HS 45 – What the FDA Doesn’t Want You To Know

Welcome to the holistic survival show with Jason Hartman. The economic storm brewing around the world is set to spill into all aspects of our lives. Are you prepared? Where are you going to turn for the critical life skills necessary to survive and prosper? The holistic survival show is your family's insurance for a better life. Jason will teach you to think independently, to understand threats and how to create the ultimate action plan. Sudden change or worst scenario, you'll be ready. Welcome to holistic survival, your key resource for protecting the people, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Ladies and gentlemen, your host, Jason Hartman.

Welcome to the holistic survival show. This is your host, Jason Hartman, where we talk about protecting the people, places and profits you care about in these uncertain times. We have a great interview for you today and we will be back with that in less than 60 seconds on the holistic survival show. And by the way, be sure to visit our website@holisticsurvival.com you can subscribe to. Our blog, which is totally free, has loads of great information and there's just a lot of good content for you on the site. So make sure you take advantage of that@holisticsurvival.com we'll be right back.

What's great about the shows you'll find on jasonhartman.com is that if you want to learn about some cool new investor software, there's a show for that. If you want to learn why Rome fell, Hitler rose, and Enron failed, there's a show for that. If you want to know about property evaluation technology on the iPhone, there's a show for that. And if you'd like to know how to make millions with mobile homes, there's even a show for that. Yep, there's a show for just about anything only from jasonhartman.com or type in Jason Hartman in the itunes store.

It's my pleasure to welcome Jonathan Immort to the show. He is an attorney who began his career with the FCC under Ronald Reagan and he practices administrative and constitutional law. And he has some really interesting things to say about your rights to free speech and about the food and drug administration, and I think you'll find this discussion very interesting. Jonathan, welcome.

It's great to be here.

Well, thanks. Your career has been a very interesting one in terms of your specialty and the breadth of your knowledge and so forth and the books you've authored. Maybe we'll start with, I think it's your first book back in the 90s that really delves into the origins of the First Amendment. Our cherished First Amendment and other issues relating to communication, free speech. And then we'll drill down as to how that relates to the fda. And I think our listeners may not really see that connection until you explain it to us.

Okay. Well, both in that first book, which is called Freedom Technology and the First Amendment, and in my recent book from 2010, Global Censorship of health Information, I explain in detail how we came to possess a first amendment and the right to freedom of speech. You see, as the divine right of kings in Europe became passe with the beheading of Charles I, there arose in Europe, in England and throughout Europe, an individual rights movement, largely dominated in England by a group called the Radical Whigs. And these individuals argued that they were entitled by birth to protection for rights to life, liberty and property, and that they were not beholden to the crown for the freedom to exercise those rights, but that they were inherent in them, that they had a right to them. Just as the king had a right to his own rights to life, liberty and property, so did they. And this was a radical concept, because the initial construct laid out by Robert Filmer in his publications in defense of the king, was the notion that the king was God's emissary on earth. He was possessed of all rights, and that no one had rights except the king and by leave of the king, and that the king could do no wrong because the king was effectively the law. Well, with the rise in parliament and the opposition to absolute monarchies, there came the idea that individuals should be possessed of rights and protected in those rights. And this then gave rise to a discussion in particular of the right to freedom of speech. As the press became more prolific, as publication became more commonplace and more people became literate, it was possible then for people to debate issues of politics, to criticize their government, and to possess independent notions of science. And it was possible for them to participate in the evolution of all these things. And there arose in England these things called coffee houses, which were ale houses. More ale was dispensed than coffee. And people there would take newsprints, broadsides, read them aloud, and share the information with others and then debate these things. And this gave rise to an opposition political movement against the crown and the administration of the crown. And the same type of movement occurred throughout Europe. Ultimately, the philosophers of the Enlightenment era came out of this environment and they advocated individual rights. And foremost among those rights is the right to freedom of speech, the right to possess and to have control over what one thinks, and the right to impart that to others. The right to criticize government. So when we come into the modern era, we find, ironically, that changes take place with the Federal Communications Commission, with the Food and Drug Administration, where the freedom of speech, as traditionally understood, the freedom of the press, is violated in ways that the Founding Fathers would find to be a violation. As James Madison said in the First Congress of the United States, when the First Amendment finally became adopted by Congress before its ultimate ratification, 1798, he said that the First Amendment disarmed this government of any power whatsoever over speech and press. There was to be no role for the federal government in manipulating or blocking or censoring or creating a prior restraint on the right to communicate. But then let's take a look at the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has an absolute prohibition on the right to communicate truthful nutrient disease information to the public. It's absolutely prohibited unless FDA approves it. FDA says it will only approve claims that it finds acceptable that refer to the reduction in the risk of disease, not to disease treatment. Disease treatment can only be made legally in the United States and throughout the world, wherever drugs are regulated by drugs. And as a result, you have a situation where prune juice, for example, which everyone knows is a treatment for chronic constipation. If a prune juice maker were to place that information on the label, they'd.

Be making a medical claim, right?

They would. They'd be violating the law, and they could be prosecuted criminally and civilly. They could be incarcerated for as long as a life term or more, and they could be enjoined from selling prune juice, and they could be have all of their prune juice seized in the marketplace. So this is an extraordinary power the government is exercising in order to protect a monopoly on the right to communicate therapeutic information in the hands of pharmaceutical companies.

Okay, so, Jonathan, of course, what you're saying is scary and really offensive, frankly, in terms of our government having that kind of power. However, the claim will always, as it always is with big government. We're doing it to protect the people, and we don't want a bunch of people out there making false claims. And this certainly comes up. It's a constant battle, I guess, in the herbal industry, Herbal supplements. And you can't make claims that melatonin will help your sleep patterns or St. John's Wort will enhance your mood or whatever. There's a million herbs out there. When you take the government's side or the FDA's side of it, or they can't get Kevin Trudeau off of TV for the claims he makes. I Don't know if you're familiar with him and that story, but is there some middle ground here? Is there some happy medium? I mean, should the government be regulating this at all, or are you for complete deregulation?

Well, there is a. The bargain was struck at the time of the founding of the republic on the relationship between the federal government and the people and the nature of the government, which was to be a republic. And what that included on the First Amendment side was the government was disarmed of any power to censor speech. And instead, what the government must do is carry the burden of proof. There's no question under the First Amendment that the government may not act against speech unless it has clear and convincing evidence that that speech both misleads and causes harm. Speech that is misleading but causes no harm is of no effect. Speech that misleads, that causes harm, that is, that induces you to purchase something or that causes you to take a step that is deleterious to your health or to your life, that is actionable by the state because it constitutes fraud. And this has been true historically and is a power that the government has not related to the speech itself, but related to the fact that the speech is used to induce an effect that is a form of theft. It is depriving you of your money or your life, predicated on a false representation. So there's that power, which is a legitimate power of the government.

So let me ask you a question about that. Then. It seems as though what the FDA has done is they have taken that power which the state has, to pursue fraud claims criminally, and say that you can't make these claims and deprive other people. Of course, and that makes sense, but they've taken that and they've made it a preemptive right of the government to in advance say, you can't say this rather than saying it after the fact. Right. Is that the distinction?

Well, that's right. It is the use of prior restraint. The popular mechanism of the bureaucratic state is the use of prior restraint, not only in areas of speech, but also in areas of any business practice. And that is, for example, that you will be forbidden from undertaking a certain action, or in this case, communicating speech, on the notion that a certain number of those who so communicate will harm the public. So we're all barred from speaking. We're all gagged when it comes to nutrient disease information. Because the supposition is if we're not so gagged, a certain number of us will mislead the public. And this of Course is a means to achieve tyranny or total control over people. It's antithetical to individual liberty. Of course. You should not be gagged on the supposition that you're going to communicate falsehood. Were that the case, we would not be able to speak at all. Right?

Right. It's a. It's a guilty until proven innocent scenario almost, isn't it?

It is precisely that. It's a. It is the contrary proposition to the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. You have a right, a presumptive right to communicate. And it's only upon proof, clear and convincing evidence, that you intend and actually are committing fraud, that the government should have any power at all. Instead, there is this prior restraint in place, which has had dire consequences in the case of. We've defeated the FDA seven times in federal court, six times on First Amendment grounds. And in our first case, Pearson vs. Shalala, we dealt with, among other claims, the folic acid neural tube defect claim. And that claim was one that was censored by the FDA for over four years, during which time an estimated 2,500 preventable neural 2 defect births occurred each year. And despite that injury, in order to protect the drug approval process from any form of competition, the FDA refused to authorize the claim, and it finally did allow a supplement claim for folic acid. But it took litigation of over three years and a landmark decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. And even then, even in the presence of a constitutional mandate, the FDA contumaciously, that is with contempt, refused to abide by the court order and had to be brought back into court. And we had to defeat them another time before finally they allowed this folic acid claim. All the while, you can bet your life that there were women out there who, if informed that they should take a folic acid supplement of 400 to 800 micrograms, would have been able to avoid a neural tube defect birth. And there are undoubtedly women during that period who had neural tube defect births that were preventable. And it's a travesty. We know now, since the decision, the second decision came down, that that information has entered the marketplace. And CDC monitors the extent to which there are NTD births and the extent to which women of childbearing age are aware of the need to take folic acid. And the knowledge, the awareness has increased tremendously and the incidence of neural tube defect births has gone down.

I have a question about that. So, congratulations, you won that case against the fda. I guess you can fight City Hall? Sometimes. And that's wonderful to hear. When you win, though, what was it? A supplement manufacturer that was wanting to gain their free speech rights? Was that basically the crux of the case?

Well, there were two scientists who designed supplements and licensed the formulas to companies, as well as a number of public interest groups that had consumer members who wanted the information in the marketplace so that they and others like them could determine which supplements to buy and what quantitative amounts of various nutrients to ingest. And they were offended deeply so because it affected their lives by the government's censorship of this information in the market.

And so when, when you win against the fda, do you win damages? Certainly. I would think that those women could come back who had the neural tube defect could come back and sue the FDA for damages. Possibly. But does the manufacturer win damages because the FDA deprived them of free speech?

Well, unfortunately, no. But there is a thing called the Equal Access to Justice act. And if you qualify for reimbursement under that act, that is, you have certain income limits, income within certain limits, you can get part of your legal fees reimbursed. And that, in fact, is what happened. For the first time in FDA's history, they were required to pay litigants against them money for violating their First Amendment rights by censoring their access to truthful and the right to communicate truthful information. They had to report that to Congress, and they ended up having to pay over $100,000 to these people for their censorship of their speech. But that was a part of the legal fees over the course of three years in battling the agency.

Wow. I want to hear more about the FDA and these issues and know more about some of the areas in which they may be really hurting the public by not letting scientists, manufacturers of various supplements and so forth speak freely. But before we do that, you started your career at the fcc, and some people claim that the FCC is over regulating the airwaves and things like that and not providing enough access. I know several years ago they allowed these neighborhood radio stations that transmit about a mile or something, really low powered stations and so forth. Do you think that the FCC is doing that? And if so, of course their argument is going to be, we don't want the airwaves cluttered. Somebody's got to regulate it. The spectrum is only so large. I just wanted to get your thoughts on FCC for a moment.

Well, as I explain in my book, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment, which is a complete history of the FCC and the First Amendment and the extent to which that agency is a captive of the broadcasting industry, more particularly of the major networks. I explained there that the original error was made in the 1920s. See it before the radio act was passed in the 1920s and before the Federal Communications Commission act was passed in the 30s, the broadcasters in this country would come to Washington once a year, meet with the secretary of commerce, who was Herbert Hoover, and they would discuss with him interference problems, and they would volitionally agree to change their operating parameters so as to prevent interference. So despite the fact that there were hundreds of broadcasters and the potential for interference, there was no interference because they respected the essential property rights of others in their operating parameters and avoided interference wars. Well then Herbert Hoover, interestingly enough, because he was greatly offended by jazz music on the radio and thought opera needed to be exclusively on the radio. And he was, he thought his, his son was having his morals corrupted by this racy jazz music that was coming on at night on some of the stations that were not the major network stations, but were stations that catered to different rising ethnic and diverse populations. He thought that there needed to be greater content regulation, but he couldn't get any currency in Congress for that idea. Well, then he decided that he would effectively achieve radio regulation. He and various congressmen and senators decided that they would achieve regulation by engineering interference wars. And what they did was they stopped holding these meetings for the volitional resolution of the interference wars, and they also began granting licenses regardless of the interference consequences. And this then created a cacophonous collision of voices on the airwaves and this demand for regulation. Well, even with the interference problems, very few people were calling on Congress to stop the interference. But the industry under the, I.e. the major networks, having come to agreement with Hoover on the aftermath, if there was radio regulation, they would be getting the lion's share and they would have their competition eliminated by. They agreed to push for the legislation. And so it passed. And then immediately after it passed, there was a bloodbath when the new head of the Federal Communications Commission engineered the spectrum allocations in a way that caused 600 radio stations to be shut down and gave the lion's share of the marketplace to the major networks and their.

Affiliates, who no doubt contributed to various campaigns and so forth and initiatives.

Sure. And that's, you know, that's reminiscent of how regulatory agencies have come to be. In many instances, it's been a collusion between government and industry that has resulted in it, because the industry benefits from anti competitive effects.

Of course they do.

Of regulations.

It's either a government or a corporatocracy engineered false flag that creates regulation to keep competition out. And then you hear these same companies and entities say, well, we can't stand government regulation, yet they welcome it in the back door because it limits their competitors.

This is absolutely the case. This is how the good manufacturing practice guidelines for supplements came to be there. Over a thousand pages of regulations that concern the process by which supplements are made, giving government enormous power over the process and pay little attention to the finished product and whether it's actually safe. But they argue that government control over the process will prevent the injury. Very indirect way of doing it, but certainly the most costly way to do it. And so large companies can afford it and smaller ones can't. And they're driven out of the supplement business.

I have a couple of different companies, a couple of different businesses, and if I ever wanted to take them to the public markets and sell stock, the compliance burden is so enormous, of course, all under the guise of protecting the consumer, the investor in that case. But there's no way that I can compete in that world. I mean, the Wall street game is closed for me.

Sure. And one of the things that in Freedom Technology and the First Amendment and two law review articles I wrote, one called the First Amendment invalidity of FCC ownership regulations, and then the other one was called the First Amendment invalidity of FCC content regulations. In these articles I explained that the operating parameters of existing stations could be made property rights. You know that the whole idea that the justification for broadcast regulation is that the airwaves must necessarily be a public property and that therefore the government must regulate this public property. But that's a bogus supposition because it's not the airwaves that determine what is broadcast, it's the operating parameters of the facility. And you can define those parameters and they do in licenses. And those defined parameters can be declared to be property rights. So rather than have a declaration of ownership of the airwaves, they can simply declare those who have been granted licenses to possess a property ownership interest in the parameters specified.

Absolutely, yeah. So I just want to make sure the listeners really. You speak in a very lawyerly manner. So I just want to make sure that listeners. And I understand this as well, basically your take on it, Jonathan, is that the government comes in and regulates preemptively when it doesn't need to, because owners of radio stations, television stations that use the airwaves, for example, in the FCC case, they have the right to protect their property, just as a landowner would. And if someone is interfering with their airwaves coming too close to them on the spectrum, on the dial, then they would have recourse in court against that other party. And so the government doesn't need to regulate it in the way they do. And with the FDA example, please correct me if I'm getting this wrong here with the FDA example, If the manufacturer of prune juice, for example, the example you used, wants to put on their label that it helps you be more regular, and if that claim is bogus, then the consumer has the right to sue the manufacturer and say, hey, this claim is bogus, and the government has the right to go after the manufacturer on behalf of the people. But they're doing it preemptively. They're doing it assuming that every manufacturer and every airwave operator is guilty in advance, right?

That's right. And fortunately for us, the court accepted my arguments in Pearson and every subsequent case that the government simply cannot base its censorship on a fiction. In other words, the government cannot presume that you are going to speak in a misleading way. In the Pearson case, I remember distinctly the brilliant judge. Each of the judges on that panel were very intelligent and able. But Patricia Wald, who has since retired from the Court of Appeals, really hit it on the head when she was engaging in a little colloquy with the Justice Department's attorney during her Justice Department's attorney oral argument. And she said, look, I shop at Fresh Fields. It was called Fresh Fields then, and I see other customers in the store. And I'm not particularly convinced by your argument that people are so stupid who shop for vitamins and minerals and health foods that they would be so gullible that they would believe everything that they were told, I think that these are discerning people and that if they are told that scientific evidence associating a nutrient with a disease is less than conclusive, that is, that it's inconclusive, they would appreciate that they would have to essentially make a bet or a guess and place faith in the potential of the association, or if they're extremely conservative, choose not to believe in the association until more proof is mustered, but to deny them access to credible science associating the nutrient with a disease is to censor that and to deprive them of the opportunity to exercise an election based upon it. And that's a paternalistic government response that is antithetical to the First Amendment. I'm putting words into her mouth, but I'm developing the argument consistent with what the court actually decided. And the court brilliantly created this landmark decision that has stood over a decade now, enabling us to go back into court and fight for people's right to communicate. To everything from the folic acid I discussed to omega 3 fatty acids, reducing the risk of sudden death, heart attack or heart disease, and selenium, reducing the incidence of cancer. And the list goes on and on, really, with various nutrients that we've been able to get through, B6, B12 and folic acid, and reduction in homocysteine levels associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke. So that people can actually get this information in the market, and they can appreciate, what is almost a truism for everything in science, that the evidence is inconclusive. But that doesn't mean that it's incredible. There's credible science and the public has a right of access to that. If we were to allow only information that was proven scientifically to a conclusive degree to enter the consumer market, then you couldn't say, for example, that a lawnmower will be able to cut grass, or that a safety restraint in an automobile will reduce your risk of death in an automobile accident, or that consuming foods that are rich in fiber and antioxidants and phytochemicals can increase your longevity by reducing your overall risk of cancer. You would be incapable of communicating anything related to that in the market. Now, of course, they do prohibit the nutrient information, but they don't prohibit you from understanding that a restraint in an automobile might save your life if you get in a car accident.

That's an interesting comparison. It really is. Are you familiar with Laetril? I know that that's a. There are many people that think that that has been shut out of the market by maybe the pharma companies as a cancer cure or cancer treatment.

Well, Laetril, which I understand is a B vitamin, There is credible evidence that associates Laetril with beneficial effects on immune system function. Whether or not it is capable of preventing or treating cancer, I don't know. But I can say this, that a blanket ban on the right to communicate information about Laetril, just as it is on every other nutrient and its therapeutic effects, is just really ensuring that people suffer and experience premature death over and over again. I mean, the FDA stands in the way of you being able to go into the grocery store and see in the grocery aisle various information at the point of sale that says various foods and various supplements have these potential effects. I mean, you would be able to get handouts in the grocery store free of charge that would identify products and say, oh, hey, if you have heart disease, you're certainly going to be interested in these fruits, these vegetables, these supplements. If you have cancer, you would be interested in these. If you have, you know, and it's not that these things necessarily will cure or treat your disease, but they may have a beneficial effect upon your overall survivability if you have these conditions.

Sure. And your position is that you just want the speech to be available and the news to be available to people and the debate to be open and out there for people to consider and make their own decisions, Right?

Yes. And this gets back to my love of the First Amendment. I mean, we are sovereign in our right over freedom of speech and press. It is our right. It's not a thing that we exercise by leave of the government. I mean, it should never be a situation where we can only communicate the truth about a nutrient when the FDA deems it fit for us to have the opportunity to do that. That's backwards. It's the FDA that's supposed to be enshackled. It's supposed to be our servant and we are supposed to be able to communicate truthful information. If we're not in the business of defrauding people and we're in the business of disseminating truthful information, there's no role for the government to stand as a gatekeeper to second guess our judgment as to whether what we're saying is in the best interests of those who are receiving it. If it's truthful, we have a right to speak it. And if it's truthful, individuals have a right to receive it and to interpret it however they want to place credence in it. To place extreme faith in the ultimate outcome that may come from it or to be highly skeptical. That is their right. That is the nature of the First Amendment. It is a protection of individual sovereignty. It's more than just a barrier to the right of government to interfere with the speech market. It really is a defense of individual liberty. It's a defense of our sovereignty over the matters of speech and press.

Let me take a brief pause. We'll be back in just a minute.

Now's your opportunity to get the Financial Freedom Report. The Financial Freedom Report provides financial self defense in uncertain times and it's your source for innovative forward thinking investment property strategies and advice. Get your newsletter subscription. Today you get a digital download and each even more the price only $197. Go to jasonhartman.com to get yours today.

You're based in the in the D.C. area and I was there last October and I remember walking through the National Archives second time there and I just got goosebumps. So when I was looking at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, thinking this is really the highest achievement of mankind because out of that has flowed just so much innovation and just such incredible amounts of knowledge and invention and discovery.

Without that fundamental right, and it's really the First Amendment, it's fitting that it's first, because without that, the communication just doesn't occur and people don't exchange ideas freely and there's not a marketplace of ideas and progress is massively inhibited, isn't it?

It's definitely true. I mean, out of the Enlightenment in European history, the political pinnacle was Lockean philosophy. The two treatises of John Locke became the ideological foundation for the creation of a republic that would enable people to have the maximum liberty with a government that was designed for the purpose of defending people's rights. And this was an extraordinary thing. But even more extraordinary was the fact that the founding fathers of this country chose to create a written Constitution that would create the very republic necessary to achieve a realization of the hopes and dreams of John Locke and his two treatises and would create this magnificent government that was to be limited in its powers, that was aimed for its very purpose, was to protect individual rights. The Declaration of Independence tells us that governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed and that when they become destructive of those rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them. So it is the very purpose of the republic that was created to protect our individual rights and to secure those rights from invasion by the government so that we could remain sovereign and that the government would be our representative and would do those things which we could not in defense of liberty, that is the general welfare and defense of the country, would be protected, but only to the extent that the powers were enumerated in Article 1 of the Constitution. And yet we have, for example, the health care reform law of President Obama, which is a gross deviation from this plan that robs us of our individual liberty. We have.

And fortunately we had some good news from a federal judge this week on that exact plan and how unconstitutional it is to force people to buy government mandated insurance. Right?

Well, that's right. And we have a case pending also on this very subject matter in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of the United States Citizens Association. And that case is about to be decided. We're in the final case stage of pleading practice there, and we're hopeful we do indeed hope that that decision will come down. Also holding the health care bill unconstitutional will rise up with the Virginia and the Florida district court decisions to the Supreme Court, where we hope that the Supreme Court will do its duty and defend the Constitution. You see, the extraordinary thing about this case is that for the first time in American history, the government of the United States, without using the taxing or spending power, is presuming to tell you how you must spend your after tax dollars to achieve an objective of the government. The government wants everyone to be insured, and in order to achieve that, it is forcing all those who are presently uninsured to buy health insurance at between five and 15 grand a year. Well, people object to tax increases for a lot less, but this is an extraordinary tax increase. Of course, it is predicated on the exercise of a power that is Nowhere in Article 1 of the Constitution. There is no power to compel you in the federal government to purchase something with your. With your money after tax dollars purchase a private product. There's no power of that sort.

That. That's a really interesting distinction, Jonathan. I'm really glad you brought that up because I think very few people notice it, that they're not taxing you per se, they're telling you how to spend your after tax dollars. But I've got to just question you on that, because don't states do this like my state of California with auto insurance?

No, they don't. They tell you that you must. If you're going to drive a car on the public highways, you have to have your car be insured. They tell you that, but you don't have to drive a car. I mean, you have the freedom not to drive a car if you choose. So choose. In this instance, you don't even have that liberty you have. If you breathe, you must be subject to the health care reform law. You cannot escape it. There's no out, there's no option for you to be freed from it. It's not if you only had. It doesn't apply only to those who are already in the insurance market. It doesn't apply to those who would otherwise be interested in obtaining health insurance. It applies to everyone, including those who expressly do not want and do not have health insurance coverage. It is forcing people against their will to expend their money in every circumstance. There is no option out of it. And furthermore, it's a federal power. The states are possessed of plenary powers, welfare powers that vastly exceed the federal government. In the original constitutional plan, the Constitution specifies a government of enumerated powers that are limited and all other powers are reserved by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the people and to the states. So even if you were to have some currency in the argument that automobile insurance is mandated by the states, it has no necessary bearing upon the federal government because the federal government is extremely, expressly one of enumerated powers. If the power is not enumerated in Article 1, it does not exist for the Congress of the United States to exercise.

Absolutely. And the protection there is that people would have the freedom to move to another state and they would have that opportunity to do so while still being under the limited powers of the federal government. So they would have an escape hatch. But this is. I don't want to keep you too much longer here, and I want you to tell people they can buy the books and so forth, but this battle with health care is probably headed for the Supreme Court, I would assume. What is your outlook on it? I'm hoping that we won't be forced into such a ridiculous plan. But what do you think?

Well, as I've always said, as a litigator with many years of experience, 25 years of experience doing this, it's only a fool, really, who predicts what a judge will decide. It's impossible to predict what the justices of the Supreme Court will ultimately decide in this case. I can only hope, and I believe this to my core, that if the Constitution is to be defended, we have to prevent this precedent from taking hold. Because if the government of the United States can compel you to buy health insurance because it wishes you to make that private insurance, private purchase, there is no limitation to what the government can compel you to purchase with your after tax dollars. And what will happen is in no time the federal government will be asking you to purchase an electric car, will be asking you to purchase green related products and services, will be defining for you how much of your budget you should expend on healthy foods of one kind or another. The list is endless of what the government could do to compel you if it is able to mandate how you spend your after tax dollars. And the effect will be to monopolize more and more of your money. And if you have only a small segment of what you earn available for you to purchase freely, you certainly have no freedom left, meaning you're just a mere instrumentality of the government if everything you do when you go to the store is dictated in no small measure by what you're required to purchase.

It is amazing to me that people keep trying this experiment that has failed so many times. The big government, socialist, powerful, controlling, nanny state type of government has never worked at any time in history. It has never worked at any location on the planet. It never will work. It is evil. It's the root of evil. It really is. Well, you've got three books. The Rise of Tyranny, Global Censorship of Health Information and Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment. Where can people get the books and what else should they know?

Well, the Rise of Tyranny is a book about the since described since the 1930s, how the American republic has been transformed from a republic into a bureaucratic oligarchy. Essentially how it came to be that 9/10 of all laws that are passed by the federal government are the product not of our elected, but of the unelected bureaucracy. And how that means in the prediction of the framers of the Constitution that that would be the end of liberty in this country in the Birth of tyranny. Or as I say it in the title of the book, the Rise of Tyranny. And that book as well as my other books are available through eMore.com Global censorship of health information discusses the origins of the First Amendment, explains how those origins came to be from the 15th century, 1400s until the present, and how ultimately those ideological origins of the First Amendment led to the First Amendment and the arguments that ultimately held sway in this country to create an absolute denial of federal power over speech and press. And then how the modern regulation of health information has essentially protected the drug industry's interest to the exclusion of private interest and resulted in censorship of truthful information world round wherever drugs are regulated. And then it explains a way out, as does the Rise of Tyranny, A Way Back to Liberty. Then the other book we were talking about, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment, discusses the origins of the First Amendment, more particularly the Anglo American origins. And then it discusses the origins of radio regulation, modern broadcast regulation and cable regulation, and how again the very interests that were regulated became the entities that controlled the agency and pursued their own interest through use of a public interest veneer that defined for the public one set of perceptions, but in fact deal making characterized that agency as it does the FDA. On the FDA. I might just mention that the FDA's corruption, that is its control by the pharmaceutical industry is not something that is a revelation. For years FDA medical reviewers have complained to the Congress that the drug industry is calling the shots, that the FDA views the industry as its client and that the public is left, as David Graham said, virtually defenseless against the approval of Unsafe drugs. Here's a quote from David Graham. He is the associate director of the FDA Office of Drug Safety. And so he's in a position to know and has been very brave in his statements. He said, and I quote, fda is inherently biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. It views industry as its client whose interests it must represent in advance. It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs as it can, regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed.

He said that while working at the fda?

Yes, and in fact he not only said that, but, but he said many other things as well as other FDA people. For example, Dr. David Ross, who's an FDA medical reviewer, said this, and I quote, even if a product doesn't work or we don't know how it works, there is pressure on managers that gets transmitted down to reviewers to find some way of approving it. There's been a cultural shift at the fda and now the pharmaceutical industry is viewed as the client. And in fact, in January of the 2009, nine FDA physicians and scientists in desperation wrote to President Obama, risking their careers and being ostracized at the fda, and to the chief of staff, then Chief of Staff John Podesta, and they said in their letter, managers, quote, I quote, managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the law and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid.

Very, very, very scary, isn't it? Thank God there are people like your firm, Imord and Associates out there fighting for the people. We appreciate your work, we appreciate you communicating this to people. And by the way, I just thought I'd spell the website. It's E m o r d.com imord.com There's a lot of interesting stuff there, shows about some of your landmark cases and your various work. A lot of articles on there as well. So great work. Thank you so much. Jonathan. We really appreciate having you on the show today and sharing your this valuable information.

You're welcome. I've enjoyed being with you.

I've never really thought of Jason as subversive, but I just found out that's what Wall street considers him to be.

Really? Now, how is that possible at all?

Simple. Wall street believes that real estate investors are dangerous to their schemes because the dirty truth about income property is that it actually works in real life.

I know. I mean, how many people do you know? Not including insiders who created wealth with stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Those options are for people who only want to pretend they're getting ahead.

Stocks and other non direct traded assets are a losing game for most people. The typical scenario is you make a little, you lose a little and spin your wheels for decades.

That's because the corporate crooks running the stock and bond investing game will always see to it that they win. This means unless you're one of them, you will not win.

And unluckily for Wall Street, Jason has a unique ability to make the everyday person understand investing the way it should be. He shows them a world where anything less than a 26% annual return is disappointing.

Yep, and that's why Jason offers a one book set on creating wealth that comes with 20 digital download audios. He shows us how we can be excited about these scary times and exploit the incredible opportunities this present economy has afforded us.

We can pick local markets untouched by the economic downturn, exploit packaged commodities investing and achieve exceptional returns safely and securely.

I like how he teaches you how to protect the equity in your home before it disappears and how to outsource your debt obligations to the government.

And this set of advanced strategies for wealth creation is being offered for only $197.

To get your Creating Wealth Encyclopedia Book 1, complete with over 20 hours of audio, go to jasonhartman.com store if you.

Want to be able to sit back and collect checks every month, just like a banker, Jason's Creating Wealth Encyclopedia series is for you.

Thank you for joining us today for the holistic Survival show Protecting the People, places and profits you care about in uncertain times. Be sure to listen to our Creating wealth show, which focuses on exploiting the financial and wealth creation opportunities in today's economy. Learn more at www.orsearch Jason Hartman on itunes. This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company offering very general guidelines and information. Opinions of guests are their own and none of the content should be considered individual advice. If you require personalized advice, please consult an appropriate professional information deemed reliable but not guaranteed.