Skip to content

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS – Ron Paul: Defeat of Freedom Act a Victory for Freedom – Sat. Night Live Skewers Obama Executive Orders – Lester Sumrall: Deliverance Testimony of Clarita Villanueava

November 24, 2014

Court Rules Violent Raid Against Homeschoolers Unconstitutional

 “I’m Just a Bill”: Sat. Night Live Skewers Obama Exec. Orders

Defeat of USA FREEDOM Act is a Victory for Freedom

Opening the Gates to World War III

Police In Ferguson Violate Court Order By Arresting Journalist

China’s Communist Party Reaffirms Marxism, Maoism, Atheism

Special Report: FBI Attacks Black Panther For NOT Being Racist!

Shocker: Up to 30,000 Lois Lerner Emails “Recovered”

Florida Man, 90, and Pastors Vow to Feed Poor Despite Ban

Buchanan: “Rogue” Obama’s Amnesty Is “Impeachable Act”

Guccifer: Pennsylvania City to be Nuked Next Year

——————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————

——————————————————————————

—————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————

US Never Intended to Defeat ISIS

 November 22, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – Land Destroyer Report)

November 20, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – A torrent of “foiled” terror plots have recently undulated headlines across the Western World. In Rochester New York, the FBI netted a man they claimed was plotting a shooting spree targeting US service members. In Australia, over 800 security agents swooped in on 15 ISIS suspects whom the Australian government claimed were plotting to randomly behead a member of the public. In the UK, 4 suspects allegedly linked to ISIS were arrested before carrying out a plot Scotland Yards claims was aimed at the Queen of England herself.

According to Western security agencies, in addition to ISIS’ regional campaign of brutality stretching from Lebanon, across Syria, and into Iraq, it is also working ceaselessly to carry out attacks against targets within the US, across Europe, and even in the Pacific.

US Policymakers Claim ISIS is Neither a Threat Nor Necessary to Defeat

Considering the hysteria generated by ISIS’ alleged global exploits, it should then be infinitely curious to readers who happen across US policymakers claiming that ISIS may pose a threat, but constitutes by far a lesser threat than Iran or Syria – the two principle nations leading the real fight against ISIS and its international sponsors. Furthermore, US policymakers claim there is no urgency to defeat ISIS, and it should instead be “contained.” Of course, this “containment” will be within states targeted by US-backed regime change – serving as a convenient agent of destruction, destabilization, and perhaps even regime change itself.

Image: A growing chorus among US policymakers and the Western media are claiming that ISIS poses a minimal threat even amid simaltaneous efforts to ratchet up public hysteria. The West also claims it is no longer necessary to “defeat” ISIS and it should instead be “contained” – inside nations targeted for regime change by the US, allowed to continue fighting America’s enemies by proxy … or in other words, ISIS should continue serving as the West’s private mercenary army. 


More troubling still, such policymakers hail from the US-based Brookings Institution, a prominent corporate-financier funded policy think-tank that has helped direct American foreign policy for decades. Brookings “Federal Executive Fellow” Robert Hein, a career US Navy officer, has presented analysis under an article titled, “The Big Questions on ISIS.” After diminishing the threat ISIS actually poses to the US and suggesting that the battle against the terrorist organization will be perpetual – without qualification he claims:

There are other hard questions for even bigger threats in the Middle East, such as how to ensure a nuclear free Iran and how to deal with the Assad regime in Syria. For ISIS, though, we may have it right.

It would have been interesting if Hein did qualify that final statement – explaining how an extraterritorial terrorist army armed and funded by some of the largest, most influential nation-states on Earth, currently ravaging three nations while allegedly plotting against the rest of the planet is somehow a lesser threat than Iran and Syria – both of which have not threatened the United States, and in fact, according to the Brookings Institution itself, have expressed a specific desire to avoid a confrontation with the West.

ISIS is a Lesser Threat – But a Lesser Threat to Whom? 

As bizarre as Hein’s analysis may seem, it strikes at a troubling but undeniable truth. If by “US” Hein meant the American people, America’s service members, and victims of various staged attacks aimed at justifying foreign wars, then ISIS is a threat. For the many millions living in the Middle East or North Africa, ISIS is undoubtedly a threat. For corporate-financiers on Wall Street, the many corrupt politicians in Wall Street’s pocket in Washington, or corporate-financier funded policymakers like Hein himself, ISIS is not only not a threat, but an indispensable asset.

As such, prioritizing ISIS’ destruction is not part of Wall Street or Washington’s agenda – rather – perpetuating this threat for as long as possible is. Hein is unabashed about this notion, claiming:

Should we defeat ISIS? Rather than defeat, containing their activities within failed or near-failing states is the best option for the foreseeable future. The United States has no desire to build nations, and without a stable Middle East, terror groups will continue to find safe haven; if not in western Iraq or Afghanistan, then in Yemen or Somalia. The Middle East and Africa have no shortage of ungoverned or poorly governed territories. The current strategy of prolonged engagement, development and training of local militias, logistic support and air strikes against real targets may be the best solution after all.

Hein’s strategy also works exceedingly well if ISIS was intentionally created as a proxy mercenary force, deployed by the West against its enemies. Such a notion, while dismissed out of hand by many as a “conspiracy theory” is not only plausible, but in fact a documented fact. The use of terrorists and sectarian extremists is a reoccurring feature in Western foreign policy – including its most notorious use in the mountains of Afghanistan in the 1980’s where the US created Al Qaeda to begin with. As recently as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh documented a conspiracy to once again use sectarian extremists aligned with Al Qaeda to target, undermine, and overthrow the government of Syria and wage a proxy war against Iran.

His report titled, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” stated (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda

It would be difficult to read Hersh’s 2007 report and attempt to deny that is not precisely what has unfolded, verbatim, beginning under the cover of the US-engineered “Arab Spring” up to and including the creation of “ISIS” and its growing fighting capabilities possible only through an immense, coordinated multinational effort.

The creation of ISIS and what appears to be concerted attempts to justify the slow burn prescribed to “stop it” are echoed in Hein’s proposal of “not stopping ISIS to stop it.”

Why Syria and Iran are Bigger “Threats” 

Ironically, it was an extensive policy paper produced by the very think tank Hein belongs to – Brookings Institution – that noted Iran (and therefore Syria) not only did not want war with the West, but was willing to weather endless covert provocations to avoid giving the West an excuse to wage hegemonic war against the nations. Within the pages of Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report published in 2009, it was stated:

With only one real exception, since the 1978 revolution, the Islamic Republic has never willingly provoked an American military response, although it certainly has taken actions that could have done so if Washington had been looking for a fight.

Thus it is not impossible that Tehran might take some action that would justify an American invasion and it is certainly the case that if Washington sought such a provocation, it could take actions that might make it more likely that Tehran would do so (although being too obvious about this could nullify the provocation). However, since it would be up to Iran to make the provocative move, which Iran has been wary of doing most times in the past, the United States would never know for sure when it would get the requisite Iranian provocation. In fact, it might never come at all.

The report would also state:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

The entire report is a documented conspiracy to justify and provoke war with a nation actively seeking to avoid war even at the cost of suffering innumerable humiliations, covert attacks, assassinations, decades-spanning sanctions, and other forms of terroristic provocations.  When Hein and other US policymakers refer to Iran and Syria as a “greater threat” than ISIS, they do not mean a threat to the national security of the American people or the territory of the United States itself – but rather a threat to their own hegemonic interests well beyond America’s borders and even interests that lie within the borders of Iran and Syria themselves.

Deciphering the deceptive, criminal language used by US policymakers illuminates the ongoing conspiracy in which ISIS plays a central part. ISIS is considered not a threat – not because the US can manage what they claim is an inherently “anti-Western” terrorist organization – but rather because the US itself created and controls it. Syria and Iran, while not actual threats to the West, are considered instead “threats” to US interests – more specifically – the interests of the corporate-financier elite on Wall Street and their lobbyists in Washington D.C.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

————————————————————————–

CNBC Gagged Melissa Francis’ Mathematical Analysis of Obamacare – Hagin Sr: 5 Rules for a Successful Prayer Life – Global House of Cards – Undercover Feds Surge in Numbers

November 17, 2014

School Teaches Kids “The Government Gives Us Rights”

Gallup: ObamaCare approval hits new low

A Global House Of Cards

Outrage builds over NY town’s plan to confiscate legally owned guns

Always watching: Undercover feds surge in numbers, infiltrate protests – report

THIRD Gruber Video Reveals How Administration Sought to Hide Obamacare Tax

“We Are Now In The Longest Continuous Period of War In American History”

India mass sterilisation: women were ‘forced’ into camps, say relatives

————————————————————–

—————————————————————

—————————————————————–

—————————————————————-

The United Nations Grabs for Internet Control (Video)

Written by 

“Big Brother is Watching You!”

Most of us are familiar with that chilling message of unceasing police state surveillance from George Orwell’s famous novel 1984. In the terrifying Orwellian state, no one can escape the all-seeing eye of Big Brother. Privacy does not exist, not even inside one’s own home — or even inside one’s own mind. All of one’s words, actions, facial expressions — even thoughts — are constantly monitored through electronic surveillance.

Revelations over the past several years regarding government “data mining,” and widespread warrantless searches of email, cell phones, social media, and Internet traffic by the NSA, FBI, and other federal agencies have shown that this Orwellian feature of totalitarian repression is already a very real and imminent danger to our liberty.

Now, imagine if we were to kick this abuse up a few notches by turning over control of the Internet to the United Nations. This is an outfit, remember, that has none of the checks and balances or mechanisms of accountability that are built into our U.S. Constitution. Many of the member nations of the UN are totalitarian regimes that already employ Orwellian surveillance, censorship, and repression to the limits of their technological capabilities.

The United Nations’ Grab for Internet Control

Yet, as insane as it may seem, the ruling powers here in the United States are preparing to turn over the Internet — which was invented and built here in the United States— to the UN.

The United Nations convened the 9th Internet Governance Forum on September 5, 2014, in Istanbul, Turkey. The Government of Turkey hosted the conference. The Turkish government, according to the liberal-left human rights organization Freedom House, is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists” and is infamous for censoring the Internet, as well as numerous other human rights violations.

Opportunely, the person who oversaw the Istanbul meeting was Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China. The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the Istanbul confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

Hongbo was in Istanbul, joined by fellow Communist Party comrades, who attended as “official participants” as well as members of the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. China’s representation included: Professor Liang Guo of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Lee Xiaodong, CEO of CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center, an agency of China’s Ministry of Information); and Chen Hongbing, China’s permanent representative to the UN office in Geneva, Switzerland. These are the folks that have helped build and maintain China’s shameful “Great Firewall,” that the Communist regime uses to spy on, censor, restrict, and police Internet usage.

Among those representing Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin at the IGF/Istanbul were Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s parliament, the State Duma. He is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio boldly admits (or perhaps boasts) that Schlegel was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth.

These are but a few of the repellent individuals who were in charge at the UN’s IGF/Istanbul.

In the past two decades the Internet has provided a platform that has allowed a flowering of independent, alternative media that now challenge the so-called mainstream media and provide a range of news and opinion not previously available. This is absolutely vital to freedom. Do we really want to see control of the Internet turned over to Wu Hongbo, Aleksandrovich Schlegel and others of their kind?

The Obama administration apparently thinks so, and has been giving its blessings to move in that direction. No surprise there. As we have reported, it is also being promoted by the usual cast of globalist, world-government-promoting organizations, led by the Council on Foreign Relations and its British sister organization, Chatham House.  No surprise there either. Former Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff is a member of the Global Commission on Internet Governance launched by Chatham House earlier this year.

The Obama administration has already begun the phased transfer of Internet control to a vague and uncertain governance structure that has been set up as an innocent-appearing transition platform that, ultimately, is set for transfer to UN control.

Do you value your freedom? Do you want censorship or Big Brother watching your every move?

Have you contacted your congressman and senators to let them know that you want them to oppose “global governance” of the Internet by the United Nations?

—————————————————————–

A Global House Of Cards

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Paul Craig Roberts
Prison Planet.com
November 15, 2014

As most Americans, if not the financial media, are aware, Quantitative Easing (a euphemism for printing money) has failed to bring back the US economy.

So why has Japan adopted the policy? Since the heavy duty money printing began in 2013, the Japanese yen has fallen 35% against the US dollar, a big cost for a country dependent on energy imports. Moreover, the Japanese economy has shown no growth in response to the QE stimulus to justify the rising price of imports.

Despite the economy’s lack of response to the stimulus, last month the Bank of Japan announced a 60% increase in quantitative easing–from 50 to 80 trillion yen annually. Albert Edwards, a strategist at Societe Generale, predicts that the Japanese printing press will drive the yen down from 115 yen to the dollar to 145.

This is a prediction, but why risk the reality? What does Japan have to gain from currency depreciation? What is the thinking behind the policy?

An easy explanation is that Japan is being ordered to destroy its currency in order to protect the over-printed US dollar. As a vassal state, Japan suffers under US political and financial hegemony and is powerless to resist Washington’s pressure.

The official explanation is that, like the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Japan professes to believe in the Phillips Curve, which associates economic growth with inflation. The supply-side economic policy implemented by the Reagan administration disproved the Phillips Curve belief that economic growth was inconsistent with a declining or a stable rate of inflation. However, establishment economists refuse to take note and continue with the dogmas with which they are comfortable.

In the US QE caused inflation in stock and bond prices as most of the liquidity provided went into financial markets instead of into consumers’ pockets. There is more consumer price inflation than the official inflation measures report, as the measures are designed to under-report inflation, thereby saving money on COLA adjustments, but the main effect of QE has been unrealistic stock and bond prices.

The Bank of Japan’s hopes are that raw material and energy import prices will rise as the exchange value of yen falls, and that these higher costs will be passed along in consumer prices, pushing up inflation and stimulating economic growth. Japan is betting its economy on a discredited theory.

The interesting question is why financial strategists expect the yen to collapse under QE, but did not expect the dollar to collapse under QE. Japan is the world’s third largest economy, and until about a decade ago was going gangbusters despite the yen rising in value. Why should QE affect the yen differently from the dollar?

Perhaps the answer lies in the very powerful alliance between the US government and the banking/financial sector and on the obligation that Washington imposes on its vassal states to support the dollar as world reserve currency. Japan lacks the capability to neutralize normal economic forces. Washington’s ability to rig markets has allowed Washington to keep its economic house of cards standing.

The Federal Reserve’s announcement that QE is terminated has improved the outlook for the US dollar. However, as Nomi Prins makes clear, QE has not ended, merely morphed.http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2014/11/10/qe-isnt-dying-its-morphing.html

The Fed’s bond purchases have left the big banks with $2.6 trillion in excess cash reserves on deposit with the Fed. The banks will now use this money to buy bonds in place of the Fed’s purchases. When this money runs out, the Fed will find a reason to restart QE. Moreover, the Fed has announced that it intends to reinvest the interest and returning principle from its $4.5 trillion in holdings of mortgage backed instruments and Treasuries to continue purchasing bonds. Possibly also, interest rate swaps can be manipulated to keep rates down. So, despite the announced end of QE, purchases will continue to support high bond prices, and the high bond prices will continue to encourage purchases of stocks, thus perpetuating the house of cards.

As Dave Kranzler and I (and no doubt others) have pointed out, a stable or rising dollar exchange value is the necessary foundation to the house of cards. Until three years ago, the dollar was losing ground rapidly with respect to gold. Since that time massive sales of uncovered shorts in the gold futures market have been used to drive down the gold price.

That gold and silver bullion prices are rigged is obvious. Demand is high, and supply is constrained; yet prices are falling. The US mint cannot keep up with the demand for silver eagles and has suspended sales. The Canadian mint is rationing the supply of silver maple leafs. Asian demand for gold, especially from China, is at record levels.

The third quarter, 2014, was the 15th consecutive quarter of net purchases of gold by central banks. Dave Kranzler reports that in the past eight months, 101 tonnes have been drained from GLD, an indication that there is a gold shortage for delivery to physical purchasers. The declining futures price, which is established in a paper market where contracts are settled in cash, not in gold, is inconsistent with rising demand and constrained supply and is a clear indication of price rigging by US authorities.

The extent of financial corruption involving collusion between the mega-banks and the financial authorities is unfathomable. The Western financial system is a house of cards resting on corruption.

The house of cards has stood longer than I thought possible. Can it stand forever or are there so many rotted joints that some simultaneous collection of failures overwhelms the manipulation and brings on a massive crash? Time will tell.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is now available.

Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used for Sterilization – Immumologist: 1st Year Vaccinations Only for “Training Parents” – Ron Paul: What the Mid-Term Elections Mean for Liberty – Border Patrol Thugs – ISIS is America’s Dream Army

November 11, 2014

Immunologist Admits Babies Only Vaccinated to ‘Train Parents’

Food Scientists: New GMO Potatoes ‘Extremely Worrisome’

Prediction: Economic Collapse, Civil Unrest in America by 2016

ISIS is America’s Dream Rebel Army

Obama’s Mental Health Screening in Schools Will ‘Disarm’ Gun Rights: “Databases to Follow Academic Career and Beyond”

What The Mid-Term Elections Really Mean For Peace and Liberty

Judge Approves Detroit’s “Grand Bargain” to End Bankruptcy

Video: Border Patrol Smashes Their Way Into Vehicle As Man Refuses To Comply With Internal Checkpoint

—————————————————————————-

GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

—————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————

——————————————————————————

Doctors: UN Vaccines in Kenya Used to Sterilize Women

Written by 

Less than a year after the United Nations unveiled a sweeping population-control plot aimed at reducing the number of people in Kenya, a supposed UN “vaccine program” is under fire by doctors and Catholic bishops for deliberately sterilizing millions of women. The explosive revelations were released after medical researchers and the Catholic Church found a sterilization agent in tetanus inoculations being foisted on Kenyan women by two UN agencies in cooperation with the national government. Incredibly, it is not the first time that international vaccine campaigns by the UN targeting Third World populations have been exposed as covert sterilization and eugenics programs. Some critics have even referred to the latest plot as race-based genocide.

In a statement released last week by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the medical organization said it had ordered laboratory tests of tetanus vaccines being administered in Kenya by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with [sterilizing agent Human Chorionic Gonadotropin] HCG just like the one used in the South American cases,” Dr. Wahome Ngare said in a statement for the Catholic doctors group that helped expose the scheme after the test results came back positive. “Further, none of the girls and women given the vaccination were informed of its contraceptive effect.”

According to the organization and other medical experts, the hCG found in the UN tetanus vaccines causes women’s bodies to develop an immune response to attack the hormone, which is essential to pregnancy. So, when a woman who has received the UN shots gets pregnant, her body fights the crucial hCG — resulting in the death of the unborn child in the womb. Eventually, the supposed inoculations — pushed on Kenyan women by the UN under the guise of “preventing neo-natal tetanus” — result in permanent sterility after multiple doses. All six UN vaccine samples collected from around Kenya tested positive for the hCG antigen at independent laboratories, researchers said.

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine,” explained Dr. Ngare, the spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, which supports and administers vaccinations — as long as they are not laced with sterilization agents. “This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”

On November 6, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement signed by all 27 bishops confirming the findings. “The Catholic Church struggled and acquired several vials of the vaccine, which we sent to four unrelated Government and private laboratories in Kenya and abroad,” the conference said. “We want to announce here, that all the tests showed that the vaccine used in Kenya in March and October 2014 was indeed laced with the Beta-HCG hormone.” The bishops raised concerns about the secretive UN eugenics program masquerading as a vaccination scheme as early as March of this year, but received no cooperation from authorities.

Based on the information and findings, the Catholic Bishops of Kenya said they were “shocked at the level of dishonesty and casual manner in which such a serious issue is being handled by the Government.” The bishops said a report by the Health Ministry claiming the vaccines were free of hCG was a “false” and “deliberate attempt to distort the truth and mislead 42 million Kenyans.” The Catholic leaders also noted that they were dismayed by attempts to “blackmail and intimidate” medical professionals who corroborated the facts about the dangerous vaccine.

“We commend and support all professionals who have stood by the truth,” the bishops added in the statement. “We shall not waver in calling upon all Kenyans to avoid the tetanus vaccination campaign laced with Beta-HCG, because we are convinced that it is indeed a disguised population control programme.” The Catholic Church in Kenya is not opposed to vaccines and, in fact, operates a massive public-health network across the country that provides clean vaccines to Kenyans who request them.

Dr. Ngare, a gynecologist and obstetrician, asked that Kenyans become educated and activated in response to the ongoing atrocities. “Though the Bishops are medically lay people, they have technical advisory teams of competent specialists from every discipline, including medicine,” he said in the statement. “These teams are both local and international as the Catholic Church is global. The Catholic based and run health institutions form the largest private health network in the country and have been rendering medical services to Kenyans for over 100 years! Thus, when the Bishops speak on topical issue like the tetanus vaccination, they are talking from a point of knowledge and authority. It would be foolhardy to disregard their advice.”

“We have performed our moral and civic duty of speaking the truth and alerting the government and the people of Kenya,” Dr. Ngare concluded. “It is now up to each individual Kenyan to make an informed choice.” Multiple critics said Americans must do more to rein in the dangerous and barbaric UN eugenics scheming as well. Other organizations also confirmed that the UN vaccines were indeed being used to sterilize Kenyan women without informing them.

The U.S.-based Center for Family and Human Rights, among other groups, blasted the UN program, calling for congressional investigations in the United States into the plot. It is especially relevant to Americans because U.S. taxpayers fund the UN agencies involved, and because “partners” of the organization include the federal government’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and population-control zealot Bill Gates, who openly talked about how vaccines could be used to reduce the population.

“The U.S. funds UNICEF and WHO programs with hundreds of millions of dollars annually. A congressional investigation should be launched to discover the origination of these manipulated vaccines,” explained Lisa Correnti at C-Fam, adding that any “tetanus” campaign featuring involvement of population-control agencies and “philanthropists” should always draw oversight. “Did USAIDs Population and Reproductive Health personnel have knowledge of the program? Unethical and deceptive practices such as this bring further distrust from the vulnerable women and children that desperately need holistic medical care.”

Unfortunately, the explosive findings about UN population-control schemes are not new. The UN’s self-styled global “health” agency, the WHO, discovered the sterilization-via-vaccine method more than two decades ago. Essentially, it added hCG to vaccines, which resulted in abortion and sterilization among vaccinated women. The UN body fully understood the consequences. Yet, shortly after the discovery, the WHO unleashed a massive sterilization and eugenics program concealed behind a “vaccination” scheme targeting women of child-bearing age in the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Mexico. Now, in line with UN demands for less Africans on the planet, Kenya has become the latest victim.

The news is also not surprising. As The New American reported in January, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which has previously been exposed helping the Communist Chinese regime perpetrate forced abortions as part of its savage “one-child policy,” had recently released a report calling for massive population reduction in Kenya. While the UN report never specifically called for a secret forced sterilization campaign outright, it did outline a wide array of population-control plots aimed at reducing the fertility of Kenyan women to 2.6 children per woman by 2030.

Separately, the Catholic bishops, citing previous UN “vaccine” schemes to sterilize women, warned about the tetanus-inoculation plot as early as March. “Information in the public domain indicates that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit has been used in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy,” Kenya’s bishops said in a statement at the time. “Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.”

“When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile,” the bishops continued. “In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method. The ongoing tetanus vaccination campaign bears the hallmarks of the programmes that were carried out in Philippines, Mexico and Nicaragua.” That statement was released before lab tests confirmed the plot.

Outside of Kenya, the establishment press has virtually ignored the Earth-shattering accusations leveled at the UN. On the other hand, the news sent shockwaves through the alternative media after a report in LifeSiteNews.com highlighted the findings. UNICEF and WHO in Kenya were not immediately available for comment.

The amount of suffering and horror unleashed by the UN in Kenya is impossible to calculate. Millions of families will be potentially affected for generations. Americans must demand that Congress stop funding the UN and especially its coercive population-reduction apparatus. Making the American people unwitting accomplices in the crimes of eugenics and mass involuntary sterilization campaigns is unconstitutional, horrifying, and deeply immoral.

——————————————————————————

The Devil’s Bargain: The Illusion of a Trouble-Free Existence in the American Police State

John W. Whitehead
Rutherford Institute
November 11, 2014

Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.
—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist

It’s no coincidence that during the same week in which the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Yates v. United States, a case in which a Florida fisherman is being threatened with 20 years’ jail time for throwing fish that were too small back into the water, Florida police arrested a 90-year-old man twice for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public.

Both cases fall under the umbrella of overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal and everyone becomes a lawbreaker. As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

John Yates, a commercial fisherman, was written up in 2007 by a state fish and wildlife officer who noticed that among Yates’ haul of red grouper, 72 were apparently under the 20-inch minimum legal minimum. Yates, ordered to bring the fish to shore as evidence of his violation of the federal statute on undersized catches, returned to shore with only 69 grouper in the crate designated for evidence. A crew member later confessed that, on orders from Yates, the crew had thrown the undersized grouper overboard and replaced them with larger fish. Unfortunately, they were three fish short. Sensing a bait-and-switch, prosecutors refused to let Yates off the hook quite so easily. Unfortunately, in prosecuting him for the undersized fish under a law aimed at financial crimes, government officials opened up a can of worms.

Arnold Abbott, 90 years old and the founder of a nonprofit that feeds the homeless, is facing a fine of $1000 and up to four months in jail for violating a city ordinance that makes it a crime to feed the homeless in public. Under the city’s ordinance, clearly aimed at discouraging the feeding of the homeless in public, organizations seeking to do so must provide portable toilets, be 500 feet away from each other, 500 feet from residential properties, and are limited to having only one group carry out such a function per city block.  Abbott has been feeding the homeless on a public beach in Ft. Lauderdale every Wednesday evening for the past 23 years. On November 2, 2014, moments after handing out his third meal of the day, police reportedly approached the nonagenarian and ordered him to “‘drop that plate right now,’ as if I were carrying a weapon,” recalls Abbott. Abbott was arrested and fined. Three days later, Abbott was at it again, and arrested again.

That both of these incidents occurred in Florida is no coincidence. Remember, this is the state that arrested Nicole Gainey for letting her 7-year-old son walk to the park alone, even though it was just a few blocks from their house. If convicted, Gainey could have been made to serve up to five years in jail.

This is also the state that a few years back authorized police raids on barber shops in minority communities, resulting in barbers being handcuffed in front of customers, and their shops searched without warrants. All of this was purportedly done in an effort to make sure that the barbers’ licensing paperwork was up to snuff.

As if criminalizing fishing, charity, parenting decisions, and haircuts wasn’t bad enough, you could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.

Despite its pristine beaches and balmy temperatures, Florida is no less immune to the problems plaguing the rest of the nation in terms of overcriminalization, incarceration rates, bureaucracy, corruption, and police misconduct. In fact, the Sunshine State has become a poster child for how a seemingly idyllic place can be transformed into a police state with very little effort. As such, it is representative of what is happening in every state across the nation, where a steady diet of bread and circuses has given rise to an oblivious, inactive citizenry content to be ruled over by an inflexible and highly bureaucratic regime.

This transformation of the United States from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation illustrates perfectly what songwriter Joni Mitchell was referring to when she wrote:

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Only in our case, sold on the idea that safety, security and material comforts are preferable to freedom, we’ve allowed the government to pave over the Constitution in order to erect a concentration camp. The problem with these devil’s bargains, however, is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

We’ve bartered away our right to self-governance, self-defense, privacy, autonomy and that most important right of all—the right to tell the government to “leave me the hell alone.” In exchange for the promise of safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, lower taxes, lower crime rates, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, overcriminalization and government corruption.

In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives. So far, we’re up to 4500 criminal laws and 300,000 criminal regulations that result in average Americans unknowingly engaging in criminal acts at least three times a day. For instance, the family of an 11-year-old girl was issued a $535 fine for violating the Federal Migratory Bird Act after the young girl rescued a baby woodpecker from predatory cats.

We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with more than 2.3 million people locked up, many of them doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates, who are forced to provide corporations with cheap labor. A special report by CNBC breaks down the national numbers:

One out of 100 American adults is behind bars — while a stunning one out of 32 is on probation, parole or in prison. This reliance on mass incarceration has created a thriving prison economy. The states and the federal government spend about $74 billion a year on corrections, and nearly 800,000 people work in the industry.

We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”

Justice Department figures indicate that as much as $4.3 billion was seized in asset forfeiture cases in 2012, with the profits split between federal agencies and local police. According to the Washington Post, these funds have been used to buy guns, armored cars, electronic surveillance gear, “luxury vehicles, travel and a clown named Sparkles.” Police seminars advise officers to use their “department wish list when deciding which assets to seize” and, in particular, go after flat screen TVs, cash and nice cars. In Florida, where police are no strangers to asset forfeiture, Florida police have been carrying out “reverse” sting operations, where they pose as drug dealers to lure buyers with promises of cheap cocaine, then bust them, and seize their cash and cars. Over the course of a year, police in one small Florida town seized close to $6 million using these entrapment schemes.

We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments. Despite widespread public opposition, corruption and systemic malfunctions, these cameras—used in 24 states and Washington, DC—are particularly popular with municipalities, which look to them as an easy means of extra cash. One small Florida town, population 8,000, generates a million dollars a year in fines from these cameras. Building on the profit-incentive schemes, the cameras’ manufacturers are also pushing speed cameras and school bus cameras, both of which result in heft fines for violators who speed or try to go around school buses.

This is just a small sampling of the many ways in which the American people continue to get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.

Yet when all is said and done, who is really to blame when the wool gets pulled over your eyes: you, for believing the con man, or the con man for being true to his nature?

It’s time for a bracing dose of reality, America. Wake up and take a good, hard look around you, and ask yourself if the gussied-up version of America being sold to you—crime free, worry free and devoid of responsibility—is really worth the ticket price: nothing less than your freedoms.

————————————————————————–

Prof. Lopez: Truth About Being a Child of Homosexual Couples – Mises Inst. Sanchez: How Inflation is a Stealth Tax – Weather Channel Founder: Man-Made Global Warming is Baloney – Gay Man Finds Freedom in Jesus Christ

November 3, 2014

Samsung ‘Smart TV’ Records “Personal” Conversations & Sends Them to Third Parties

Ray McGovern, CIA Analyst for 27 Years, is Arrested and Roughed Up in NYC

Tax Foundation and Cato Agree: Lower Taxes Make for Stronger States

CDC to Purchase 1.4 Million Surgical Gowns As Ebola Concerns Grow

 Rand Paul to Obama: “Prioritize” Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership

Does This Look Like A Housing Recovery To You?

The Ebola Story Doesn’t Smell Right

Weather Channel Founder: Man-Made Global Warming is ‘Baloney’

Armored vehicle, 24 cops show up to collect $80,000 from elderly man

————————————————————————–

————————————————————————–

Professor Lopez speaks some very significant truths in this interview.  While anyone can enter into a legal contract with another, I am not supportive of civil unions inasmuch as they may grant similar rights as marriage, backed by government and the courts.  Lopez, however, shines a bright light on areas that have been clouded by deception and propaganda.

—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————

The Vicious Attacks on Children of Same-sex Couples

Written by 

As the child of a same-sex couple, she’s different. And being different has caused her to be targeted for destruction, threatened and abused, libeled and lied about. She writes under the pseudonym Rivka Edelman, and you will soon see why she’s afraid to use her real name.

Oh, she is being targeted for speaking out against same-sex parenting.

And her tormentors are homosexuality activists.

“The only good anti-LGBT bigot is a dead anti-LGBT bigot,” reads a threatening tweet to Ryan T. Anderson, an editor whose sin was deciding to publish a piece by Edelman in Public Discourse. It was sent by Scott “Rose” Rosenzweig, a homosexuality activist, who also sent another tweet, stating “Her lies-choked claim against gay parents is going to be adjusted alright.” The “her,” of course, is Edelman, who raised homosexuality activists’ ire to a boiling point by penning the above-referenced piece, titled “Ruthless Misogyny: Janna Darnelle’s Story and Extreme LGBT Activism.” Darnelle, by the way, also spoke out against same-sex parenting. She also had to write under a pseudonym. She also has been targeted for destruction. More on that later.

Edelman’s life has changed completely since her essay was published October 2. She wrote about her ordeal recently at American Thinker:

[T]here have been hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts calling me a liar or trying to shame, discredit, intimidate, and threaten me. Read this for details. People I do not know have gone directly after my family and my job. They have posted information, mis-information, accusations, and threats against me. A vicious abusive “activist” well-known for his unhinged misogynistic cyber-stalking and violent threats, Scott Rose, sent blast e-mails to the university where I teach, describing himself as a “human right activist and an investigative journalist.”

This is slightly reminiscent of the Astroturf campaign against Rush Limbaugh, in which a cabal of left-wing activists has targeted the talk-radio giant’s sponsors with automated mass e-mails. One difference is that Edelman’s tormentors are greater in number; another is that as an academic, feminist, and children’s rights activist, Edelman is likely no rock-ribbed conservative. But this hasn’t saved her from people who tolerate no dissent.

Edelman first got on homosexuality activists’ radar screen by filing an amicus curiae brief in August in the Texas faux marriage case, where she was joined by three other adult children of same-sex couples in contesting the claim that children raised by such couples have no disadvantages. But the campaign against her really entered no-holds-barred mode after her Public Discourse essay. At a blog named “Good As You,” proprietor Jeremy Hooper, Rosenzweig, and other homosexuality activists have advanced a conspiracy against Edelman, sharing information about her in an effort to destroy her reputation. As Edelman wrote, Hooper “uses his blog as a platform to harass, bully, and silence with impunity. Hooper published comments from his readers and thereby shared our home address and my daughter’s private information. They contacted other family members looking for information.” The cabal also discussed contacting Edelman’s ex-husband, as the comment shown below evidences.

comment

The homosexuality activists even posted on Craigslist looking for information on Edelman.

And they did in fact contact her ex-husband in the apparent hope that he’d lie about her. Rosenzweig wrote to him, “We can conclude with reasonable certainty that significant details of her young life were left out of her brief[.]” Another activist, going by the handle “Straight Grandmother,” told Edelman’s husband that she wanted to know “how much of their [the amicus-brief filers] personal narrative is made up just to further their Hate Agenda. The only way we have to discern the truth is to delve into their personal narrative.”

As for threats and vicious lies posted at Hooper’s website, he makes the fanciful claim that he has no control over the comments (all blog owners do). At least one of these messages even threatened Edelman with career destruction. Written by Rosenzweig, it read in part:

[M]y message to the gay-bashing bigot is YOU’LL NEVER EAT LUNCH IN THIS TOWN AGAIN.

… And now that editors and English Department Chairs know that [Rivka Edelman] is a vicious anti-LGBT bigot, they have more information for their publishing and hiring decisions.

P.S. to Rivka – Rots a Ruck getting your work published in any non-religious, non-bigot publication, now that the world knows that [Rivka] is a malicious, lying, anti-LGBT bigot.

This is no idle threat. Mozilla Corporation co-founder Brendan Eich was forced to resign from his position as company CEO in April of this year — after just a little more than a week on the job — merely for donating $1,000 to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and woman.

Edelman sums up this harassment with a damning indictment of the homosexuality milieu, writing, “I can say I recognize these abusive behaviors as part of the culture I grew up in. Notice the lack of accountability, the deflections.”

And notice the other victims. This brings us to Janna Darnelle’s story, which is a little different. She was married to a man who one day announced he had same-sex attraction, divorced her, and then, as some observers would put it, ran off with their children. She wrote in Public Discourse in September that her divorce went to trial, where her husband’s playing of the homosexuality card worked wonders with the judge; in fact, after giving her husband most everything he wanted, the judge told him, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”

Darnelle then wrote about how, with her ex-husband’s faux marriage being one of the first in her state, the media published pictures of her children:

Commenters exclaimed at how beautiful this gay family was and congratulated my ex-husband and his new partner on the family that they “created.” But there is a significant person missing from those pictures: the mother and abandoned wife. That “gay family” could not exist without me.

There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally.

Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature. Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness. They represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds.

This didn’t sit well with the homosexuality activists. The usual suspects reared their heads, with Jeremy Hooper attacking Darnelle at his blog, where, wrote Crisis’ Austin Ruse last month, “the real action was in the comment section. In fact, among the first commenters was the pseudonymous Janna’s husband who promptly told everyone her full name, all the better to stalk her with.” And one man who certainly could stalk the stalk has a name — and a tactic — you’ll now recognize. Ruse reported that they “hung poor Janna from a viral meat hook. One particularly creepy guy named Scott Rose [Rosenzweig] even went onto her company’s Facebook page and complained about her.” Rosenzweig wrote (redacted version, as presented by Ruse):

This is a COMPLAINT against […], an executive assistant in […]. Under the nom de plume of “Janna Darnelle,” […] has published a horrifying, defamatory anti-gay screed on the website “Public Discourse.” The first problem would be that she is creating a climate of hostility for eventual gay elders and/or their visiting friends and relatives. The second problem would be that in the screed, she comes off as being unhinged. Her public expressions of gay-bashing bigotry are reflecting very poorly on LLC.

In other words, as bakers, a shirt printer, and other businessmen have learned, it’s quickly becoming the case that no one may buy or sell — or make a living — unless he accepts the mark of the homosexuality lobby beast.

No one knows this better than Robert Oscar Lopez, an English professor at California State University, Northridge (CSUN). Raised by two lesbians, Lopez came out a few years ago as an opponent of giving children to same-sex couples. And likening the practice to trading flesh, to slavery, and owing to his academic credentials and intrepid activism, he quickly became the man homosexuality activists love to hate.

After writing a 2012 piece for Public Discourse titled “Growing Up with Two Moms,” in which Lopez bared his soul and discussed the difficulties his upbringing wrought, he was put through the wringer. Rosenzweig contacted CSUN, accusing the professor of misrepresenting a Mark Regnerus study and publishing “a gay-bashing essay.” Recounting this last month, Lopez wrote that this distorted his essay “from personal reminiscence to ‘gay-bashing,’ an inflammatory charge on a college campus,” and then said that it was just the first salvo “in a relentless twenty-six months of harassment.” Outlining this, Lopez wrote:

Soon I was getting hit by writers all across the web. A piece on August 9, 2012, in Frontiers LA affixed my photograph and began with the line, “Perhaps you know Cal State Northridge bisexual professor Robert Oscar Lopez….

… On August 14, 2012, the campaign reached my workplace in a whole new way when my dean informed me that I would have to turn over all emails from January 2009 onward that had anything to do with Mark Regnerus and his research team, Witherspoon Institute, Bradley Foundation, NOM, U.S. elected officials, the Romney campaign, Republican National Committee, and University of Texas officials.

A team of IT workers and student employees were allowed to access emails and turn them over to my off-campus accusers.

For a year, the provost’s office, dean’s office, and president’s office at Northridge were barraged with angry emails denouncing me and demanding that the university take action.

robert oscar lopez glaad

Friends of a bisexual female student went so far as to file a complaint against Lopez with CSUN’s Equity and Diversity Office, claiming he was a “homophobe.” “They even alleged I had erections while teaching,” he writes. A CSUN officer tried to block him from accessing grant money he received from outside donors, he was disinvited from university speaking engagements for supposedly being a purveyor of hate speech, GLAAD targeted him with their “Commentator Accountability Project,” and the Human Rights Campaign besmirched him as an “exporter of hate” and posted what is essentially a “mug shot” of Lopez (shown).

All this is accompanied by other false accusations and, true to form, the publishing of Lopez’ work location, email, and phone number.

Much as with Edelman’s story, Lopez’ status as “a bisexual [non-practicing] Latino intellectual, raised by a lesbian, who experienced poverty in the Bronx as a young adult,” as he put it, meant nothing except that the attacks would be all the more vicious. As with the Soviets who feared defectors more than anyone else — as with leftists today who seek to destroy conservative blacks and women — no critic is less tolerated than one who dares leave the plantation. For being wedded to the homosexuality lobby is a marriage certainly not gay. And it’s till death do you part.

——————————————————————————–

Does the Quran Teach Hatred Against Christians and Jews? – Rockefeller Foundation Document Envisions Pandemic Police State – Steve Quayle: Ebola Bioweapon – CDC: Ebola Can Float Through the Air – Bengazi Whistleblower Tosh Plumlee

October 27, 2014

 Top Official Contradicts Obama; You Can Catch Ebola From Bus Sweat

“They Just Want The Money!” The IRS Can Now Seize Accounts On Suspicion Alone

Why Should the Law-abiding Care About Electronic Surveillance?

Florida Joins NJ and NY with Required Ebola Quarantines

Voting Machine Changes Votes in Cook County Election

CDC Finally Admits that Ebola Can Float through the Air … 3 Feet

Nelson Bunker Hunt, R.I.P.: The Myth of the Hunt Brothers’ “Scheme to Corner the Silver Market”

Doctor: Feds “Disappearing” Suspected Ebola Patients Across U.S.

Chechen President Says IS Boss Works for CIA

New U.S. operation flies thousands of American soldiers and civilians to Liberia to ‘fight Ebola outbreak’

——————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————

———————————————————————————

——————————————————————————-

2010 Rockefeller Foundation Document Envisions Pandemic Police State Scenario

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

“Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified”

Mikael Thalen
Prison Planet.com
October 27, 2014

A May 2010 scenario planning report produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and the Global Business Network envisions the likely creation of a technological police state in response to a deadly worldwide pandemic.

2010 Rockefeller Foundation Document Envisions Pandemic Police State Scenario lockstep

The document, entitled Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, attempts to wargame different government responses to several potential disasters, while painting the solution as global governance. Page 18 of the document breaks down a fabricated scenario in which the United States refuses to protect its borders and restrict air travel following the outbreak of a new deadly virus.

“In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly,” the scenario states. “Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults.”

Drawing eerily similar circumstances with the current Ebola outbreak, the scenario goes on to detail a botched response by the United States government as large populations throughout Africa are decimated.

“The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge,” the document reads. “The United States’s initial policy of ‘strongly discouraging’ citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders.”

Interestingly, the scenario’s author uses the Chinese Communist government as the entity which exhibits the best response, specifically mentioning mandatory quarantines and border protection.

However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post- pandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets.

Necessary and questionable tactics used to stem the tide of the virus remain long after the pandemic, allowing governments to impose “authoritarian” controls under the guise of protecting the public.

“Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.”

“At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit.”

The pandemic was also used to implement long-sought technologies, most notably biometric IDs for citizens.

In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.

Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high- emitting vehicles.

While fictional, the attempt to predict and plan for major disasters by think tanks and governments alike could very well provide insight into decisions being made currently. Although certain medical protocols are needed, the likelihood for subtle power grabs are dangerous and present.

In regards to the current Ebola crisis, an executive order update by President Obama has caused concern among civil liberties advocates, especially given the President’s otherwise lackluster response.

The executive order, known as the Revised List of Quarantinable Communicable Diseases, allows President Obama to apprehend and detain any American who simply shows signs of any “respiratory illness.”

The dictate becomes even more troublesome in light of the recent admission by Missouri doctor James Lawrenzi, who exclusively told the Alex Jones Show last week that potential-Ebola patients are being “disappeared” from hospitals without notice.

“These patients are disappearing, they’re doing something with the patients and God knows where they’re going,” said the doctor.

Whether the Obama administration’s dismal response is pure ignorance or an attempt to get the public to demand authoritarian control remains to be seen.

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development (Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network

—————————————————————————-

Call the Suicide Prevention Hotline — Get Killed by a SWAT Team

  • Print The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

William Norman Grigg
Lew Rockwell Blog
October 23, 2014

They kill not because they want to, but because they think it’s right to in some cases;
Have mercy on them and someday they may Have mercy on you — the Mercy Killers…
.

— Theme to the imaginary TV show “The Mercy Killers,” as presented in a 1978 Saturday Night Live sketch.

A still-unidentified 35-year-old man from Roy, Utah called a suicide prevention hotline at 4:00 a.m. Tuesday morning (October 21). A SWAT team showed up and, according to Roy PD spokesman Matt Gwynn, “negotiated” with the “subject” for more than six hours.

“At some point those negotiations failed and unfortunately the SWAT team was involved in a shooting, and the subject is now deceased,” Gwynn told a reporter for the Ogden Standard-Examiner, taking refuge in the familiar, officially-prescribed impersonal language used to describe police shootings.

Eyewitness Ron Smith told the Standard-Examiner that he heard “one shot, and then a pause, and then four or five shots after that, that were very rapid.”

Although he provided no further details from the incident — not even the name of the victim — Gwynn quickly asserted the reasonableness of the lethal actions by his fellow officers.

“officers are authorized to stop a threat whenever their life is threatened, or the life of another is threatened,” recited Gwynn. “And at that point if the officer feels he is justified, he may act to stop that threat.” Note, once again, how Gwynn scrupulously avoids the use of descriptive language acknowledging that one of his comrades just killed another human being.

Police are trained and encouraged to perceive the public at large to be a “threat” to “officer safety”; one illustration of this is the fact that as Gwynn spoke to the reporter in an otherwise placid neighborhood he was wearing body armor beneath his polo shirt. In a situation involving a potentially suicidal person, the formula regurgitated by Detective Gwynn would justify pre-emptive execution of the “subject,” who is, after all, threatening to kill someone.

“We encourage those having suicidal thoughts or tendencies to contact a physician or expert that can talk them through it,” advised Gwynn. “In this particular case he attempted to do that — it’s unfortunate and sad that it failed.”

Gwynn appeared utterly insensible of how his advice would appear to anybody paying attention: Suicidally depressed people who call for help will invariably attract the attention of state functionaries endowed with the power of discretionary killing.

————————————————————————————

Ebola: Obama CDC SWAT Teams – Obama Could Reaffirm Bush Era Acceptance of Torture – Dr. Stanley Monteith: The Fluoride Deception – WMD in Iraq Were Linked to the West – Bloody History of Communism – Cat Puts on a Hat

October 20, 2014

Obama Could Reaffirm a Bush-Era Reading of a Treaty on Torture

Obama announces CDC SWAT teams to round up infected people

Is the oil price fall more than just a coincidence?

Ebola: Liberia deaths ‘far higher than reported’ as officials downplay epidemic

Top Scientist: This Version Of Ebola Looks Like ‘A Very Different Bug’

DVD Review: “Blue” Blows the Horn on Environmental Movement

Texas lawmakers to introduce Ebola travel ban legislation

Matt Drudge Tweets Dire Warning: “Self-Quarantine”

Nurses Union: Duncan Not Put In Isolation, Waste Piled Nearly Up to Ceiling

—————————————————————————

Comment: Many voices are crying out for federal action to stop all flights from Ebola struck nations and more centralized efforts by Washington to stop Ebola’s spread here in the states. We should use caution, because greater centralized power is exactly what the socialists and globalists want us to accept, thus breaking down further the balance of power established by federalism.  Our government is one of shared powers and the states and the people  actually have greater powers than Washington DC.  The Constitution enumerates certain delegated powers to the united states, and these powers are limited and defined.  As the 10th Amendment clearly states, all other powers are left for the states and the people.  It is up to the states to work together to implement a cohesive plan to stop the outbreak, instead of depending on an inefficient, overreaching federal government.  We should not be quick to give in to fear, allowing another power-grab by insiders bent on enslaving humanity.   John K Rooney

—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————-

—————————————————————————

—————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————–

Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Were Not Those Used to Justify Invasion

Written by 

 Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Were Not Those Used to Justify Invasion

U.S. troops and U.S.-trained Iraqi forces uncovered about 5,000 chemical weapons in Iraq between 2004 and 2011 and soldiers were injured by these weapons in six instances. However, the weapons had not been manufactured during an active, ongoing chemical weapons program, which the Bush administration cited as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Details of the discovery of these weapons were published by the New York Times on October 14, in a lengthy, 9,000-word report written by former Marine Corps officer and veteran journalist C.J. Chivers.

Despite injuries to our troops, the U.S. government withheld information about the discovery of the weapons even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from military doctors.

“‘Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” retired Army Major Jarrod Lampier told the Times. Lampier was on site when the largest chemical weapons dump, containing 2,400 warheads, was found.

The Times report offered reasons why the news of the discovery of the weapons and the injuries they inflicted on our soldiers was withheld from the public:

Participants in the chemical weapons discoveries said the United States suppressed knowledge of finds for multiple reasons, including that the government bristled at further acknowledgment it had been wrong. “They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”

Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.

All the weapons found in Iraq were produced during a crash program started in the 1980s for use against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War from September 1980 to August 1988. Since the overthrow of the Shah in the 1979 Iranian revolution, and the subsequent hostage crisis that began with the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries on November 4, 1979 — after which 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days — the United States and the revolutionary Iranian government had regarded each other as fierce adversaries.

With this history, the United States covertly aided Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. A report in the New York Times on August 18, 2002 referenced then-current statements made by President George W. Bush and his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, that Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran was justification for “regime change” in Iraq. The article, headlined “Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,” pointed to the blatant hypocrisy of the Bush administration’s position, given U.S. complicity in Iraq’s earlier chemical weapons program.

When the Times contacted Frank Carlucci, the Reagan administration defense secretary from 1987-89, he stated: “I did agree that Iraq should not lose the war, but I certainly had no foreknowledge of their use of chemical weapons.”

Col. Walter Lang, retired, the senior defense intelligence officer at the time of the Iraq-Iran War, told the Times he would not discuss classified information, but added that both DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and CIA officials “were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose” to Iran.

“The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern,” Land said. He added that Reagan’s aides were more concerned that Iran not break through to the Fao Peninsula and spread the Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Colonel Lang said that the DIA “would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival.”

The chemical weapons discovered during the post-Saddam U.S. occupation of Iraq, according to what was revealed in this latest exposé, were basically surplus war materiel left over from Iraq’s war with Iran. The Times report noted:

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

Despite the fact there is no evidence that Saddam’s government manufactured chemical weapons after 1991, President Bush, on September 12, 2002, while attempting to build a case for the 2003 Iraq invasion, said: “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” (Unlike the chemical weapons found by U.S. troops, no biological weapons at all were found.)

Bush continued, “The regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.”

Had the discovery of the chemical weapons been useful to the Bush administration when they were first uncovered, there is little doubt that their discovery would have been widely publicized by the White House to justify the 2003 invasion. Instead, their discovery was kept a secret, even when hiding their existence posed a serious threat to our troops in Iraq.  Far from justifying the invasion of Iraq, the age and obsolescence of the weapons only confirmed that the invasion had been launched under false pretenses.

In our July 6, 2008 article, “Did We Get Lied Into War?” we described the findings of a 170-page report compiled by the Senate Intelligence Committee, concluding five years of investigations. The committee focused especially on five key speeches made by administration officials concerning “the threats posed by Iraq, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi ties to terrorist groups, and possible consequences of a US invasion of Iraq.” It selected statements from those five speeches pertaining to eight categories: nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, methods of delivery, links to terrorism, regime intent, and assessments about the postwar situation in Iraq.

We will look at what the Senate report said about chemical weapons. It first cited an excerpt from a Bush speech delivered on September 12, 2002:

United Nations’ inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

The Senate report offered this reaction to the Bush assertion:

The committee’s conclusions initially related that statements by the administration “regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.” But then it added: “Statements … regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities  did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties  as to whether such production was ongoing.”[Italics in original.]

The committee’s “postwar findings” once more contradict prewar administration allegations, finding: “The Iraq Survey Group conducted its review of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and found that there ‘were no caches of CW munitions.’”

But Saddam’s antique store of chemical weapons, some of which were developed with the help of Western governments to use against Iran, have not outlived their usefulness. The Times report notes:

Many chemical weapons incidents clustered around the ruins of the Muthanna State Establishment, the center of Iraqi chemical agent production in the 1980s.

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State [ISIS], the world’s most radical and violent jihadist group.

It would not be surprising if our government soon announced that we must send troops to Iraq to prevent ISIS from accumulating some of those same second-hand chemical weapons that were used to justify the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Photo: AP Images 

—————————————————————————-

Whistleblower: German Journalist Fed Up with CIA Control of News – Ebola Spreading in the US – Windsurfing in 62 MPH Wind – Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High – DUI Checkpoint Refusal

October 13, 2014

Good War and Bad Peace: Perpetual War and the Erosion of Liberty

FBI Chief: Citizens Should Be ‘Deeply Skeptical’ of Government

Second US Ebola victim infected despite protective suit

Hong Kong: Congressional Leaders Urge Obama to Support Freedom

‘Core secrets’ exposed: NSA used undercover agents in foreign companies

Antarctic Sea Ice at Record High, but Global-warming Doomsayers Unimpressed

Officials say ISIS, Ebola are coming across southern border

Asset seizures fuel police spending

 —————————————————————————–

—————————————————————————-

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————-

—————————————————————————–

The Pillars of American Thinking – The “Father of the Constitution” and the “Father of Free Market Capitalism” – Both Warned Against Warmongers … 200 Hundred Years Ago

Warmongers Are Anti-American

Adam Smith – the father of free market capitalism – wrote a scathing critique on warmongers in the Wealth of Nations 235 years ago:

In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.

Numerous economists have documented that war is horrible for the economy.

The Father of the Constitution – James Madison – wrote:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Many other Founding Fathers warned against warmongering, as well:

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

George Washington’s farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

John Adams followed George Washington’s ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France.

***

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” …

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”

Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson also said that – if we do need to fight a war for defensive purposes – it should be paid for now, and not placed on the shoulders of future generations.

Postscript: While many civilians believe the myth that conservatives are pro-war, the truth is that many of the most highly-decorated military men in history – including conservatives – became opposed to war after seeing what really goes on. See this, this and this.

Indeed, I have spoken with some very high-level former military and intelligence officers. They are true patriots, who dedicated their life to protecting our country. They are also very passionate about not starting unnecessary wars, because they reduce America’s national security and cause many more problems than they could possibly solve.

Those who call themselves “conservative” – but advocate military adventurism – are not really conservative at all.

 —————————————————————————————

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers