The Thomas Paul Murphy Music Player

"You might think that I am off base, but I am published by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Thomas Paul Murphy

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Every time you feel healthy it feels terrible because it is terrible 08 30 2015

Every time you feel healthy it feels terrible because it is terrible  08 30 2015

Copyright 2015
Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at:

Dearticulation a newly defined word 08 30 2015

Dearticulation a newly defined word 08 30 2015

The process of negating the legitimate meaning of an argument and conclusion by using very concise and better vocabulary or longer and more sentences.

In the process of articulation sometimes the most concise vocabulary is not the best because single words are subject to connotative and contextual meaning.

So perhaps first we define to articulate and then define dearticulation as the use of both forms of articulation by the weak minded. 

To articulate:

  1. To use concise and higher level vocabulary to convey the meaning of something.
  2. To use longer and more sentences to convey the meaning of something.
A third element of dearticualtion would be denial of meaning due to a lower level of personal comprehension. The process of dearticulation often involves the application of simple terms of better vocabulary to sidetrack the meaning of parts of a better element of meaning. In effect using concise vocabulary in an attempt to emotionally sway the mind of the listener to believe you have indeed provided a counterargument to the complete issue that was articulated.

Often the person who articulated in the first place has already taken into account every single human concern with regard to what was articulated. So indeed the person who dearticulates can be said to have a mental block. Also known as defect in comprehension.

And therefore sometimes the act of dearticulation is one of that person begging for you to provide more understanding to them.

The process of dearticulation can be said to either consciously or subconsciously be motivated to erase and or hide the meaning of what was articulated. Hence it is a form of immaturity in denial.

It is evidence of spoiled will attempting to deny reality through the use of verbal ability.

To use the word in other context would be.

  1. To smooth the surface of a highly defined artwork.
  2. To cause a highly defined and engineered structure to be faulted. (Evidence of the failure to apply the first do no harm concept?)
  3. To completely destroy the writings and history of a people.
  4. To cause a populous to become illiterate. “The Chicago was dearticulated by a heroin dealer insurrection from Mexico.” “The human race first became dearticulated by the wealthy and then extinct.”

Used in a sentence:

“Oliver the headmaster dearticulated everything I was going to say in my defense before I said it. And I was then indoctrinated into a life of thiefdom for that profiteer.”

“His mother dearticulated every concept of boyhood from him.”

"One race of people fostered the illegal immigration of a different language speaking race of people in order to dearticulate the strong principles of democracy and human freedom."

Can you spot the weak minded in politics dearticulating the meaning of what the strong minded said?  In effect it amounts to a statement of "I have money and power and there is nothing you can do about it."  Well yes there is and it is called wealth redistribution.

Why do we always take it for granted that close mindedness isn't really indicative of mental defect?
In that form dearticulation is really a blunt form expression of self hatred isn't it.

You can add it to your new dictionary courtesy of Thomas Paul Murphy.

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at:

How do we know he is the son of a whore? 08 30 2015

How do we know he is the son of a whore?  08 30 2015

"How do we know he is the son of a whore?"

"Because only a whore would marry a drunk."

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at:

When the Punishment for a Crime should be Death 08 30 2015

When the Punishment for a Crime should be Death 08 30 2015

Even when I was a boy I did not understand the insanity defense.  Whereby one has to declare that they were insane when the committed  a crime; usually of murder. 

Right away the light bulb flashed in my mind.  That person was not insane at all!  They did what any human being would and should do to preserve the sanctity of humanity.  Why should they have to claim insanity?

Why should anyone who seeks revenge have to claim insanity.  Even the Police get to use the defense that the person was likely to commit more crimes in the act of fleeing; when they shoot someone.

The reason they have to claim insanity is because the punishment for that crime should have been death but it wasn't going to be!  Because of a liberalized court system.

Some of what I wanted to articulate about this is slipping away.

But the courtroom standard should not be whether they actually committed the crime or not but the reason why.  It should not be left up to a jury as to how they decide; if they want to go against what they know is true he committed a crime for the fact that they know the victim deserved it.

1.  You killed someone that raped your daughter sterile.  Where you insane?  No.  Do you admit you did it?  Yes.  Should you have to pretend  you didn't?  No.  Should it be clear cut you go to jail because of that, all that was needed to be proven was the death caused by you?  No.  Somehow through the trial this is all wishy washy isn't it.  Will the juror who knows you did it not find you guilty even when they are supposed to?  They are instructed very sternly that all that they are only judging whether you did it or not.

So every law should have a double edge.  Codified.  Such as where it turns on the plaintiff as the guilty one!

2. "They gave heroin to my child.  I killed them."  Is that person insane?  No.

3. "They forced my daughter into prostitution."

Our Constitution does indeed directly imply that people can and should be executed by due process.  Why?  So that there are never those who resort to acts defined as insanity which are really not insane.

4.  That person committed financial fraud and sent the Sheriff to my house to take my home and evict me.

What am I getting at?  A lot of our laws are 'flat out' Unconstitutional.

Now how is insane defined?  It is defined very differently that what its meaning is believed to be?  Which means the meaning changed because the word was negligently misused?

: not normal or of healthy mind, mentally deranged.

It really indicates that our justice system needs to be at a higher level.

Our Constitution also prevents cruel and unusual punishment.  I think it is cruel and unusual punishment to put you in the same prison with someone that did one of at least 1 thru 3 above.  Which indicates those are crimes deserving of execution.

This is my belief system.  No amount of psychiatric drugging is going to change it.

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at:

What this implies is that in order to qualify to be a Judge in the United States you cannot have a bias against the death penalty AND that you do fairly consider motive in terms of whether someone is actually guilty.  So it breaks it down into to steps.

1.  Did this person commit this act?
2. What this persons motive justified?

23,000 emergency room visits in Chicago related to heroin tells me that our justice system has excluded and weeded the wrong people from careers in it.

Nationwide banking fraud by a rigged mortgage rate tells me the exact same thing about the Financial Industry.

But what are the motives for those crimes?  Inability to fairly compete with human beings?  Hatred of human beings?  Isn't it about time a genetically regressed form of the human race comes forward and shares their identity?  After all this time they do not have the courage to do that?

It isn't a dog eat dog world.  It is a nattering nabob becomes bad shepherd world.

Football Philadelphia Eagles 39 versus Green Bay Packers 26 08 30 2015

Philadelphia Eagles 39 versus Green Bay Packers 26

So I just was able to watch a little of this game in passing by the den before I went out to tie some hair on lures and attempt to fix a computer. But in that brief moment what I saw was a Green Bay Packer player tackling but what appeared to be grabbing onto the groin or groin area. And here is the commentary on just that.

Criteria to be Banned from the NFL, have wealth redistributed and or Executed 08 30 2015

  1. Bear hug and body slam tackle.
  2. Pushing to the lower back.
  3. Grabbing of the groin. Either during tackle or at the bottom of a tackle pile.
  4. Poking of eye and or clawing of eye.
  5. Tackling by grabbing face mask or lower edge of helmet.
  6. Stomping on hands or other body parts.
  7. Attempting to break a leg or disjoint by twisting lower leg or twisting foot.
Getting the monkey out of civilization constructs.

  1. Elbows or fists to the throat.
  2. Putting in a headlock and rodeo twisting by the head to bring the body to the ground.
  3. Driving shoulder, head or other body part into the knee joint.
  4. Pulling down by ears or ripping at ears. (assuming not being played at professional level. And some boy's will be boys provisions will apply.
  5. Suffocation by piling on.

Provisions that might apply to other “professional” sports.

  1. Punching or blunt trauma to the kidneys or liver.
  2. Creating a blunt trauma force to the head.
  3. Kicking of head, groin; essentially any intentional kicking to the body. And to many kicks to the body establishes intent.

Seeing any of these activities at the Professional level deems it to be unprofessional. And hence non deserving of wealth attained. So this activity will necessitate wealth redistribution of professional athletes.

Also no athlete that worked their way up to the top using these methods should be allowed to prosper from the sport. So yes we can say, “This person did not compete fairly when they were younger and did not earn their way to that salary. They should not be involved in any aspect related to that profession.”

That isn't a professional at anything; he is a blue collar meat packer at best.

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 30 2015 at:

And don't try and make an argument with regard to boxing being worse. One could say that those are blue collar people and very well know the risks that are directly inherent in that sport. So you can hit someone in boxing but you can't bite them would be the start of that list. Also intentional low blows to the groin should not allow a boxer to rise to multimillion dollar status. We should have never had to put up with all that aggrandizement of bad attitude on television. That should never be how one goes from rags to riches in the United States. Why not? The lowest among us could easily resort to that and be promoted to positions in society whereby their influence had highly negative outcomes for humanity as a whole. And it has happened to this country already hasn't it. I am not going to point my finger at the weak race responsible for it. One could make the argument 'when entertainment is really a satanic insurrection.'

No human being should ever be made to hear voices so that 'a' cretins child (children) can "ape" human cognition.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Every pack of Cigarette's should include the following warning 08 29 2015

Every pack of Cigarette's should include the following warning 08 29 2015

16% of all lung cancer deaths from tobacco are from second hand smoke.

Or 16% of those who die from  lung cancer death due to tobacco do not themselves smoke.

Do you really love your children?

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 29 2015 at:

When I see men trying to look cool smoking I think or mutter under my breath, "He can't think without a d1ck in his mouth."

Scott Walker ahs been Governor of Wisconsin for how many years?  And his wife works in something related to lung cancer?  Very odd that we don't see any new policies from him related to this?  It means:

1.  He doesn't listen to his wife.
2.  His wife just has that and it is just considered a job.  Why?  Because she can not influence him, in his position of power, to prevent further deaths.

One starts to wonder why should either of them be paid?  They do not appear to be acting in correspondence with the belief system required for their jobs.

I want to somehow blame this on England.  And also on Scott Walker having English descent.  But I can't quite make the premise connection.

When were mass production cigarette machines produced.
Who gets the money from them.
What did it have to do with WWII and WWI.
What are the EXACT birth defects from tobacco.
Was tobacco responsible for the fall of Egypt?
What forms of mental retardation does a baby exposed to tobacco have.
What is the mortality rate of a child of a tobacco user.
How likely is the son or daughter of a tobacco user likely to be an addict too.
What family surnames own the tobacco plantations.

It would seem to me with all the claimed research power in the United States that someone would think to research these things and document them.  They just view people as pieces of meat?  Because they are the mentally defective children of tobacco users themselves?  An intelligent human being would be a great threat to them the world over.

If we actually had responsible adult leadership in this country a warning like that would be on the label of every pack of cigarettes.  This is not a country of men today!

We also know that it causes arthritis. 

Could a tobacco company really pay for all the disability costs that it incurred?  Never.  It my world of personal accountability rather than limited liability it means that they have not earned any of their money.  And because they did not truly earn their money it should be taken from them and redistributed.

And the same goes to alcohol producers.

Do you see how one point of view is pro-humanity while the current entrenchment isn't?

And what happens when some old curmudgeon loses his wife due to cancer from tobacco?  He doesn't ever want to blame his own smoking for it!  He has to blame someone else in this world.  Who does he blame?  The person labeled schizophrenic in medical fraud.  But what is all this indicative of?  A spoiled belief system!  When one cannot attribute cause accurately to effect they have a spoiled belief system.  But not only is it closed minded; it is also mentally defective.  And mentally defective is the exact same thing as criminal minded.


Friday, August 28, 2015

The Institution of Psychiatry is the Dog Biting the Hand that Feeds it 08 28 2015

The Institution of Psychiatry is the Dog Biting the Hand that Feeds it  08 28 2015

Income leveling.

So the Founding Fathers wanted a Commonwealth.  Part of the framework of that is in the United States Constitution.  Senators were supposed to be profit centers.  A profit center was not just supposed to benefit one person it was supposed to provide for the needs of the people.  You know things that should be considered simple for a developed nation, clean water, clean air, solid roads.

Corporations initially led to American Prosperity until the Stock Market Fraud of 1929 and the World War that followed it.

The Corporation isn't that today it is more along the lines of a genocidal machine.

So how do you correct that to make it more in line with the United States Constitution.

First of all Limited Liability is not the standard of men; Personal Accountability for ones actions is.  Limited Liability is about as far away from the Standard of Men as you can get.

Second you need income leveling.  As profit centers are designed to meet the needs of the people.  This also defeats a subjective health care system.  Why?  Only the truly ultraistic human beings desire to heal the sick and become health care workers.  You can't have people in it for the money because it creates the worst form of genocidal corruption there is; medical fraud.  To disempower those who are a normal legitimate challenge to you.  Think of how many deaths there are directly related to pharmaceuticals every year?  Think of how the poor in the United States remain sick all their lives. 

In a Common Wealth you cannot have drunks creating mentally retarded children either.  The Puritans who founded this country knew that and only wanted people to drink in moderation so that they would know how to obey laws.  So somehow we are going to need to ADD something to our Constitution to bring that idea to bear.  The 18th Amendment was supposed to do that but FDR who looted the Stock Market in 1929, whose family money came from the opiate trade with China, who gave us the 21st Amendment which was illegal because it was not valid as to the intent and purpose of the United States Constitution nixed all that.  And gave us the Institution of psychiatry, essentially a Dog biting the hand that feeds it.

FDR could not have come into power if it were not for the Federal Reserve.  Back then the banks and stock market brokerage firms were one.  And short selling is the making a profit when stocks go down.  The short seller sells stock he doesn't not own at a high price and then when it goes down he buys it; and the difference between those two prices is his profit.  And that is indeed what fueled FDR's Presidential bid.  Also at that same time a man who was going to give us free health care named Huey Long (sp?)  was assassinated by a man of a German surname named Weiss.  This was in the south.  Where indeed the German influence was very brutal in beating down any slavery revolts.  Put this in the time frame of eugenics and World War II with Germany. 

But anyhow what I am getting at is all Corporate Profits should go directly into a commonwealth.

One of the benefits of this is that best technologies will always be used irregardless of patent ownership, this creates products that last rather than waste that piles up until it kills all of us.

So you get income leveling with that.  You also get new classes of people.

1.  Those who can learn and therefore work.
2.  Those who cannot learn to work and who do not have the proper personal hygiene to be around your food.
3.  And the hand that feeds the dog that the dog bit becomes the ruling class because it is indeed the source of mental cognition for those who claimed intellect, social skills, intellectual property that were all derived from that soul whose mind was interjected upon with cursing voices.  It has to be this way because you can't have a had running the show.  As much as a hag gleams a few things here and their from a demonized human mind she cannot be allowed to run the show and manage human lives.  Why not?  Because essentially she is a miserable and therefore unfair person.  And nor can a hags sons be allowed to manage; they do indeed suffer from the same cognition as the had does and it is a great source of personal shame for them.  The hag is only motivated to ruin the best works of men in civilization out of spite for what she is not and can never be.  And that ultimately leads to human extinction on the planet; but the hag doesn't care.  A hag is never made responsible for her own actions.  So indeed this is the doctrine of limited liability versus the standard of man; personal accountability.  With personal accountability the dog can not bite the hand that feeds it.

With psychiatry the hag wants you to believe that she and her brood actually thought of everything they stole from a human mind that they then sought to zombify with psychiatric drugs.

The metaphor in the Bible of everything comes from God is exactly the same as everything the mentally defective ever have in life including wealth comes directly from the minds that the hags cursed and demonized.

I can hear her crying now?

Thomas Paul Murphy
Copyright 2015
Originally published on 08 28 2015 at:

At a certain point in a hags second person cognition she realizes that she isn't in any way doing the thinking of the person whose mind she has chosen to be a part of against their will.  And she hates epiphany that more than anything on earth.  To know that there are people in this world who are much smarter and capable than her.  That don't need her around.  Hence she desires to put those better minds on drugs.  The hag has bitten the hand that feeds her.