that such couples had a right to congregate there, and obviously not the right of others to orchestrate that kind of outcome. It’s different when it’s private, but I think it’s an example where Mises approved a policy because of the morality and decency it produced. Would he approve a decent State that saw the social demonic attack of such “products,” recognized its effects in the unprecedented social pathologies produced, and decided to fight force with force and make things decent again? I would like the state to say to them: “Do you still forbid foul words in your commercials, and why? For the same reason, this list of indecent commercials will never be shown again. It’s part of our war against terror. You have 24 hours to get rid of all of them or all of you shall be arrested tomorrow. This is freedom. It’s the war against terror, you know how it is…” I would like to see them act and speak like they did with the terror suspect in his arrest.
Would Mises approve of that? Not if we go by that quote. However, give him our set of facts and he would probably understand. I can’t imagine him opposing the cancelling of such commercials.
I watched 1980s commercials sometime ago. Beautiful commercials, their music was soothing, pleasant, the content businesslike. There should be no “freedom” to move from that to what we are given now. As terrorism itself shows or demonstrates, we live at a time when the supernatural realm and the natural realm, so much theorized about in all of human history, are interacting like never before, and we are attacked, and there is the need to be both wise and strong. Anyone fighting against humanity itself is an enemy with no “freedom” to do so. It would be wrong to call his crime something else and give him the freedom to do it.
In 2024, the answer to his question is still “yes” (and that lucky are those who never saw it). I think he would like the cancellation of all “woke” and pervert TV commercials, like he liked it when the homosexuals who had taken over some public housing were expelled in Austria (I think this is in “Notes and Recollections”, must be there).
RE: “Questions Swirl Around Would-Be Trump Assassin’s Ukrainian Ties”
Again, a shooter was ready to kill the president. All he needed to do is not be detected like he was. The rest of the difficulties that should exist didn’t. Before, anyone could climb to the roof and shoot the president. Now, it’s like anyone could walk to the fence and shoot the president. He wore an orange T-shirt as if to be noticed? That’s like terrorism (people are mocked). I don’t know if the backpacks were placed on the fence for the picture, or if he placed them like that. There is not much shrubbery there. Everything is abnormal about it. That’s like terrorism always. The authorities are best at engaging in self-praise that is out of place and dislikeable. That’s how they are lousy.
It’s always difficult for any normal or sane person to decide to commit such an act knowing that he won’t be free for the rest of his life if he does it and survives. So far, the key person is the witness. It’s necessary to know his past as much as the past of the culprit. To me, it’s 50-50 (now) that he saw what he saw, and 50-50 that the culprit was even there. It is odd that the agent(s) who fired at him did not kill him or struck him. According to the NYT, they aimed at the muzzle of the rifle. They did not hit the rifle, we understand. If the shooter had remained calm, he could have then fired in the direction of the president. To aim at the rifle only may ensure that the shooter escapes, and then all will be contingent on someone else seeing him escape and taking his license plate number, which is too much to expect. Is that the set procedure for it? It was/is odd how much this agent was praised by federal and local law enforcement. He saw the man there because he had to be looking for such a possibility. After that, he could have shot toward the sky with this procedure.
How To Survive In A Wo...
Best Price: $7.64
Buy New $25.62
(as of 03:17 UTC - Details)
NYT: “According to the complaint, which you can read here, a Secret Service agent patrolling ahead of Trump — who was golfing with staff members and a friend a few hundred yards away — noticed the barrel of a rifle poking out of the bushes on the edge of the course at around 1:30 p.m. After the agent fired at it, Routh fled in a Nissan S.U.V. with a stolen license plate, which the police stopped about 45 minutes later…”
The goal should be to detect and understand the supernatural role in this other terrorist attack, but they don’t notice its role in the previous attack. Why would the culprit stick the muzzle out as if there were no agents to see it and the president was beyond view as they say? It’s as if Trump had been visible at that moment. Waiting there for 11 hours? He counted with no one inspecting the surroundings? Someone with spiritual experience should interrogate him. These agents can’t recognize the fake videos of the previous attack.
The bodycam of the “municipal officer” who climbed the roof and went back down as soon as he saw the “rifle,” shows that it was another roof and there was no person in it. Glad I wrote, and that LRC published, articles which exposed such details.
From seclusion, Trump could campaign as never has been done before and probably ensure a clear victory (I think so). Online, he could debate Kamalah again (the context would give him a debate victory; it would be she who promotes him by accepting the debate).
