D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age... they're set in their ways and you're not going to change them. They have values and they're going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they're young, they're pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct. They're targeting the young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our way, you're going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid of you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want." Now something on homosexuality I want to expand on, I don't think this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all, "We're going to promote homosexuality." And secondly "We recognize that it's bizarre abnormal behavior.

Randy Engel (R.E.): Why don't we open up with a little bit about the man who you are talking about on these tapes. Just a little profile and a little bit about his education and particularly his relationship with the population control establishment. I think that probably was his entree into much of this information.

Dr. Lawrence Dunegan (DLD): Yeah. Dr. Day was the Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh from about 1959 thru '64, about that period of time, and then he left the University of Pittsburgh and went to fill the position of Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

R.E: And that was what… about 1965 to '68, about that period?

D.L.D: About '64 or '65 'til about '68 or '69, and then he left there... I don't know specifically why, I did not know him intimately. We were, you know, more than acquainted... I was a student and he would see me at lectures and, so he knew my name as a student, probably corrected some of my test scores and that sort of thing. Of course, I knew him as lecturer - would stand in front of the auditorium and listen as he talked about diseases... and take notes.

R.E: What's interesting is that this man is not as well known, I think to our listeners as names like Mary Calderone and Allen Gootmacher(sp). They were medical directors at one time or another for Planned Parenthood, but Dr. Day was not well known. And as a matter of fact when I went back into the SIECUS archives there was very little information that had his actual name on it. So he was not one of the better known of the medical directors, but I'd say he probably had the scoop of what was going on as well - if not better - than any of the others before or after he came. Can you describe the scene of this particular lecture, the approximate date, and what was the occasion - and then a little bit about the audience?

D.L.D: This was the… the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society holds about four meetings each year where we have some speaker come in and talk about a medical topic related to pediatrics and this was our spring meeting. It's always late February or early part of March. This was in March, 1969 and it was held at a restaurant called the Lamont which is well known in Pittsburgh. Beautiful place. In attendance, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 people. Mostly physicians, if not exclusively physicians. Predominantly pediatricians, particularly pediatric surgeons and pediatric radiologists - other people who were involved in medical care of children, even though they might not be pediatricians as such.

R.E: And the speech was given after the meal, I presume?

D.L.D: A very nice meal and everyone was settled down, quite comfortable and quite filled and really an ideal state to absorb what was coming.

R.E: But when you listen to the tape, he says some of the most... well not only outrageous things, but things you would think a pediatrician would kind of almost jump out of his seat at... for example when he mentions the cancer cures. There were probably doctors in the audience who were perhaps treating a child or knowing of a child who was in need of a particular cancer cure. And to hear that some of these prescriptions for or treatments for cancer were sitting over at the Rockefeller Institute, and yet, as far as I got from the tape everyone just kind of sat there... didn't say very much. I mean he was talking about falsifying scientific data and everyone just kind of yawns and... How long did this speech go on?

D.L.D: Two hours. He spoke for over two hours which was longer than most of our speakers go and one of the interesting things... he hasn't finished, it was getting late and he said, "there's much much more, but we could be here all night but it's time to stop". And I think that's significant, that there was much more that we never heard. In the beginning of the presentation, I don't know whether I mentioned this at the introduction of the first tape or not, but somewhere in the beginning of this he said, "You will forget most or much of what I'm going to tell you tonight." And at the time I thought, well, sure, that's true. We tend to forget. You know, somebody talks for hours you forget a lot of what they say. But, there is such a thing as the power of suggestion and I can't say for sure but I do wonder if this may not have been a suggestion when we were all full of a nice dinner and relaxed and listening - we took that suggestion and forgot, because I know a number of my colleagues who were there when I would - some years later - say, "Do you remember when Dr. Day said this, or he said that or said the other?" They'd say, "Well, yeah, I kind of... is that what he said? You know I kind of remember that". But most were not very impressed, which to me was surprising because... well use the example of cancer cures. But he said a number of things that…

R.E: Like doctors making too much money...?

D.L.D: Yeah, changing the image of the doctor. You're just going to be a high-paid technician rather than a professional who exercises independent judgment on behalf of his independent patient. A number of things that I thought should have been offensive and elicited a reaction from physicians because they were physicians. I was surprised at how little reaction there was to it. And then other things that I would have expected people to react to just because they were human beings and I think most of the people at the meeting subscribed more or less to the Judeo-Christian ethic and codes of behavior, and that was violated right and left. And particularly one of my friends I thought would be as disturbed as I was about this just sort of smiled... wasn't disturbed at a ll. I thought, gee, this is surprising.

R.E: Was part of it also because of his prominence? I mean he was…

D.L.D: The authority... Authority figure? Yeah, I think there might be something there. This is the authority. We sort of owe some deference here.

R.E: And he couldn't possibly mean what he's saying or there couldn't possibly be any... I mean, he's such a good guy.

D.L.D: I've often heard that phrase, "He's such a good guy. I can't believe he'd actually mean the things"... I can only speculate about this. But I do think at the time there was an element of disbelief about all of this. Thinking, well this is somebody's fairy tale plan but it will never really happen because it's too outlandish. Of course we know step by step it is indeed happening right under our feet.

R.E: Before talking about the specific areas, I think there's a lot of benefits from this tape. One of them is when we have a good idea of what the opposition is about and the techniques he's using - then you can turn around and begin your resistance to all the types of manipulations and so forth. So I think that the… seeing that there were four or five "theme songs" - he kept repeating them over and over again. For example this business which I think is so important… that people fail to distinguish between the ostensible reason and the real reason. In other words, if you want someone to do something and you know that initially he'll be balky at doing that because it's against his morals or against his religious beliefs, you have to substitute another reason that will be acceptable. And then, after he accepts it and it's a fait accompli then there's just no turning back.

D.L.D: Right. It was in that connection that he said, "People don't ask the right questions." Too trusting. And this was directed, as I recall, mostly at Americans. I had the feelings he thought Europeans maybe were more skeptical and more sophisticated. That Americans are too trusting and don't ask the right questions.

R.E: With regard to this lack of... almost a lack of discernment. I guess that's basically what he was saying. They were easily tricked or too trusting. The thing that flashed through my mind rather quickly, for example in schools... how quickly so-called AIDS education was introduced. It did amaze me because if a group stated publicly that they wanted to introduce the concept of sodomy or initiate sex earlier and earlier in children and that was the reason given, most parents I presume wouldn't go for that. So you have to come up with another reason and of course the reason for this so-called AIDS education was to protect children from this disease. But actually, as it turns out, it's really been a great boon for the homosexual network, because through various things like Project Ten they now have access to our children from the youngest years. These programs are going on from K-12 and I imagine well into college and beyond, so that they are reaching a tremendous segment. Speaking of children, I gather that this speaker... he kept on making the point about, well, old people, they're going to go by the wayside, so I presume that the emphasis for these controllers for this New World Order is really an emphasis on youth.

D.L.D: Absolutely. Yes. Emphasis on youth. This was stated explicitly. People beyond a certain age... they're set in their ways and you're not going to change them. They have values and they're going to stick to them. But you get to the youth when they're young, they're pliable. You mold them in the direction you want them to go. This is correct. They're targeting the young. They figure, "you old fogies that don't see it our way, you're going to be dying off or when the time comes we're going to get rid of you. But it's the youngsters we have to mold in the impression we want." Now something on homosexuality I want to expand on, I don't think this came out on the original tape, but there was, first of all, "We're going to promote homosexuality." And secondly "We recognize that it's bizarre abnormal behavior. But, this is another element in the law of the jungle, because people who are stupid enough to go along with this are not fit to inhabit the planet and they'll go by the wayside". I'm not stating this precisely the way he said it, but it wasn't too far from there where there was some mention of diseases being created. And when I remember the one statement and remember the other statement, I believe AIDS is a disease which has been created in the laboratory and I think that one purpose it serves is to get rid of people who are so stupid as to go along with our homosexual program. Let them wipe themselves out. Now it's hard for me make clear how much of it is I'm remembering with great confidence and how much is pure speculation. But as I synthesize this - this is I think what happens... "If you're dumb enough to be convinced by our promotion of homosexuality you don't deserve a place and you're going to fall by the wayside sooner or later. We'll be rid of you. We'll select out... the people who will survive are those who are also smart enough not to be deluded by our propaganda". Does that make sense?

R.E: Well, it certainly makes sense for them. And I think also this early sex initiation has the over all purpose which I think we'll get to in depth a little later. But of the sexualization of the population... when he said on the tape, basically, "Anything goes", I think that is what we're seeing. It's not so much that, let's say, someone may not adopt the homosexual style for himself, but as a result of the propaganda he certainly will be a lot more tolerant of that type of behavior too. So it's a desensitization, even for the individual who doesn't go over and accept it for himself.

D.L.D: With the power of propaganda you dare not be against homosexuals, otherwise you get labeled homophobe. You dare not be against any of our programs for women, otherwise you're a male chauvinist pig. It's like anti-Semitism. If this label gets enough currency in the culture that people get shockingly stuck with it. It's easier to keep quiet.

R.E: Another theme was this business about "CHANGE". And I want to get to change in relation to religion and family, but during the period of hearing this tape, I remember going to a MASS and they happened to have at that point DANCING GIRLS FROM THE ALTER. So when I was sitting and getting a chance to listen to the tape I thought, as a Catholic that has been... if you talk about effective change, that has been probably the most difficult and the hardest thing has been to watch our traditional Mass, those things which Catholics have practiced and believed for so long and... at about that time this speech was given which was about late 1969, everything had begun to turn over on its head, so much so that I think many people feel now when they go into a church where there is the Novus Ordo (sp), I think you're almost in a state of constant anxiety because you're not quite sure... What am I going to encounter now? You look at the little song book; of course that's changed radically and you see, instead of brethren, you see people; or you might see something odd happening up at the alter which is now the "table". The notion of God as eternal and the teachings of Jesus Christ as eternal, and therefore the teachings of the church as eternal depends on the authority of God, and God brings about change in God's way. What this boils down to me is these people say, "No, we take the place of God; we establish what will change and what will not change, so if we say that homosexuality or anything is moral today... wasn't yesterday, but it is today. We have said so, and therefore it's moral. We can change tomorrow. We can make it immoral again tomorrow". And this is the usurpation of the role of God to define what the peon, the ordinary person's supposed to believe.

D.L.D: So, the idea is, that if everybody is used to change most people aren't going to ask, "Well who has decided what should be changed and how it should be changed"? Most people just go along with it, like hemlines, and shoe styles and that sort of thing. So it IS a usurpation of the Rule of God, and if you read the Humanist Manifesto, and somewhere early in the introductory part of it, they say, "human intellect is the highest good". Well, to any human being, what you call the highest good, that's your god. So to these people human intellect being the highest good is god. And where does human intellect reside? Well, in the brain of one or more human beings. So these people, in effect... I don't know think they'd be so candid as to say so, but whether they know it or not what they're saying is, "I am god. WE are gods, because we decide what is moral what is moral tomorrow, what is going to be moral next year. WE determine change."

R.E: That's right. And of course, in a nutshell, you've just explained the human potential, the New Age, all the new esoteric movements that we've seen. But with regard to change, he seemed to acknowledge that there were a couple of entities which traditionally blocked this change and therefore made people resistant to constant manipulation. And of course one of those is the family, and that would include grandmothers, grandfathers, our ethnic background and so forth and I guess I was impressed by everything he seemed to mention whether it was economics, music... had the overall effect of diminishing the family and enhancing the power of the state. That was a constant theme, and therefore when we're evaluating things I think one of the things we should generally say to ourselves is, "What effect does that have on family life, and the family and I think if every congressman or senator asked that question we probably wouldn't have much action up on Capitol Hill, because almost everything coming down the pike has an effect of disavowing, hurting the family life and enhancing and expanding the power of government.

D.L.D: It has an ostensible purpose, and then it has a REAL purpose.

R.E: Yes, and as a so-called helping professional your ability to say that is very interesting. The other factor is this whole factor of religion, and he was talking basically about a religion without dogma, a religion that would have a little bit from all the other traditional religions so no one would really feel uncomfortable, and he said, rather condescendingly, some people need this and if they need it we'll manufacture something that they need. But of course it can't be anything that would declare anything that were moral absolutes or the natural law. Which means that the main target of this group of controllers of course, was and is the Roman Catholic Church and he mentioned the Roman Catholic Church specifically.

D.L.D: Religion's important because it is eternal and we... people who would follow the church will not buy our rules about change. But if we make our own religion, if we define what is religion then we can change it as it suits us. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church... I was kind of flattered sitting here as a catholic, hearing it pointed out that the church is the one obstacle that, he said, "We have to change that. And once the Roman Catholic Church falls, the rest of Christianity will fall easily".

R.E: I notice that, as the conversation went on, he said, "Now you may think Churches will stand in the way, but I want to tell you that they will HELP us", and he didn't say they will help us, all except the Roman Catholic Church... he said, "They will help us", and unfortunately...

D.L.D: He was right.

RE: He didn't say this explicitly, but again it was one of those themes that came through... he apparently thought the use of words was real important because he mentioned this with regard to a number of things, like the Bible. The very same as the psychiatrist, Miralu(sp?) mentioned that "if you want to control the people, you control the language first". Words are weapons. He apparently knew that very well and I think the controllers as a whole know this very well. Of course, it's part of their campaign. But that little statement about words, that "words will be changed". When I heard that I thought... "Instead of saying 'alter' you say 'table'. Instead of saying 'sacrifice' you say 'meal' with regard to the Mass", and people say, "That's not important". Of course, you know that's VERY important, otherwise, why would they bother to change it? Otherwise, why go through all this rigmarole if it isn't important? It's obviously important for them because they know WITH THE CHANGING OF WORDS YOU CHANGE IDEAS.

D.L.D: They're exerting a lot of effort and time to change it and they're not exerting effort on things that are NOT important, so yes, you're absolutely right. The priest no longer has the role... in some cases he no longer has the role the priest formerly had. Because words carry meaning. There's the dictionary definition, but I think we all know that certain words carry meaning that is a little bit hard to put into words... but they carry meaning. So yes, controlling the language... you THINK in your language. You think to yourself in English or Spanish or whatever language you're familiar with, but when you think, you talk to yourself and you talk to yourself in words, just the way you talk to other people. And if you can control the language with which one person speaks to himself or one person speaks to another you've gone a long way towards controlling what that person is ABLE - what he is CAPABLE of thinking, and that has both an inclusionary and an exclusionary component to it. You set the tone....

R.E: Take the word GAY, for example. I have some old tapes by Franz Layhar(sp?) and he talks about the GAY Hussars, you know... the happy soldiers... and now you couldn't quite use that same word, could you? But you know, the word homosexual, sodomite has been replaced with the term "gay", represents an ideology not only a word and when you use it, it's tacit to saying, "Yes, I accept what your interpretation of this is". D.L.D: They probably had a committee working for months to pick which word they were going to use for this. The word "gay" carries a connotation, first of all, which is inaccurate. Most homosexuals are not at all gay. They tend to be pretty unhappy people. Despite all the publicity that tells them they can and should feel comfortable with what they're doing, most of them deep down inside don't... (both talking at the same time here).

R.E: I suppose they're going to come up with a sadophobia for those who have a hang-up about sadomasochism and a pedophobia for those who have difficulties with pedophilia, so we can just look forward to this I think. I guess we can look forward to it to the extent we permit ourselves... that we permit the opposition to have access to the brain.

D.L.D: And to dictate the truth WE use. Sex education is NOT education. It's conditioning, and we should never use the term "sex education". It's a misnomer. If they control the vocabulary, then they can control the way we can think and the way we can express ideas among ourselves and to anybody. But "sex conditioning", "sex initiation" is much more accurate and we should insist on that. We should never use terms "homophobia" and "gay". Homosexual is homosexual. It's not at all gay. R.E: That's right. In fact we're probably going to have to do some homework on... probably of all the popular movements in the U.S. Probably the pro-life movement is the most sensitive to words. Talking about media events and access to the brain, I remember the first speech Bush gave in which he talked about the New World Order... I remember jumping halfway off my seat. That term. Here he is, the president, saying New World Order as if it was something everyone knew about. And someone looking across the room said, "I heard that. What did he say"? And I said, "He said, 'New World Order'!" And they said, "What does that mean? Why is that extraordinary?" So, I think one of the weapons we have against the controllers is that if we can cut off his access to our mind then we have a shot at escaping the manipulation, if not totally - at least escape a portion of the manipulations. Remember, one of the books on Chinese POWs pointed out that some of their survivors in order NOT to be brainwashed broke their eardrums. And in that way - not being able to hear - the enemy could not have access to their brain and therefore they were able to survive where others did not. And in our popular culture we have a number of things... TV and radio probably primarily, that are the constant means by which the opposition has access to our brain and to our children's brains. So I think the logical conclusion, and one of the common-sense conclusions is that if you don't want the enemy to have access you have to cut off the lines of access... which would be in homes to simply either eliminate altogether, or control by other forms....

D.L.D: Take the networks at there word. They say, "if you don't like our programming, turn it off". And we should. We should say, "Yeah. You're right." And we should turn it off. And let the advertisers spend their money on an audience that isn't there. As a pediatrician I'm always interested in how kids do things and how kids are like adults, and whether you're talking about International politics where one nation goes to war with another or kids on the playground, there are certain things that are common. It's just that kids on the playgrounds do it on a smaller scale. But you mention cutting off access to your brain... somebody says, I don't want to hear it. And I remember hearing kids on a playground... somebody says..."ya-na-na na naa-na", and they're teasing the kid... What's he do? He puts his hands over his ears. Says I'm not going to listen. And the kid who's trying to torment him will try to pull his hands away and be sure that he listens. And it's the same....

R.E: Words. Words entering. And the child knows. Words have meaning. They're hurting him.

D.L.D: Goebels knew it. Lenin knew it. CBS knows it. It's interesting; the principle stands - across the board. It just gets more complicated as you get older. More sophisticated. But watch kids on a playground and you'll learn a whole lot about adults.

R.E: Yes. We're all nodding our heads at that one. This Dr. Day was very much into the whole population control establishment, and he was of course in favor of abortion. But as he started talking about the aged and euthanasia I recall one of the population- control books saying that birth control without death control was meaningless. And one of the advantages in terms… if one was favorable toward the killing of the aged… one of the favorable things is in fact abortion for the simple reason that — universally speaking — abortion has the result of bringing about a rather inordinate chopping off of population at the front end. That is, at the birth end. And the inevitable effect is that you will have a population that is top heavy with a rapidly aging population which is the current state in the United States. So, inevitably, if you are going to go about killing the young, especially at the pace we seem to have adapted ourselves to in this country, then invariably you're going to have to do something about all those aging populations. Because, the few children who are born, after all, they cannot be expected to carry this tremendous burden of all these people. So you're cutting one end and therefore, inevitably, as you pointed out on the tape, he was saying, "Well, these few young people who are permitted to be born will feel this inevitable burden on them and so they'll be more desensitized." They'll be more warmed up to the idea of grandma and grandpa having this little party and then shuffle them off to wherever they shuffle off to. And whether it's taking the "demise" pill or going to a death camp, or....

D.L.D: There was a movie out sometime back called "Soilant Green". Remember that movie? I didn't see the whole movie, but Edward G. Robinson liked to sit in the theatre and listen to Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony as he was to take his demise pill.

R.E: That's right. He also made the point that the food the people were eating were each other. But as he said, as long as it's done with dignity and humanely... like putting away your horse.

D.L.D: That's a little bit like pornography. Years back kids would come across pornography. It was always poor photography and cheap paper. Then Playboy came out with the glossy pages and really good photography, so then pornography is no longer cheap. It's respectable. We went to a movie at the Pittsburgh Playhouse. I took my son along. It was the Manchurian Candidate. During the previews of the things that are going to come there was a title I don't remember but it was (inaudible) in technicolor with classical music in the background. And it was a pornographic movie. And I said, well, if you have a guitar then it's pornography; but if you have classical movie then it converts it into art. It was pornography. It's an example of what you were saying. As long as it's done with dignity, that's what counts. If you kill someone with dignity, it's ok. If you have pornography with classical music it's art. That was the point I was trying to make.

R.E: Again, talking about the family. Currently I know there are an awful lot of people who are out of jobs and he [Dr. Day] had quite a lot of things to say about, for example, heavy industry. I guess the shock was that this man... I wasn't surprised that he knew a lot about population control, abortion, and at the other end — euthanasia. But what DID surprise me was that he was an individual who was talking about religion, law, education, sports, entertainment, food... how could one individual have that much input? Now one could say, "well, it didn't pan out". But we know listening to these recollections twenty years later... except perhaps for some minor things, everything that he has said has come to pass and almost beyond imagination. How COULD one individual talk with such authoritative, non-questioning... that this was the way THIS was going to happen and THIS was going to happen in "fashion" and THIS was going to happen on TV and there were going to be video recorders before I ever heard of the word.

D.L.D: I think what happens... certainly one individual hears this, but the plans are by no means made by one or a small number of individuals. Just as industrial corporations which have a board of directors, with people from all sorts of activities who sit on the board of this corporation, and they say, "Now if we do this to our product, or if we expand in this area what will that do to banking? What will that do to clothing? What will that do... what impact, ripple effect will that have on other things?" And I'm sure that whoever makes these plans they have representatives from every area you can think of. So they'll have educators, they'll have clothing manufacturers - designers; architects... across the board. I'm sure they get together and have meetings and plan and everybody puts in his input, just the way a military operation goes. What will the Navy do? Will they bombard the shore? What will the Air Force do? Will they come in with air cover? What will the infantry do? It's the same thing. These people, when they plan, they don't miss a trick. They have experts in every field and they say, "Well, if we do this, that and the other.. John, what will that do to your operation?" And John will be in position to feed back, "Well this is what I think will happen." So it certainly covers a broad range of people. And for one individual to be able to say all of this in the two hours that he spoke to us, really tells us that he was privy to a lot of information.

R.E: That's right. He must have been sitting in on one of those boardrooms at least at some point. And I think not at the highest level from his position, but enough, because anyone in the population control would be associated with names of foundations... powerful foundations, powerful organizations...

D.L.D: And I'm sure there was a lot in the plans that he never heard. He wasn't a four-star general in this outfit. He wouldn't be in on the whole story.

R.E: Well, too bad he couldn't have talked for six hours instead of two, and we might have had a lot more information. There was another aspect that I found fascinating in listening to this. This whole aspect of privacy... he mentioned that as the private homes went by we would have individuals, non-family members perhaps sharing our apartments. As I understand that is becoming more popular out in California. Could California and New York being the coast states, did he say... That's right... PORT cities that bring in things so that they can eventually work their way to middle America. But this is about privacy. When he was talking, for example, about the area of sex, he made some interesting remarks. One of them that hit me like a ton of bricks was this business about; "We must be open about sex". As if there can't be any fear of the person that does not hesitate to open up to the public. Now, if you look at these so-called sex initiation programs in the schools where the children are forced either through writing or through verbal expression to talk about all aspects of the sexual sphere…

A division of National Medical Enterprises will plead guilty to charges of Medicare fraud and conspiracy and pay a record fine of $362.7 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation, company officials said Tuesday. The settlement with the Santa Monica, Calif.-based hospital firm, expected to be announced Wednesday, surpasses any previous fine in a U.S. fraud case involving the health care or defense industries. One day earlier, a former Dallas executive for National Medical’ s psychiatric division admitted making at least $20 million in bribes to referring physicians and other health care professionals. Peter Alexis, former “administrator of the year” for Psychiatric Institutes of America, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and false-statement charges Monday before U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas. Company spokeswoman Diana Takvam said the timing was coincidental and followed a preliminary settlement reached earlier this year. Under the settlement, National Medical’s psychiatric hospital subsidiary will plead guilty in Washington, D.C., to six counts of paying illegal kickbacks to gain referrals of Medicare patients and one count of conspiracy to make such payments.

A division of National Medical Enterprises will plead guilty to charges of Medicare fraud and conspiracy and pay a record fine of $362.7 million to settle a sweeping federal investigation, company officials said Tuesday. The settlement with the Santa Monica, Calif.-based hospital firm, expected to be announced Wednesday, surpasses any previous fine in a U.S. fraud case involving the health care or defense industries.

One day earlier, a former Dallas executive for National Medical’ s psychiatric division admitted making at least $20 million in bribes to referring physicians and other health care professionals. Peter Alexis, former “administrator of the year” for Psychiatric Institutes of America, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and false-statement charges Monday before U.S. District Judge Joe Kendall in Dallas.

Company spokeswoman Diana Takvam said the timing was coincidental and followed a preliminary settlement reached earlier this year. Under the settlement, National Medical’s psychiatric hospital subsidiary will plead guilty in Washington, D.C., to six counts of paying illegal kickbacks to gain referrals of Medicare patients and one count of conspiracy to make such payments.

Investigators have accused National Medical of accepting patients who did not need treatment and keeping them against their will until their insurance coverage ran out. Complaints from some of those patients over the last few years touched off federal and state prosecutions.

The federal charges cover bribes and kickbacks at six hospitals, in California, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and New Jersey, from 1986 to 1991. The company said it also has agreed to pay an additional $16.3 million to resolve potential claims in 28 states, including Texas, where it operated psychiatric hospitals.

It expects to reach a final agreement in those cases within 30 days. More than 100 private lawsuits have been filed since 1991 against the hospital management company, alleging insurance fraud, overtreatment and malpractice.

In Texas, most of the private lawsuits involved patients at Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion in Farmers Branch, Psychiatric Institute of Fort Worth and Willowbrook Psychiatric Institute in Waxahachie. Those hospitals since have been sold, along with most of National Medical’s other 61 psychiatric hospitals. “This settlement will signify that NME is taking full responsibility for past conduct in certain of its businesses,” said Jeffrey C. Barbakow, brought in last year as president and chief executive to clean up the company’s problems.

The settlement – still subject to approval by a federal judge – would resolve all civil and criminal investigations of the hospital chain. The settlement includes $364.2 million in civil restitution and penalties, $33 million in criminal fines and $4.5 million in contributions to federally funded mental health programs. The agreement leaves open the possibility of criminal prosecution of current and former National Medical employees and doctors affiliated with the hospital operator.

In May, the company announced that it had reached a preliminary agreement with federal authorities and had set aside a reserve fund of $375 million to cover expected settlement costs. Prosecutors said this case provided the best window yet on misconduct in medicine. In the medical world, said Paul E. Coggins, the U.S. attorney in Dallas, “Practices that are illegal have been accepted and tolerated, very much akin to the climate that pervaded the savings and loans.” Oliver “Buck” Revell, special agent in charge of the Dallas FBI office, said federal investigators do not believe that the scandals involving National Medical and Psychiatric Institutes are isolated. “We believe there are others,” Mr. Revell said. “We will likely find similar problems in other major health-care institutions.

“People shouldn’t conclude that it’s only NME and that this is the end of the game. This is only the beginning of the process.” He said the FBI has been working with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service on a health-care fraud task force in Dallas for six months, along with investigators for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Defense Department and the Veterans Affairs Department. Mr. Revell noted that the continuing investigation is nationwide in scope. “What’s happening in Dallas is happening elsewhere,” Mr. Revell said. “We are really mounting a full-court press.” Federal officials have estimated that fraud swallows 10 percent of the nation’s health care expenses, or $80 billion to $100 billion a year. With savings and loan prosecutions winding down, the Clinton administration has made the policing of health care fraud a high priority.

The settlement was disclosed after the market closed Tuesday. The company’s shares closed up 1/2 at 151/2, on volume of 728,300 shares. The stock hit a low of 73/8 after last August’s raid by federal agents, but has gradually moved up since. To pay for the settlement, National Medical took a charge of $255 million in April to reflect the after-tax effect. As a result, it posted a fiscal third-quarter loss of $164.3 million, or 99 cents a share, compared with net income of $54.2 million, or 33 cents, for the year-earlier quarter. Contributing to this report were The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Bloomberg Business News.

US District Court Judge Joe Kendall leveled his gaze at Peter Alexis. 'So it was just a massive kickback operation?' Alexis, a former VP of Psychiatric Institutes of America, a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises (NME), answered in the affirmative. 'Yes, Your Honor.' 'Were you buying patients?' Judge Kendall continued. Again, the same response. 'Yes, Your Honor.' Patients like Sherry, who as a young teenager in 1987, was referred to NME's Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion in Dallas for evaluation of a possible chemical imbalance, were among the untold number of children who were put in psychiatric hospitals not because of any medical need, but because NME was bribing doctors to hospitalize kids that had good insurance. Sherry's insurance was so good that she spent 422 days locked inside what some insiders described as a "clinical rat hole."

US District Court Judge Joe Kendall leveled his gaze at Peter Alexis. 'So it was just a massive kickback operation?'  Alexis, a former VP of Psychiatric Institutes of America, a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises (NME), answered in the affirmative. 

'Yes, Your Honor.'

'Were you buying patients?' Judge Kendall continued. Again, the same response. 

'Yes, Your Honor.' 

Patients like Sherry, who as a young teenager in 1987, was referred to NME's Brookhaven Psychiatric Pavilion in Dallas for evaluation of a possible chemical imbalance, were among the untold number of children who were put in psychiatric hospitals not because of any medical need, but because NME was bribing doctors to hospitalize kids that had good insurance. 

Sherry's insurance was so good that she spent 422 days locked inside what some insiders described as a "clinical rat hole."

How did this happen in America?

 Richard Eamer, former CEO of NME, found a niche in the healthcare market at a time when the government was otherwise tightening-up oversight of Medicare payments to hospitals.  While payments to general hospitals were being scrutinized, it appeared there were virtually no cost-control measures in place for psychiatric facilities.

NME quickly bought-up facilities around the country and set its plan in motion. Patients at NME facilities became a commodity, and company executives employed any means necessary to get patients into their facilities.  Lucrative "consulting" contracts were given to doctors who would be more than happy to refer patients to NME, without regard for whether they needed to be hospitalized.  These cooperative doctors were essential to NME's scheme, and they were monitored closely and highly motivated.    To disguise payments for their referrals, NME signed personal service contracts with the doctors and kept track of patient admissions, length of stay, and revenue generated by referred patients.  NME also plied the doctors with lengthy six figure practice guaranties, payments for office expenses and annual stipends for accepting figurehead roles in their hospitals. 

The financial motives of the company led to a dangerous shift in the way patients were cared for.  Treatment and healing were no longer the main goals at NME.  These had been replaced by one simple, perverse objective: fill beds at any cost.

The real victims find a champion of their rights.

It was not until 1993, when 600 federal agents raided 20 NME facilities, that the public became aware of what was really going on at the company.  NME -- at its peak a multi billion-dollar empire with more than 100 hospitals across four continents -- was involved in one of the largest healthcare-related frauds in history.  Following the raid on its facilities, NME paid the government $379 million in criminal fines, civil damages and penalties, making it one of the largest False Claims Act settlements in history.

Although the government secured its fines and the insurance companies that paid for the unlawful hospitalizations recovered some of their money, civil lawyers had largely ignored the former patients' rights.  That is, until Tommy Fibich approached Jim Moriarty about three children who had undergone a harrowing experience at one of NME's psychiatric hospitals outside of Houston, Texas.   Thereafter, Fibich and Moriarty joined forces with Steve Hackerman of the Bristow Hackerman Wilson & Peterson firm in an effort to seek justice for the real victims of NME's scam - the former patients.

The legal team screened thousands of cases before filing suit on behalf of approximately 600 former NME patients, most of whom were children when they were hospitalized following a "free screening" for ADD or similar marketing ploy.  The "free screenings" were little more than a cleverly designed way to x-ray a prospective patient's wallet for insurance coverage.

After settling in on their client group, the lawyers brought Pat Green, a prominent lawyer from Montgomery County Texas into the group, and proceeded to file suit against NME and its affiliated companies, including 11 hospitals and more than 80 doctors and psychologists.  The legal team recruited experts from around the country to testify on behalf of the children.  Doctors like Bruce Perry, a world-renowned expert on children in crisis, who at the time was Chief of Psychiatry for Texas Children's Hospital in Houston.

Central to the legal team's strategy was a willingness to stand up, fight, and take the defendants head on, for any and all challenges thrown at them.  Events early on set the tone for what turned out to be a lengthy and acrimonious legal fight.  Soon after the case was filed, NME's lawyers, believing the Plaintiffs would back down, sent deposition subpoenas to take four different plaintiff's depositions per day every day for weeks on end beginning approximately one month later.  Coordinating an event like that would take a monumental effort and considerable teamwork and expense given the number of parties involved. 

The Plaintiffs' legal team waited to respond to these subpoenas until the Friday before the depositions were scheduled to begin.  The response was both simple and powerful: Every one of the plaintiffs would appear for the depositions as subpoenaed on the dates and times indicated.

The following Monday morning, NME's lawyers appeared from all over the country unprepared to carry out the challenge they believed would never be answered.  The depositions went on for six weeks before NME decided it had seen enough. Ultimately, after years of battling at the courthouse, painstaking review of hundreds of thousands of internal documents and dozens of depositions doctors, psychiatrists and company executives, NME caved on the eve of the first case set for trial and agreed to settle all of the claims for a confidential amount. 


My blogs prove how secret societies popularization of esoteric ideology and universal collectivism aides the process preceeding achieved world government future realization.

Click here to learn more about the Illuminati.

"We have brought the world together as far as we can politically. To bring about a true world government, the world must be brought together spiritually. What we need is a United Nations of Religions.” Robert Muller – Former Assistant Secretary General at the UN

"We have brought the world together as far as we can politically. To bring about a true world government, the world must be brought together spiritually. What we need is a United Nations of Religions.”        

                  Robert Muller – Former Assistant Secretary General at the UN  

  Robert Muller understood that the ultimate goal of internationalists around the globe is a totally implemented world governing system—an organization designed to supersede any national government and demand that all nations surrender their sovereignty and submit to international laws and regulations. Mr. Muller also knew that for this dream to become a reality, all religions must somehow ignore their differences, unify and pledge their allegiances to the establishment of the global community. When this happens—and according to Bible prophecy it will in the very near future—those who choose not to conform will be considered heretics and possibly even pay for it with their lives.  

  Revelation 13 prophesies that just this kind of a world governing system will be established and ruled by the Antichrist. The same chapter foretells of the world religion and global economic system that will be used to enforce the edicts of the Antichrist and cause the entire world to pledge allegiance to his global authoritarian system.   

  We are, in many ways, already functioning under the tentacles of an ever-encroaching global governing system. Have you ever heard of the World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization or the United Nations? These entities and many more were designed for nothing other than to govern the entire planet.   

  Just as obvious is the establishment of the electronic monetary system that will be used to economically sanction individuals in order to force them to conform to the Antichrist’s global governance standards. The Bible prophesies that, in the end time, every person on earth will be given their own unique identification number, and without it they will not be able to buy or sell. It is no coincidence that over half of the world’s population has already been issued a national ID card, which must be used to function in their particular countries. This is nothing more than a precursor to the Mark of the Beast system prophesied in Revelation 13:16-18.   

  So what is the status of the one-world religion? What steps have already been taken, where are we now, and how will we recognize it in the future?   

  Over the last twelve months, we have seen major efforts by the Vatican to build a bridge between Catholics and multiple religious leaders around the world. And with great success! It is the continuation of a decades-old attempt to gather all religions into an all-inclusive global religious community, and it is in the last stages of development. The question is not will a one-world religion be formed, but how close are we to its culmination?  

  Revelation 13 is devoted specifically to end time events. Verses 1-8 describe the one-world government, 11-14 focus on the one-world religion along with the False Prophet and 16-18 outline the Antichrist’s global economic system.   

  The goal of the Antichrist will be to lord over this global government and to force every human to pledge allegiance to him or to actually “worship” him.   

  “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” – Revelation 13:8   

  In order for this to be fully realized, the Bible says the Antichrist will have two methods of enforcement: 1) He will form an alliance with the largest religious organization in the world—Christianity, and with the leader of the one-world religion—the False Prophet. The penalty for non-conformity with the one-world religion will be death, according to Revelation 13:15; “And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” 2) He will implement a system of economic control upon the human race—more commonly known as the Mark of the Beast. Those who will not participate in this system will not be able to buy or sell, rendering themselves unable to function in society.   

  To economically sanction an individual will surely sting. However, to murder under the guise of Christianity those who will not comply sounds incomprehensible—that is until you consider that there are world leaders who have already proposed this exact course of action!  

  In 1893, the first Parliament of the World’s Religions was held in Chicago. Its stated goal was to cultivate harmony among the world’s religions and spiritual communities and foster their engagement with the world and its guiding institutions in order to achieve a just, peaceful and sustainable world. Actually, it was way ahead of its time because not much else happened on Interfaithism for 80 years or so.  

  In 1998, Bishop Swing held the second charter writing conference at Stanford University in California. In attendance were Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, indigenous people and Wiccans. The charter was finally completed and the United Religions was officially born in June of the year 2000.  

  Interfaithism actually realizes there are two major religions on the earth, Islam and Christianity. Islam claims about 1.57 billion followers, which is 23% of the world’s population. Christianity claims 2.2 billion followers, which is 33% of the world’s population. Together, between Islam and Christianity, you have 56% of the world’s population. The interfaithists say, if these two religions could form an alliance together, they could bring the entire world together.   

  With the goal of a world government in mind, Interfaithism is the mechanism being used by the global elite to unite all religions of the world. 


My blogs prove how secret societies popularization of esoteric ideology and universal collectivism aides the process preceeding achieved world government future realization.

Click here to learn more about the Illuminati.