Categories » ‘Big Pharma’
September 21st, 2016 by olddog
How to Defeat Tyranny: Active Disobedience
We Are All Voluntary Slaves: A Lesson on How to Defeat Tyranny
by John-Henry Hill, M.D.
“If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, ‘America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership.’” – Will Rogers (1879-1935) American Humorist, Actor and Author
“Necessity and expediency are NOT legitimate excuses for violating the Constitution you swore to uphold and protect – even during a ‘crisis’”. – Alexander Hamilton (1st Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington)
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” —John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Economist and Political Philosopher, [On Liberty (1859) 1977:220]
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” – Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” – Frederick Douglass
“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” Henry L. Mencken (1880-1956), Journalist and Author
We are reluctant to admit that we owe our liberties to men of a type that today we HATE and FEAR — unruly men, disturbers of the peace, men who resent and denounce what Whitman called ‘the insolence of elected persons’ – in word, free men…” Gerald W. Johnson (1890-1980), American Journalist and Author
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” — Thomas Jefferson
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” The more things change, the more they stay the same.
We have all become “Voluntary Slaves” to systems of government and social institutions we dislike, to greater or lesser degrees. To ancient Romans the word “system” referred to the city sewers, so we today live in a government sewer. Not that we knowingly and willingly volunteered to do so; we merely acquiesce – we “go along”. It is the world into which we were born. In the film “The Truman Show” with actor Jim Carrey, the show’s director explained why Truman, whose entire life has been broadcast as a TV show, never questioned the authenticity of his world: “We all accept the world we are born into – it’s as simple as that.” But like the Truman (True Man) character, we all sense that something is wrong. Our reason and inherent common sense – what many call a “gut feeling” – tell us that the system is corrupt and unjust. If only we would listen to our inner voice of reason!
Who among us would pay the numerous and ever-increasing taxes and fees that are levied by our governments if we were not forced to do so under threats of fines and imprisonment – or worse? What American is not afraid of the IRS, even though all the federal income taxes collected are deposited by the Secretary of the Treasury into a privately-owned corporation in Puerto Rico and thereafter distributed among foreign creditors of the U.S. government to pay for the interest (and ONLY the interest) on America’s national debt. Who would willingly pay to huge corporations the inflated prices demanded for such basic necessities of life as food, electricity, water and fuel to heat our homes? We are further required, under the same threats of violence, to obey statutes, codes and regulations (so-called “laws”) created at the arbitrary whims of our rulers and which we find ridiculous and even hurtful to us. If you were driving your child to the hospital during a life-threatening emergency and came to a very long “red” traffic light on a deserted road, would you wait until the light turned “green”? By all logic waiting for the “green” light, thereby risking your child’s life, makes no sense – it defies reason and our innate common sense! (I am reminded of a cartoon of many years ago where a man sitting on a camel in the middle of a bleak desert waits at a traffic light – a similar scene was in Mel Brooks’ comedy-western film, “Blazing Saddles”, in which a posse on horseback are stopped at a toll-gate in the middle of nowhere. Instead of simply riding around the toll-gate, the character played by actor Slim Pickens shouts, “Somebody go back to town and get a shitload of dimes!”) But there are many among us who would wait – in fact most people will wait. As “law-abiding Americans”, most people would not even think of ignoring the traffic light – and the few people who did ignore it would feel guilty for doing so! Why? Because it is the “law”? Because we should instead seek redress through the courts within our “justice system”, a device clearly controlled by the government rulers? Is it some type of “herd mentality” that controls our behavior and even our thoughts? In short, why do we obey any government when its demands are arbitrary, excessive, hurtful and defy common sense?
I am a retired physician and medical researcher, so I have a lot of time to indulge in reading everything I come across on the Internet regarding politics, law and history. Not that I am smart – I simply do not like to watch football, etc. on TV. It was only recently that I stumbled upon a brief essay that “explained it all” in fewer than 25 pages. Surprisingly, although it was written by a law-philosophy student in France in 1552, it applies to our political institutions today. It is called, “The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” by Etienne De La Boetie.
Boetie said there are three types of tyrants: those that rule by conquest or force of arms, those that rule by inheritance (royalty) and those that rule through elections by the people. Of these he felt that an elected leader was the most tyrannical since he never wishes to relinquish his power, even though required to do so upon completion of his term of office. Having tasted power, few men in government wish to yield that power. Today in America we change presidents, senators and representative (not to mention state and local leaders) every few years, but our governments continue their maltreatment of the people regardless of which political party gains power. Why do We the People tolerate this servitude and often even misery?
“That so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him.”
Boetie’s asserted that we tolerate this voluntary servitude by custom and habit. A “Man from Mars” might wonder, How could one man (or small group of men) possibly rule with such maltreatment such great numbers of people? Or as Boetie said, “Who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice?” Boetie’s answer was “No”, it was simply that people were accustomed to condition, as were their fathers, grandfathers and so on. “Two, possibly ten, may fear one [man]; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?” The masses of people become slaves through custom and habit, reinforced by their leader’s exploitation of the people’s own apathy, indifference and laziness. The main reason we so willingly take orders from authority is that we are born submissive serfs, reared as submissive serfs, educated to remain submissive serfs and trained to work as submissive serfs.
What tools does a leader or government use to keep us in servitude? It is obvious that one man cannot control all the people by himself. The ruler must have the assistance of some of the people among us: first are the ruling elite, followed by a large bureaucracy. the police and a military – each created in hierarchical fashion of rank and class with corresponding levels of rewards. These organizations of servants must be ever-enlarging; not to accomplish anything of substance, but simply to make more and more people dependent on government for their livelihood and status. The police and military cannot exist solely for the protection of the rulers, since history has proved repeatedly that no ruler is truly safe; that if a ruler is greatly despised, he can be deposed or assassinated without much effort (usually by someone in his inner circle). “The torment in which tyrants find themselves when obliged to fear everyone because they do evil unto every man … not daring to entrust weapons in the hands of their own people, whom they have wronged.”
The servants closest to the ruler, the ruling elite (both in and out of government), remain few in number and are controlled by means of what Boetie called “special privileges and large gifts”. Boetie ironically noted: “Men accept servility in order to acquire wealth; as if they could acquire anything of their own when they cannot even assert that they belong to themselves, or as if anyone could possess under a tyrant a single thing in his own name. Yet they act as if their wealth really belonged to them, and forget that it is they themselves who give the ruler the power to deprive everybody of everything, leaving nothing that anyone can identify as belonging to somebody.” Within this ruling elite (most of whom are usually not even formal members of the ruler’s government) are “only four or five who maintain the dictator, four or five who keep the country in bondage to him. Five or six have always had access to his ear, and have either gone to him of their own accord, or else have been summoned by him, to be accomplices in his cruelties, companions in his pleasures, panders to his lusts, and sharers in his plunders. These six manage their chief so successfully that he comes to be held accountable not only for his own misdeeds but even for theirs.” Under the authority of the ruling elite next come the bureaucrats, police and military. Boetie observed: “The six [ruling elites] have six hundred who profit under them, and with the six hundred they do what they have accomplished with their tyrant. The six hundred maintain under them six thousand, whom they promote in rank, upon whom they confer the government of provinces or the direction of finances, in order that they may serve as instruments of avarice and cruelty, executing orders at the proper time and working such havoc all around that they could not last except under the shadow of the six hundred, nor be exempt from law and punishment except through their influence. The consequence of all this is fatal indeed. And whoever is pleased to unwind the skein will observe that not the six thousand but a hundred thousand, and even millions, cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied.”
Obviously the ruling elite and those we today call “public servants” must be paid their “special privileges and large gifts” – some might say, bribes – to maintain their allegiance to the ruler and his government. These gifts from the ruler – extracted from the masses of people – may come as pay, tax breaks and grants. Some among the masses of people often receive gifts as well: welfare, food stamps, and the too-numerous-to-count government programs giving people something for “FREE”, even though the people themselves ultimately pay for it! “Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce [an ancient Roman coin]: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, “Long live the King!” The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them … the mob has always behaved in this way — eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted.” Clearly, we ALL want “our share” of the government pie – a pie we ourselves provided to government!
However, the ruler system creates universal anxiety. The ruler can have no friends; he can never fully trust anyone or feel completely secure in his power. ”The fact is that the tyrant is never truly loved, nor does he love… there can be no friendship where there is cruelty, where there is disloyalty, where there is injustice.” The ancients wrote: To rule as king is to be alone. Today we say: “It is lonely at the top.” The ruling elite live under similar anxieties as the ruler – “in places where the wicked gather there is conspiracy only, not companionship: these have no affection for one another; fear alone holds them together; they are not friends, they are merely accomplices.” Yet who among us would not accept these “special privileges and large gifts” from the ruler? After all, why work for a living when you can obtain wealth and status with little or no effort? “These wretches see the glint of the despot’s treasures and are bedazzled by the radiance of his splendor. Drawn by this brilliance they come near, without realizing they are approaching a flame that cannot fail to scorch them.” Only later do the ruling elite understand fully that the ruler, upon his mere whim, can take from them all they possess. ”The favorites of a tyrant can never feel entirely secure, and the less so because he [the ruler] has learned from them that he is all powerful and unlimited by any law or obligation.” Even if a member of the ruling elite manages to remain in the good graces of the current ruler, what about the ruler’s successor – the next president, prime minister, king, queen, or dictator? How can any person, even among the highest of the ruling elite, ever feel truly secure in his and his family’s wealth and status now or in the future? “Even admitting that favorites may at times escape from the hands of him they serve, they are never safe from the ruler who comes after him. If he is good, they must render an account of their past and recognize at last that justice exists; if he is bad and resembles their late master, he [the next ruler] will certainly have his own favorites, who are not usually satisfied to occupy in their turn merely the posts of their predecessors, but will more often insist on their wealth and their lives.” Of course, the great lie underpinning our system is that we own nothing – our government can take our property on a whim. Even if you have fully paid off the mortgage on your home, simply look at the deed and you will see that you are probably listed as a “tenant-in-common” with “fee simple” title or “title in equity” – and a tenant is someone who pays rent and taxes. A true owner with “allodial” title pays no rent or taxes. As the actor Peter Fonda stated, “Try not paying your taxes and find out who owns your house.”
In addition to gifts and privileges to his ruling elite, the ruler employs another tool. He creates and maintains a remoteness from the people, thereby creating a mystique and aura of the leader being “special” simply by being inaccessible to the public masses. “The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration … It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible.” Tyrants and despots have “always fooled their victims so easily that, while mocking them, they enslaved them the more.” Today when a president, a queen or a prime minister goes out in public, the remoteness is maintained: they travel in limousines with darkly-tinted windows and near which the masses are not allowed. Even when simply playing golf, a president and the people are kept apart. And on rare occasions when the ruler is seen by the people, his appearance is an occasion of great ceremony, accompanied by symbols and pageantry. Today we have ceremonies such as royal coronations, presidential inaugurations, state-of-the-union speeches and proclamations to the nation – all on prime-time TV. The symbols of the ruler’s specialness” appear: the presidential seal, a king or queen’s crown and throne, flags, ornate offices and buildings, monuments and statues. His servants address the ruler by such titles as the “Leader of the Free World”, “Mr. President”, “Her Majesty the Queen” or “His Eminence The Pope” – and in turn the ruling elite are addressed by such titles as Senator, Congressman, Mr. Chief Justice, CEO of XYZ corporation, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Secretary of the ABC Department, Ambassador and so on. After all, without a title, you must be a “nobody” – just one of the people.
Even when simply traveling the ruler, whose life is somehow deemed of greater value than ours, uses special transportation: the president’s plane “Air Force One”, the royal carriage, the royal yacht, the presidential helicopter, not to mention the gaggle of limousines surrounded by hordes of police, “Secret Service” and innumerable security vehicles. Upon arriving at the ceremony, special guards (usually outfitted in ridiculously ornate uniforms) stand to salute the ruler, while offering no real protection – they are part of the show! Visualize, if you will, the queen’s Royal Guards at Buckingham Palace in London. Or the almost clownish formality of the guards at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia – why are they wearing such ornate costumes while guarding dead people? Boetie noted, “Whoever thinks that halberds, sentries, the placing of the watch, serve to protect and shield tyrants is, in my judgment, completely mistaken. These are used, it seems to me, more for ceremony and a show of force than for any reliance placed in them.” Some rulers even encourage the development of a cult-like admiration, often extending into myth and religion such as “the divine right of kings”, the myths about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and the god-like status of the later Egyptian pharaohs. Boetie observed: “Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of divinity to bolster up their evil ways.”
In a well-informed and enlightened society, the tools described above could not long maintain a ruler’s tyranny, for eventually the people will become disenchanted, less productive – and even may question the injustice of the system under which they live and challenge the authority of the government. The ruler cannot allow this to happen. Thousands of years ago rulers learned that entertainment and amusements divert the people’s attention away from truly important issues affecting their lives. Boetie noted: “Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny.” Over thousands of years not much has changed – today we have our mass-media, professional sports, TV, computer games, alcohol and drugs, activities, pastimes and pleasures that keep us too busy to notice, much less act upon, the public issues which so greatly affect our lives. By our many entertainments (may I call them “circuses”?) and diversions we are truly similar to the peoples of centuries past. “By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.”
Ancient rulers also understood the truth in the adage “Divide and Conquer”. They recognized the importance of distracting and dividing the people by income, race and class differences, and through political affiliations (parties). Boetie: “Thus the despot subdues his subjects, some of them by means of others, and thus is he protected by those from whom, if they were decent men, he would have to guard himself; just as, in order to split wood, one has to use a wedge of the wood itself.” To ensure that the masses of people, in their misery and oppression, never challenge the authority of the ruler, the ruler must deflect all blame onto some of his servants, including the ruling elite and the bureaucracy; OR onto forces and peoples outside his kingdom or government – foreigners. The ruler also blames those who challenge his policies, applying such labels as malcontents, hippies, trouble makers, protesters, conspiracy theorists, home-grown terrorists, etc. Likewise the ruler blames foreign rulers and foreign peoples for the misery that he himself created among the masses of his own people – even to the extent of starting wars. The successful ruler will deflect all blame from himself in order that ”the people never blame the tyrant for the evils they suffer, but they do place responsibility on those who influence him; peoples, nations, all compete with one another, even the peasants, even the tillers of the soil, in mentioning the names of the favorites, in analyzing their vices, and heaping upon them a thousand insults, a thousand obscenities, a thousand maledictions. All their prayers, all their vows are directed against these persons; they hold them accountable for all their misfortunes, their pestilences, their famines.” Meanwhile the tyrant remains safely in power.
Past rulers also recognized the power behind money, even “fake money” created by the ruler himself as paper currency or coins of otherwise worthless metals. As Boetie stated, “What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money?” Boetie wondered by what magic a piece of paper, a coin of worthless metal or a piece of wood (English “tally stick”) obtain real value? Boetie queried, “They [the people] believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases … In this wise that a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them.” Does an otherwise worthless object obtain its value simply because the ruler has decreed this paper, metal or wood to be the only form of money acceptable as payment for taxes? By definition, something of “real value” is something upon which people place value because of its utility, something they need and can use in their daily lives. Otherwise, why would any people possessing reason and common sense accept as money objects possessing no real usefulness? Such trinkets are NOT money – they are, at most, convenient tokens for mere promises to pay you something of REAL usefulness at a later date. Can you say “Federal Reserve note”, today’s official U.S. Dollar?
Finally, among the most useful tools employed by tyrants and governments are propaganda and speeches, the “power of persuasion” through the manipulation of words evoking passion instead of reason within the people. As Boetie observed in 1552, rulers and governments of all types “do not behave very differently: they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning public welfare and common good.”
The important question now becomes: How can we escape this voluntary servitude? Or, are we Americans are fond of saying, How can we get government off our backs? In early America our ancestors modeled their society and governments on Christian principles whereby their God, as the creator of all things including man, was the Sovereign and Master of all things, including man. Likewise, man was the sovereign and master of all things he created. Consequently, in America, We the People, as the creators of our local state and federal governments and institutions, were considered the sovereigns and masters of those governments and institutions. As with God, no master or sovereign serves his subjects, else he ceases to be master and sovereign. Until the early 20th century We the People were considered as master and sovereign over our creation: the government. I have attempted to explain how today this relationship has been turned on its head – how the people are now expected to obey every command issued by our supposed servants, the government. Indeed, many Americans today are grateful that the governments seize only 60 percent of their income as taxes and fees! Elections most certainly have made no improvements, despite the promises made every 4 years! – the extortion by government and misery of We the People increase relentlessly. But is a violent revolution really necessary to rid ourselves of the tyranny? If violent action were required, Boetie knew that most men would not participate since they are not men of action; they dislike the time and effort involved and the risk of losing whatever little they possess. In the 20th century the common adage was, “You can’t beat city hall.” Boetie concluded that not only was violent action not required, no action at all is required – only non-action through non-compliance. He wrote, “Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself.” Boetie, unlike most Americans today, recognized the important distinction between a country (the people) and a government (the ruler and the ruling elite).
Boetie implored, “Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
If you do not like what the government does, simply refuse to cooperate. You do not like paying taxes, fees and fines? Then do not pay them! You do not like having to constantly renew this or that license or registration or permit or whatever? Then do not renew them! You do not like paying for parking and traffic tickets? Then ignore them – toss them into the trash! Of course some people might object. “What if EVERYONE did that?” My answers are: 1) Great! Then we would have less government bothering us and stealing our money. 2.) If “everyone did that”, then you would be a fool NOT to do likewise, if it is in your own best interest. I have little hope for the current generations of adults – we are too bound up in our own indulgences, pastimes and apathy; too bound by custom and habit. The motto of adult Americans appears to be: “As it is now, so must it be forever.” My hope lies with those who are too young to have been indoctrinated, distracted or “bought off” by the rulers. Not because they are more courageous than we, but because they will experience such hardship and misery in the coming years that they will not tolerate our rulers and system of government any longer – that they will rebel, not with the sword, but by simple non-cooperation. There is no need for violent revolution; no need even to walk the streets carrying a protest sign. As Boetie concluded centuries ago, they need only resolve to serve no more: to refuse to pay taxes and fees and fines, to refuse to obey so-called “laws” that violate our own powers of reason and common sense. They will cease ALL cooperation with government in any manner; and at once they will be freed.
Now, turn off your computer and go watch the football game on TV!
September 15th, 2016 by olddog
Written By: Aurora Macrae-Crerar June 17, 2016
TN Note: Huxley’s 1932 book Brave New World wrote of fully engineered test-tube babies who were created for their particular stations of society, work and education. The time for public ethical debate is now, because scientists are moving full-speed ahead without public input. It is important to recognize that almost all of this kind of research is being conducted with some form of taxpayer funding. The Technocrat-minded scientist invents because he can.
Stanford law professor and bioethicist Hank Greely predicts that in the future most people in developed countries won’t have sex to make babies. Instead they’ll choose to control their child’s genetics by making embryos in a lab.
On KQED’s Forum program, Michael Krasny spoke with Greely about his new book, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction. Greely highlights the ethical and legal questions that might arise in the future’s reproductive paradigm.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Krasny: There are a lot of new advances, technology and so forth. We reached the point where you get some sperm donor and a little piece of skin and you’re in business because of stem cells.
Greely: My book argues that two different biomedical innovations coming from different directions and not really propelled by reproduction are going to combine here. One is whole-genome sequencing, and the other is what I call easy PGD, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, [that] is, getting rid of egg harvest … which is unpleasant, dangerous and really expensive.
This ties in with in vitro fertilization also being not as onerous as it has been in the past.
What I think is going to happen, we’ll be able to take some skin cells from anyone and turn them into any cell type. Make these into eggs or sperm and that is going to make IVF much easier, cheaper and less dangerous.
You [can] decide, “Well, I want these traits,” and it becomes a selective process.
Yes, I think we will see an increased and broad use of embryo selection. I would be careful to set the time frame at 20-40 years. I think we’ll actually see a world where most babies born to people with good health coverage will be conceived in the lab. People will make about a hundred embryos, each will have its whole genome tested, and the parents will be [asked … “Tell] us what you want to know and then tell us what embryo you want.”
This could bring down health care costs, and it is also good for same-sex couples, isn’t it?
Well, yes and maybe. I think it should bring down health care costs, and, in fact, one of the advantages to it is that it would be so beneficial for public health care costs that I think it would be provided for free. If it costs say, $10,000 to start a baby this way, 100 babies is a million dollars. If you avoid the birth of one baby with a serious genetic disease, you’ve saved $3 [million to] $5 million. The same-sex issue, I think that’s going to work, but that’s another jump. That would be taking a skin cell … from a woman and turning it into a sperm. I think [it’s] probable, but that hasn’t been done yet.
This is not the end of sex — because recreational sex will always be with us — it’s the end of sex as a way of procreating.
I think it will not be the complete end. I think people will still get pregnant the old-fashioned way, right, sometimes for religious reasons, sometimes for philosophical reasons, sometimes for romantic reasons, sometimes because they are teenagers and the back seat of the car is there.
A lot of people talk about playing God, but before we get into that, there’s the rubric of consumer eugenics. And there is a eugenics fear when we start talking about selection.
There certainly is. Eugenics is a slippery word; it means many things to different people. To some, it’s state-enforced reproductive control. To some … what we had was state-enforced sterilization. To some, it’s any kind of reproductive choices, but those are different things. For me, I think the coercion is much more important than the issues of selection. The concern about the state or the insurance company or someone else, forcing you to pick particular babies, worries me a lot more than having parents make choices, though that raises its own set of questions.
What do you see as the biggest question here?
I worry about the dilemma of Republican legislators in very conservative states. They want to spend as little money as possible on Medicaid. I could imagine a state saying, “We’re not going to pay for this via Medicaid,” which would mean that the roughly 40-50 percent of babies born in that state who are paid for by Medicaid wouldn’t get to go through this, and although they are not “superbabies,” adding another 10-20 percent health advantage to the babies of the rich over the babies of the poor is a bad thing.
Listen to the full interview here. Greely shares his thoughts on cost, socioeconomics, gene editing and the ethics of designer babies.
September 10th, 2016 by olddog
by: L.J. Devon, Staff Writer
(NaturalNews) Sinister, hidden motives are being revealed at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The agency recently announced a new invasive plan for the “control of communicable diseases,” by detaining people suspected of being ill and then forcibly medicating them against their will.
The CDC’s new proposal, published in the Federal Register [#2016-18103], will give the agency police state powers, permitting CDC officials to detain and forcibly inject chemicals into anyone they deem a threat to public health. There’s no rationale for such detainments either. According to the proposal, the “CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent.”
Who owns your body?
This proposal is an open declaration that the U.S. government now owns your body. At least that’s what the CDC seems to be claiming. The truth of the matter is that each individual has certain inherent, inalienable human rights that must be defended. Each human owns their own body, and should never be legally bound to become the government’s property for forced injections or experimentation.
Vaccines cause severe health problems; even the kangaroo court system set up by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program cannot keep up with the increase in cases of realized vaccine damage. Thousands of cases of such damage are dismissed by the court, and in spite of this, over 3 billion in select payoffs have been issued to vaccine injured families since the court was established. (The court basically functions to give vaccine manufacturers immunity from judicial accountability.)
CDC wants to hear from you
The CDC wants to hear from you about their proposed power trip rule. This is an excellent opportunity to tell the agency exactly how nefarious and overreaching their new proposal is.
If the CDC takes on these new powers, all they will need is for the media to build up enough public fear against some new strain of virus, for a new vaccine to be introduced and forced on the public. Anyone who dares to ask questions or refuse could then be forcibly injected and jailed. As the proposal reveals, “… individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the Federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties.”
Coordinated vaccine compliance plot unveiled
Be aware that there is a coordinated, global effort to indoctrinate and force people into vaccine and pharmaceutical obedience. You are not only viewed as a subject without rights, but according to internal WHO documents, you are viewed as an adversary who needs to be psychologically manipulated into believing in vaccine “science.” If this new CDC rule goes through, it’s not unrealistic to assume that any information you give out as you declare your opposition to forced injections could be used in the future to track you down and inject you against your will.
If this course of action sounds familiar, you’re probably thinking of the medical experimentation that was forced on Jews during the holocaust. When the Nazis claimed ownership over Jewish people’s bodies they eventually used police state power to round them up and do whatever they wanted with them in the camps. In essence, the CDC’s new rule gives the government authority to incarcerate Americans en masse, relocating them to camps to be medically experimented on with vaccines and other pharmaceutical products.
CDC doing away with informed consent
Personal protection (by whatever means) has never been more important, as the CDC accelerates this same type of Nazi ideology by claiming ownership over your body. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be hard to unleash a United Nations global police force into neighborhoods to round up vaccine dissenters. If the government claims ownership over your body, and has the military power to do whatever they want, people will take orders and do their jobs, no questions asked. As the document states,”When an apprehension occurs, the individual is not free to leave or discontinue his/her discussion with an HHS/CDC public health or quarantine officer.”
Finally, the document reveals that the CDC is doing away with informed consent altogether, (even though the American Medical Association still upholds it): “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to any exercise of any authority under this part.”
Take action now while the CDC is still open to public comment.
What concerns me the most is the fact that so many American’s today are so brain washed they will let any one with authority do anything they want. It would never occur to people that their body is theirs to do with as they see fit. They are dumbed down so much they obey anything and everything. As for me and my house they can have our dead bodies along with those storm troopers who demand compliance at the barrel of a gun.
September 2nd, 2016 by olddog
By Tom DeWeese –
Many of the younger generation must be truly bewildered over the emotions older Americans display when expressing love, devotion, respect and reverence for our country. A tear in the eye for a patriotic song… a hand over the heart as the national anthem plays… a salute to the flag as it passes in a parade. Why would we older folks do that?
What frame of reference could younger Americans possibly have? Patriotism, nationalism – even American citizenship are taboo in today’s school curriculum. Globalism, diversity, and political correctness trump real history, sound economics, and science. Communism is just another economic system. The Founding Fathers are simply old, dead slave-owning white guys. The UN’s Declaration on Human Rights trumps the Declaration of Independence.
Where are the heroes for today’s young people to admire? Principled leaders who understood the roots of America’s greatness now are replaced by blow-dried sound-byte kings whose professional campaign staffs understand only how to maneuver a special interest group or a voting block.
How can young people make decisions in the voting booth? Who can they choose? Are there any candidates who offer anything other than meaningless gibberish? If today’s young people could learn some of the history that brings the older generation a sense of pride then they could be helped to understand that ordinary people in history knew that there were life principles worth sacrificing or even dying for. Perhaps they could help demand a better future for themselves.
Here are three little known examples from three separate eras of our nation’s history which demonstrate how Americans once thought. They are examples of how we as a nation once stood proud, ready to defend ideals to the death if necessary. And these examples clearly show why the rest of the world understood that such unwavering devotion to those ideals meant our word was true. Our steadfast principles of freedom clearly showed the rest of the world that America offered the human race something different, something wonderful. Our unmatched freedoms meant that Americans were more secure, more prosperous and happier than any people in history.
Perhaps, through the following examples, today’s young Americans will understand that the tear in an eye or the hand over a heart expressed by the older generation wasn’t for a flag or a song. That show of emotion is really for the brave actions taken by the men and women which resulted in making the flags and the songs symbols of freedom.
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Thomas Nelson, Jr. was born and raised in a wealthy family in Yorktown, Virginia. Educated in England, he was elected to the House of Burgesses in 1761. He loved everything British and was proud to be a British subject. That is until King George decided that his American subjects were good for little more than a revenue source to pay for his wars with France. The King imposed the hated Stamp Act on the American colonies and Nelson became a dedicated opponent. He believed he had rights to his own hard-earned money and he believed it was wrong to impose the tax when he had virtually no say in the matter. Such was the foundation of the American Revolution. It mattered.
Soon Nelson was elected to represent Virginia in the Continental Congress where he became one of fifty-six men to sign the Declaration of Independence. By adding his name to the bottom of the document he pledged his life, fortune and sacred honor. In other words Nelson and his fifty-five colleagues gambled everything in exchange for the ability to live their lives in freedom.
Thomas Nelson, Jr. backed up that pledge by becoming a brigadier general in George Washington’s army. But he did more than just fight. He used his own fortune to help Washington fund the army. His money helped make payrolls for the men who needed it for their families back home. His contributions to help keep the army on the battlefield would have equaled $2 million today.
Finally, in the last battle of the war Nelson found himself commanding troops outside his own hometown of Yorktown. As Washington laid siege to the British-held town, Nelson watched as a cannon battery continually missed an important target. It was British General Cornwallis’ command post. Nelson inquired of the troops why they weren’t shooting at the house. “Because,” they said, “it’s your house.” Nelson said, “give me the torch.” He then fired the first cannon aimed at his own home and gave the order for the other cannon to fire at the target as well. The home was destroyed. Not long after, Cornwallis surrendered and the United States was born.
For his service, Nelson died a pauper as his health and fortune were wrecked by the war. Thomas Nelson, Jr. made the sacrifice because he believed freedom was more important than comfort and material wealth. He was not alone as almost all signers of the Declaration of Independence met similar fates. Some died in the war effort. Many lost their fortunes. Some even lost their “sacred honor.” They did it so that future generations might live a better life.
Francis Scott Key
Most young people today think of the Star Spangled Banner as simply a hard song to sing before sporting events. To them, its curious words about bombs bursting in air and flags flying just sound like a Fourth of July party. Where’s the beer? Play ball.
But the words mean much more. The song’s lyrics are actually a testimony to sacrifice, death and courage. Francis Scott Key personally witnessed the events described in the song and wrote what he saw as it was happening.
Key was an attorney who lived in Washington, D.C. during the War of 1812. Again the United States was at war with Great Britain. The British had never really gotten over losing the American colonies. In the 20 years since Cornwallis had surrendered at Yorktown, they had continually harassed American ships on the high seas. The U.S. tried diplomacy to solve the problems as the country sought to freely and honestly trade with both England and France. Peace was the goal of the young nation.
But American ships seeking trade with Europe faced blockades by the British, who dominated the seas with their vast fleet, the largest in the world. In addition to preventing trade, the British claimed the right to take their sailors off the American ships. The problem was, they also took American sailors, making them serve against their will on British ships. Finally, the Americans had enough. Diplomacy wasn’t working. American lives and freedoms were being threatened. So the U.S. Government declared war on the British, again.
It didn’t go well for the Americans. The British used their vast sea power to attack the United States. First the fleet sailed up the Hudson River to control New York. They launched an attack on New Orleans, gaining control of the Mississippi. And then they sailed up the Chesapeake, into the Potomac to invade Washington D.C. With little resistance, the British ransacked the Capital city, burning buildings, including the White House. First Lady Dolly Madison was able to escape with little more than the Declaration of Independence. As the Americans were forced to flee, the British fleet set its sights on the next target, one of the nation’s most prosperous cities, Baltimore – just a short trip up the Chesapeake. It was meant to be the final victory before reestablishing the Americans as British subjects.
Meanwhile, as the ships wreaked havoc from the sea, British troops were on the ground in countless towns and villages, arresting American citizens and putting them in makeshift jails or on prison ships. The Americans were not happy having these occupying troops in their communities and tried to fight back. In the small community of Upper Marlborough, Maryland two drunken British soldiers were arrested by Dr. William Beanes and thrown into jail. One escaped, caught up to his unit and reported what had happened. The British returned to the town, released their soldier and arrested Dr. Beanes.
Enter Francis Scott Key. The people of Upper Marlborough enlisted Key to help free Dr. Beanes who was now being held in the hold of a prison ship in Baltimore harbor. Key was allowed on the ship and taken to the prison hold. There he found the ship packed with American prisoners, including Beanes. Key met with Rear Admiral Sir George Cockburn to negotiate a prisoner exchange in hopes of freeing all of the Americas. At first Cockburn agreed and Key went below to tell the men they would soon be released.
As the two men met on the deck of the ship, Cockburn told him that, yes the men would soon be released, but not through a prisoner exchange. They would be released, he said, because the war will be over. Then Cockburn pointed down the bay where Key saw hundreds of British ships sailing toward them. “That,” said Cockburn, “is the entire British fleet. They are coming here to take Fort McHenry.” The fort was the last strong hold of the Americans and it protected Baltimore. Its fall would assure the final British victory and the end of the United States.
Key was held on the ship, unable to leave until the battle was over. The bombardment began at dusk in a deafening roar of cannon fire from a hundred ships which stayed outside the range of Fort McHenry’s guns. As the fleet opened fire on the fort, the men held in chains below deck wanted to know what was happening. Key reported what he saw throughout the battle.
Waving from the fort was a large American flag. As night began to fall, the bombs from the British fleet burst through the air. The last thing anyone could see in the twilight’s last gleaming was the flag defiantly flying over the fort. Throughout the night the prisoners called out, “is it still flying.” No matter how many bombs seemed to hit the flag, it continued to fly. Finally, in frustration, the British fleet trained all of its guns on the flag, determined to bring it and the American’s defiance down in a heap. Still it flew.
In the morning the guns stopped. In the dawn’s early light all saw that the flag still flew and the fort remained in American hands. Eventually, the fleet sailed away. Key was released. According to some reports, Key rushed to the fort and there he saw what had happened. The flagpole, say the reports, had been hit numerous times. Some have reported that around the base of the flag were numerous bodies of American soldiers and citizens. Throughout the night, it is said, they had sacrificed themselves to keep the flag waving. As the flagpole splintered from the direct hits it suffered, men rushed out and held up the flag, becoming human flagpoles. One by one, as each was cut down by the bombs bursting in air, another rushed out to take his place.
The nation survived and America became a shining symbol to the world as the land of the free. And the men of Fort McHenry proved it was also the home of the brave.
William Barret Travis
In the winter and early spring of 1836, war raged throughout what is now the State of Texas. Mexico, led by General Santa Anna wanted to control the territory. Santa Anna was a pompous, brutal dictator who had terrorized the citizens, murdering at will, and taking property at his whim. The Texans wanted to be free of him. In a recent battle they had managed to free the town of San Antonio of his rule. Now he wanted it back.
So, Santa Anna began a march on San Antonio with more that 1,000 troops, determined to prove that resistance to his rule was futile. On February 23rd, about 145 Texans under the command of William Barret Travis rushed into a mission called the Alamo. Soon they were surrounded. Travis put out a call for reinforcements, saying, “I am besieged by a thousand or more Mexicans… I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours… The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken.”
Over the following two weeks, the Mexican forces continually strengthened to over 2,000. Answering Travis’s call, a few reinforcements for the Texans were able to break through the lines and build the garrison to 189. Famed frontiersman and former Congressman Davy Crockett arrived with 15 good men from Tennessee. Another famous frontiersman, Jim Bowie was there. There were 30 volunteers from South Carolina, ready to fight with their native son, Travis. More than 81 volunteers were from different countries including England, Scotland, Germany, Ireland and various U.S. states.
Finally, as it became apparent that no large group of reinforcements would be able to come to their aid, Travis called a meeting of the men and told them they were free to leave and save themselves. He took out his sword and drew a line in the sand. He said, if you choose to stay, cross that line. To a man they crossed, determined to stay and fight the Santa Anna tyranny.
After constant bombardment from the Mexican guns, the men inside the Alamo heard a certain bugle signal. It was the command to Santa Anna’s troops to charge and take no prisoners. The men in the Alamo fought to the last man. Travis was one of the first to fall, on the north wall where the main assault occurred. He was 26. Jim Bowie, ill on a stretcher, was killed in a small room on the south side. He was 41. And Davy Crockett’s body was found in a small fort on the west side, surrounded by a pile of dead Mexicans. He was 50 years old.
189 Texans died that day but they took 600 Mexicans with them. The Alamo had fallen, but their courage allowed Texas General Sam Houston the time he needed to raise an army and meet Santa Anna only forty six days later. As Houston’s men charged, they shouted, “Remember the Alamo.” The battle lasted only 18 minutes. The Texans killed 630 of Santa Anna’s men, and captured 730, literally destroying his army. The next day, General Santa Anna was captured, disguised as a peasant. His rule was finished and Texas had won its independence, because 189 heroes had offered their lives in a belief that preserving freedom was more important than living life under tyranny.
Making Sense Of It All
American history is full of stories of sacrifice and heroism in the name of preserving freedom. They were called patriots and they didn’t sacrifice to build the power of government, or to enrich the pockets of a select power elite or to promote one group over another. They did it so they could live their lives in peace, unencumbered and left alone.
Today, our young people are taught in government classrooms that these ideals are old fashioned, quaint and, in many cases just plain wrong. Patriotism is racism, we’re told by modern scholars. Property ownership is selfish, a social injustice. Children are taught that our free society is the root of the Earth’s destruction and must be dismantled through a tightly controlled, organized global village. The Constitution, say some the scholars, is a living document, changeable on a whim. The Declaration of Independence, which Dolly Madison risked everything to save, is just a “war document from the Revolution.” Nothing more.
Yesterday’s patriots have been replaced by politicians who pander to special interests, as they fill their pockets with money in exchange for deals, privilege and power. A foreign policy based on honest trade, avoiding “entangling alliances,” has been replaced with our military meddling in over one hundred countries, as we impose economic and personal values where they aren’t wanted. America today is guilty of the very same kind of “nation building” we fought King George to end. Now America finds itself hated and non-respected, assuring American citizens are unsafe on every street corner in the world.
America needs leadership which understands and reveres our roots and the history it took to mold this nation. But who can our young people look to for such ideas? Who among the politicians and self-appointed leaders of our nation would make such sacrifices? Who among them would even advocate such an attitude?
Would Hillary Clinton stand on the front lines in defense of this nation and order her own home destroyed for freedom’s sake? Would Barack Obama stand on the North wall and fight to the death to stop an invasion of the country? Of course not. In fact, both of these “leaders” have actually thrown open the door of Fortress America and are calling for those very descendents of the original invaders of the Alamo to “come on over.” William Travis would have shot them.
Today, instead of statesmen who serve our country out of love and loyalty for its ideals; or leaders who deal with other nations under the guideline of “does it serve the just interest of the United States”, we have politicians looking for a deal. Will it sound good to a certain voter block? Will it make me look good on television? Can I get a leg up on the other candidates if I propose this?
Today’s politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders propose vast policy programs costing billions of dollars with no concern of where the money is coming from. They grab private land, displace families and regulate private business out of existence in the name of social justice. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the ones we count on to stand in defense of our Constitutional system, join right in, refusing to take action to even slow down the growth and cost of these massive government schemes.
What are the real issues on the minds of the American public? Too-high taxes; ever-creeping government intrusion in our lives; unprotected borders; over 60% say they want us out of the UN; growing corporate power; reduced standard of living; the fall of the dollar and less buying power; massive government debt; high energy prices. These issues affect every single American and we want someone to speak for us.
Yet not one of these issues is being addressed by most of the candidates for president. Instead we have great debates on the so called “War on Women,” racial disparity, and whether or not Donald Trump is too mean to run for president. Each of these issues is a hot button for specific special interest groups which are piling money into campaign coffers. The average American could care less about any of them, yet these are the debates of the day while the real issues are ignored.
Instead of addressing real issues, political campaigns have become little more than an exercise in character assassination of opponents in an attempt to get a leg up in the public. The mainstream news media has become the lap dog for the big government ideology.
These politicians would never be trusted on the front lines next to the heroes of the Alamo or Thomas Nelson, Jr. None would ever inspire a single lyric by Key. And they are not worthy of being elected to lead the country these heroes helped create.
But there are still patriots in our nation who are fighting a desperate fight to preserve our freedoms. Some are just citizens who see the wrongs and take local action to fight them. They show up at city council and county commission meetings to express their opposition to policies that affect property and taxes and quality of life. They work tirelessly, producing materials, working in political campaigns, and getting in front of microphones wherever they can. Though just an unorganized, unfunded rag tag band, these freedom fighters are beginning to make an impact and the big government forces are starting to nervously take notice.
Some of the best I’ve had the privilege to work with – to name just a tiny few, include Sheriff Richard Mack, who travels the nation teaching county sheriffs that they are the first line of defense against an oppressive central government. KrisAnne Hall, who travels over 265 days a year to teach Americans the power and justice of the Constitution. Pastor Chuck Baldwin, whose writings demand we think with common sense. And John Anthony, who is one of the very best in teaching local residents how to deal with invading planners as they attempt to transform our communities into socialist utopias.
Others decide to take the big step of running for office. Perhaps they were just local activists to start with, but decided that the cause needed elected representatives that can really make a difference from the inside. In the past couple of years, barely a week goes by without my hearing from new, dedicated representatives who ask me what they can do to take effective action to stop the growing tyranny.
Again, I’ve had the great privilege to not only work with some of these great patriots, but to call them my friend. One of the very first to stand, unwavering against the massive growth and corruption of local government is Carroll County, Maryland Commissioner Richard Rothschild. Even as he is attacked in the news media and falsely labeled a danger to the future of his community, he stands, many times alone, for the principles of freedom. As powerful forces work to remove him, he stands, like Travis on the wall, and refuses to back down.
In the state legislature of Washington stands Representative Matt Shea. In one of the most liberal states in the Union, Rep. Shea has organized a Freedom Team of legislators to fight for limited government and the ideals of freedom. In the past two sessions they have introduced over 100 bills, all aimed at limiting the size, cost, reach and power of government. They have managed to pass about thirty of these into law. Matt Shea and Richard Rothschild are the models for us all. And they are unwavering patriots.
There are many others, in every state, who are beginning to make their efforts felt in the cause to preserve freedom. They understand that private property ownership is the key to prosperity. They had seen that the more powerful the government control, the more corruption, and that it is government itself that must be controlled. And they are becoming a growing force. Their courage is an inspiration.
Matt Shea would order the destruction of his own home if it meant one American would be free. Richard Rothschild would stand on that wall of the Alamo to the last. He already has in our modern day fight. And Kris Anne Hall would sing the glory of the heroes of Fort McHenry. She does it every day.
As your children seek to understand why we older folks get a tear in our eye and a swell of pride in hearts as we hear the songs and see the flags flying – symbols of the incredible sacrifice so many suffered just to defend our freedom – they need look no further than these modern day heroes. Patriots still exist among us and they are still fighting the same tyranny as our Founders, and for the same reasons. We should all stand together so that our children and our children’s children will have a life of their own choosing. It’s that simple.
When I hear or read the word patriot, I remember the time when I felt like Tom has described above, but now that I am no longer ignorant of how Americans have been brain washed and the atrocities we have committed in the name of patriotism, I feel sorry for those who still feel compelled to follow the orders of psychopaths. Take this to the bank folks, the only people who deserve to die are the ones you are worshipping, and their Masters; the International Investment Central Banking Cartel. THEY ARE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH! Of course I do justify murder as in self defense, and any intelligent and informed person would conclude that the very people who we are allowing to establish our laws and enforce them are also our enemies. And the only loyalty they have is to the Cartel. Where do you think all the billions of dollars go too besides these bastards who pretend to be our leaders? It cost the Cartel huge amounts of money to have so many loyal employees. If you are a cop, you’re so ignorant you don’t even know who you are really WORKING FOR. Read and learn folks, before you commit your life to tyrants. All of your good intentions are proof you are brain washed. In reality, the America we loved so much was a damn lie. It’s the biggest con in history. It’s like loving a wife who is a whore behind your back. While you work your ass off to give her all the things she wants, she’s screwing your friends and salting the money away. Good intentions without knowledge is like a limp dick.
May 21st, 2016 by olddog
Barbara H. Peterson
Can you feel it? Can you feel the chains encircling the world as you know it, causing it to shrink into a passing wisp of memory as we drift closer and closer each day into a homogeneous goo of anonymity in which nothing is wrong and nothing is right unless we are told it is by the state, and anything goes except for what is honest and true and valid?
We are instructed in the ways in which we must act, react and recover. State-approved responses in a state-generated manual. And we comply. We comply because that is what we have been taught all of our lives. We know no differently. The ones who remembered and shared their stories are long past gone, and we do not mourn their loss. We are the new generation of enlightened, politically correct citizens of corporate USA. Why? Because that is simply what it is.
We have a set of laws; an instruction manual. Statute and Code. We are expected to know them. ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse.’ Yet, it is impossible to know each and every regulation within the law, and therefore, impossible to know if/when, at any given moment we are in violation. Especially when the rules change. Even the ones that you thought you knew yesterday are different today. So there you are. Wanting to be an obedient citizen, and because you do not know the unknowable, that does not relieve you of the responsibility to do so. That is your job. Your duty towards the corporate state.
And if you are in, you are in. No turning back. Once the gates close, you, my friend, are property of the state. Owned. Your life lies firmly in the hands of those put in place to ensure conformity to the rules. When the whistle blows, you hop to. When the sergeant barks a command, you run to obey. If you are called to place yourself in the line of fire, you do not hesitate.
And if something goes horribly wrong? It is your responsibility. Did you follow the rules? Every last one? Did they change while you were catching that round? Deep down, you know how this goes. You are on the bottom of the priority list. If someone is going to go down for any acts in violation of the rules it is going to be you. That’s a given. Unless you claw your way up the chain of command into a position of authority over another. Then guess who gets the short end of the stick? Pitted against each other like a cock fight. May the best man win. The culling of the herd.
You eat when told, bath when told, sleep when told, and give your life when told. Dissent is punishable by immediate banishment. Out in the cold you go, devoid of a base on which to stand. The ground ripped out from under you.
So you need a network of trust to keep from being chewed alive and spit out like last night’s chaw. And you march together to the beat of a silent, but deep bond of survival. Survival in a system that churns and burns toy soldiers all saluting in a row.
There is a thin line that keeps you balanced between what you’ve been told is real and what is real, commonly referred to as sanity. And you hold on for dear life because that is all you know how to do.
You survive while the world around you crashes into a state of chaos. You reach out desperately to grasp hold of anything that you can to stay afloat. And you find that the only thing remaining constant is truth.
When all is said and done; when all the control games have been played; when all those ‘in charge’ have been exposed for what they truly are and the only thing left is a wet spot where they once cowered in fear, what remains is the truth. The last man standing. Then another. And another. Until a bond is formed that cannot be broken. A bond that will dissolve the fetters of enslavement. A bond that will truly set us free is the only way out of the maze of confusion, doubt and tyranny of ignorance.
©2016 Barbara H. Peterson
May 3rd, 2016 by olddog
By Felicity Carus
Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says
An cattle ranch in Mato Grosso, Brazil. The UN says agriculture is on a par with fossil fuel consumption because both rise rapidly with increased economic growth. Photograph: Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace.
A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change, a UN report said today.
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.
It says: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”
Professor Edgar Hertwich, the lead author of the report, said: “Animal products cause more damage than [producing] construction minerals such as sand or cement, plastics or metals. Biomass and crops for animals are as damaging as [burning] fossil fuels.”
The recommendation follows advice last year that a vegetarian diet was better for the planet from Lord Nicholas Stern, former adviser to the Labour government on the economics of climate change. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has also urged people to observe one meat-free day a week to curb carbon emissions.
The panel of experts ranked products, resources, economic activities and transport according to their environmental impacts. Agriculture was on a par with fossil fuel consumption because both rise rapidly with increased economic growth, they said.
Ernst von Weizsaecker, an environmental scientist who co-chaired the panel, said: “Rising affluence is triggering a shift in diets towards meat and dairy products – livestock now consumes much of the world’s crops and by inference a great deal of freshwater, fertilisers and pesticides.”
Both energy and agriculture need to be “decoupled” from economic growth because environmental impacts rise roughly 80% with a doubling of income, the report found.
Achim Steiner, the UN under-secretary general and executive director of the UNEP, said: “Decoupling growth from environmental degradation is the number one challenge facing governments in a world of rising numbers of people, rising incomes, rising consumption demands and the persistent challenge of poverty alleviation.”
The panel, which drew on numerous studies including the Millennium ecosystem assessment, cites the following pressures on the environment as priorities for governments around the world: climate change, habitat change, wasteful use of nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilisers, over-exploitation of fisheries, forests and other resources, invasive species, unsafe drinking water and sanitation, lead exposure, urban air pollution and occupational exposure to particulate matter.
Agriculture, particularly meat and dairy products, accounts for 70% of global freshwater consumption, 38% of the total land use and 19% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, says the report, which has been launched to coincide with UN World Environment day on Saturday.
Last year the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation said that food production would have to increase globally by 70% by 2050 to feed the world’s surging population. The panel says that efficiency gains in agriculture will be overwhelmed by the expected population growth.
Prof Hertwich, who is also the director of the industrial ecology programme at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, said that developing countries – where much of this population growth will take place – must not follow the western world’s pattern of increasing consumption: “Developing countries should not follow our model. But it’s up to us to develop the technologies in, say, renewable energy or irrigation methods.”
Please be sure to read the next article about meat replacement.
Do you have any idea how this slop will affect human regeneration?
Are their lies that much eraser to believe?
March 5th, 2016 by olddog
By Winter Trabex.
For the first few years of America’s existence, the country did not have a Constitution. Rather, it had the Articles of Confederation. The Articles specified that most government power would be given to the individual states. In fact, the push for state’s rights under the Articles was so strong that the following was written in it:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
This is a far cry from today’s federal government that presumes to reverse decisions made at a state level. Rather than treating state as an independent nation, it appears that today’s government treats each state as a satellite nation- each one having no right to secede from the union as a whole.
Though the colonies joined together for common cause in the American Revolution, the notion that they were allowed to leave the union they had voluntarily joined faded from memory until it was readily accepted that each state was a part of the country no matter what.
The Articles of Confederation lasted for seven years from the date of its ratification to the date when the Constitution replaced it. Now, adoption of the Constitution was a very tricky process. From the beginning of the Constitution’s introduction to the several states, two factions debated through public newspapers whether there should be a strong national government (they were called Federalists) or whether a strong national government presented a danger to the country (they were called the Anti-Federalists). Each side had their own respective viewpoints.
The primary reason to establish a federal government in the first place was to protect the country from foreign powers attempting to wage war upon it. Although George Washington (among others) would later declare that the United States would not be entangled with foreign alliances, the need for citizens to protect themselves against the cannons of King George (for example) was very real. In those days, European nations went to war with each other at the drop of a hat. Those who envisioned a national government also envisioned it as a bulwark against foreign invasion.
On the other hand, if the Anti-Federalists were concerned about foreign invasion, they did not use it as their central argument during 1788 and 1789 when articles in the newspaper appeared under the pseudonym “Brutus.”
Much of what happened in the Constitutional Convention had already given the citizens of the new nation cause for concern. The Convention met in secret in Philadelphia. The document they drafted was not offered to the American public until after its completion. The states could decide to ratify it or not; however, they had no say in what its content might be. They could only reject it.
Even worse, the Constitution only needed nine out of thirteen states to be ratified. If four states dissented, they would be forced to accept the Constitution whether they liked it or not.
Changing the Constitution was a difficult matter, as well. People could neither change it good or for bad easily. From the beginning, the mechanism of the Constitution’s amending introduced a slow, inefficient process that once more allowed most people in the country to only say yes or no to a proposed change.
Later, it would prove that, after the passage of tariff known as the Tariff of Abominations in 1828, no country would be allowed to leave the union. South Carolina hated the tariff. The state was on the point of seceding from the union only to discover that President Andrew Jackson was ready to invade South Carolina with the American army just to keep a group of dissenters in line. In this way, it may be observed that the nation of America (whatever form it has taken) has always leaned towards being an oligarchical nation. It was established as a nation where a select few people in power made the most important decisions of their day.
It was, and always has been, a nation where disagreement with nationally-accepted policy has been repressed- sometimes by violent force. Those who sought a benevolent government whose primary function would be to ensure the safety and happiness of its citizens failed to understand the basic nature of government power.
Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, a series of events called the Whiskey Rebellion began under President George Washington in 1791. Washington’s government instituted a whiskey tax as a means of attempting to pay the federal debt. The tax has been attributed to the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton. Despite all the flowery words that Hamilton himself used under the pseudonym “Publius” (he wrote 51 of the 85 Federalist Papers), he soon began doing the opposite of what he suggested the government might do.
Rather than protecting people and ensuring their happiness, he helped created a program whereby citizens would have part of their earnings stolen from them- for it must be admitted that taxation is theft, whether it occurs with or without the consent of the taxed. Thus it was that Lysander Spooner, many decades later, declared the Constitution unfit to exist.
The American government had first abrogated the original system upon which everyone could agree- and which people ignored whenever possible. Thus it was that, in spite of their noble intentions, the leaders of the French Revolution found something unexpected when they based their new Constitution off the American version: the Constitution itself did not secure the liberty of the citizens who were expected to live under its laws. Nor was there ever any reason for any President or Congress to restrain himself by following the Constitution.
As the Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated, the power of the government to enforce its edicts came from the power of its weaponry. Without imposing the threat of violence upon citizens, no government in the world can enforce its laws. Those laws will be ignored by a citizenry that has no reason to fear their leaders.
Today, America’s traditional oligarchical society has become ever more repressive and brutal. It has discovered, as many other governments have discovered, that it is only capable of using violent force to get what it wants. The more it has to struggle to get what it wants, the more violence it uses. Those who claim that the government should follow the Constitution has missed the point entirely: laws are unwritten and arbitrary as long as the enforcers of those laws rely on firearms and ammunition to see their will be done.
For all intents and purposes, the Constitution does not exist in America. Nor does it exist in any other nation. There is, and only ever has been, a select few intimidating entire populations. As long as this is the case- and history proves that it has never been otherwise- the existence of a government should not be permitted under any circumstances. As long as government power continues to be the power of violence, it will continue making things worse and worse until it collapses from its own ponderous weight.
I’ve said before and will say again that ALL GOVERNMENTS EXIST FOR 2 PURPOSES:
2)CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE MONEY
And it does both these things via FORCE
February 27th, 2016 by olddog
By Stefan Stanford – All News Pipeline – Live Free Or Die
The story on Zero Hedge containing a warning from the Commissioner of Migration for the European Union is as blunt as it can get; the EU has but 10 days to implement a plan that will bring about ‘tangible and clear results on the ground’ or else ‘the whole system will completely break down’. The Prime Minister of Norway is preparing to put her entire country into ‘lockdown mode’ just in case ‘everything falls apart completely’, a very real possibility, we see, if the Prime Minister of Norway is preparing for it. We’re also told she’s “effectively prepared to turn everyone away and Europe descends into some kind of lawless, Hobbesian, free-for-all.” Sounds like she’s prepared for what alternative media has been warning about for several years now.
The story over at Mashable is called “Europe’s Refugee Crisis Is About To Go From Terrible To Unprecedented” and in it we learn that refugees, migrants and potentially members of ISIS who don’t have the best intentions for Europeans are flooding into Europe at a rate of three times higher than they did last year. We’re told that 1 million flooded into Europe in 2015 and so far in 2016, 102,547 arrivals have reached the Greek Islands. It took until June of 2015 for that many to make it that far.
The story from the Guardian tells us that Europe is now bracing for a major humanitarian crisis after about 20,000 refugees remained stranded in Greece after borders were shut down; the UN itself tells us that those Balkans border closings are now causing chaos, as if there wasn’t enough chaos in Europe prior to this latest tidal wave into the region. Newsweek is as blunt as they can get about it: “The Tide Of European Refugees Is Unraveling Europe” we are told. Things do not look like they are going to get any better; Europe is collapsing as the refugee invasion onslaught carries on.:
Ultimately, the refugee crisis will abate only once the war in Syria ends. Of that, there is no sign. Unless there is a major change of heart among all 28 EU member states toward sharing the burden, the EU will further unravel, and as Carnegie Europe’s Stefan Lehne suggested in a recent article, it could become “an ever-looser union.” The EU is already heading in that direction.
Another story over at the International Business Times tells us one of the reasons things are getting worse, quickly. We’re told that Germany is expecting another 3.6 million refugees by the year 2020. This in a nation that had a population of 80 million in 2013; staggeringly, we’re also told that Germany is simply ‘losing track of’ a huge number of refugees that are coming into their country. A mind-blowing 13% of refugees never went to their assigned shelters.. a total of over 130,000 people. Think about what kind of ‘army’ could be assembled with those numbers missing if they have bad intentions!
Germany’s “Süddeutsche Zeitung” daily reported on Friday that last year 13 percent of registered refugees never went to their planned shelter, equating to more than 130,000 people.
The newspaper based its report on a response from the federal Interior Ministry, on request of Germany’s Left Party. The ministry listed possible reasons for the refugees’ disappearance as asylum seekers continuing their journey to other countries or submersion into illegality.
Head of Germany’s Federal Office for Migration (BAMF), Frank-Jürgen Weise, also said on Thursday in Berlin that there are currently up to 400,000 people in the country whose identities are unknown to authorities.
The new story on Fox News tells us that the refugee crisis is now threatening the unity of the European Union while the Washington Post shares with us the astonishing new numbers behind Europe’s refugee crisis. Telling us once again that the numbers of refugees coming into the European Union in 2016 will dwarf the numbers that came in 2015, the Post story also tells us about the backlash that leaders are now suffering because of their decisions. The new Independent story simply tells us that the EU’s failure to cope with the refugee crisis threatens its very survival.
In the 1st video below from Infowars we learn all about the ongoing collapse of Europe as the refugee invasion doubles in 2016. In the 2nd video below from Russia Today we learn more about the EU Commissioner of Migration’s warning that the EU only has 10 days to fix these rapidly increasing problems or the system will break down. The final video below gives us more on this issue which has Europe at the brink of absolute disaster. As we’re told, the overthrow of Europe and the reduction of America to a 3rd world nation has become a distant talking point as the world focuses its attention on the US presidential race and the unfolding of World War 3.
October 22nd, 2015 by olddog
By Chuck Baldwin
For seven consecutive presidential administrations (since Bush, Sr. invaded Kuwait–2016 will make it 28 years), the American people have been told that they are at war with terrorists. Republican and Democrat administrations and congresses alike have built America’s entire foreign policy around this hypothesis. Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent. Thousands of American troops have lost their lives. And tens of thousands have been wounded–many of them seriously. Plus, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the Middle East have lost their lives to America’s “war on terror.”
In the name of the “war on terror,” the people of the United States have become the most spied upon and servile people in world history. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice, and Pentagon have constructed the most elaborate domestic spy machine known to man. We are told that all of this is helping to keep America “safe.” We are told the same thing about our incessant drone attacks, the thousands of sorties conducted by our military aircraft, and our never-ending wars of aggression in the Middle East.
First, we were told the terrorists were Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We invaded two countries to rid the world of these sand people. But after years of war by the most powerful and sophisticated military might in the world (the U.S. military), Al Qaeda and the Taliban are still with us–stronger than ever. Then we were told the terrorists were ISIS. Supposedly, Barack Obama has been at war with these sand people ever since he took office. But all that has happened is ISIS has gotten stronger and stronger. Surely, any rational person should be able to see through this façade.
The truth is the United States is not at war with ISIS; the United States helped to create and continues to fund and support ISIS. America’s so-called war against ISIS is a total farce. The U.S. government in Washington, D.C., has used ISIS to fight a proxy war against Syria on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel–not to mention the globalist puppet-masters. Outside of the United States, virtually the entire world knows it. But, you see, America has the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever known to man: the national news media.
The entire national press corps in this country (with FOX News at the front of the pack) constantly promotes the drumbeat of war by regurgitating government-sponsored talking points and “intelligence,” never bothering to investigate or question the veracity of the government’s assertions. Joseph Goebbels could only have dreamed of such an efficient propaganda ministry.
Joining the national news media are millions of evangelical Christians such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Hal Lindsey, et al., who use the doctrine of Christian Zionism to also pound the drumbeat of war.
See this report.
Yet, by supporting Islamic terror groups such as ISIS, what U.S. foreign policy (with the support of the national news media and Hagee-type evangelicals) is actually doing is assisting the most violent and barbaric stripe of Islam. ISIS is nothing more than the resident terror group of Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Muslim empire. Without any risk of being hyperbolic, Saudi Arabia is one of the most barbarous terror-nations in the entire world. Yet, the U.S. government considers Saudi Arabia to be one of its closest allies. And that’s the problem: it is.
By far, the richest man in the world is Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. To give you an idea of how wealthy this Sunni Muslim is, billionaires such as Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, and Warren Buffet are only 1/20th to 1/50th as rich as he is. And, as you can imagine, Salman is joined at the hip to the most powerful and wealthiest international bankers in the world, such as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds–and giant oil companies such as Chevron and Standard Oil.
And in the Sunni Muslim mind of King Salman, the greatest enemy is Shia Muslims which are predominantly located in countries such as Syria, Iran, and Yemen. It is Saudi Arabia (assisted by its allies in the United States, Turkey, and Israel) that is the chief sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East. This is why the so-called “war on terror” by the United States is such a joke. Ever since the administration of George H.W. Bush, the White House has been in the pocket of petro-dollar billionaires around the world–with the king of Saudi Arabia being the Cock-A-Doodle-Do of them all.
See this report.
I’m sure everyone readily remembers seeing news video of those caravans of Toyota pickup trucks with ISIS flags waving proudly atop them. Well, guess what! Those Toyota pickup trucks were supplied by the United States. Just another reason why the greatest military force in the world was unable to locate and destroy these trucks (and the terrorists riding in them) as they crawled along the Middle Eastern desert. Again, what a crock!
See the report.
No wonder Iraqi Commander Hassan al-Sari said that Vladimir Putin’s Russian coalition “is fighting against the ISIL on behalf of the whole world” while the US had played no role in the recent victories against the terrorists.
Here is the report.
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, was more than blunt in his praise of Putin’s genuine war against the Sunni terrorists in Syria, while denouncing in no uncertain terms the phony war on terror in Washington, D.C. He writes, “The distinguished and knowledgeable international commentator William Engdahl, in a superb statement, has expressed the view I gave you that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech on September 28 at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations changed the balance of power in the world. Until Putin’s speech the world was intimidated by the Washington Bully. Resistance to Washington brought swift retribution. In the Middle East and Africa it brought economic sanctions and military invasions that destroyed entire countries. In France and other US vassal states it brought multi-billion dollar confiscations of bank net worth as the price of not following Washington’s policies toward other countries.”
Roberts continues: “President Putin of Russia brought all that to end on September 28. He stood up before the world in the presence of the overflowing hubris of the hegemon and belled the cat.
“Putin denounced Washington’s threat to the sovereignty, and thereby the freedom, of peoples and countries. He denounced the heartless criminality of Washington’s destruction of the lives of millions of peoples on the basis of nothing other than Washington’s own arrogance. He denounced the illegality of Washington’s assaults on the sovereignty of other peoples, and declared that Russia can no longer tolerate this state of affairs in the world.
“Two days later he took over the war in Syria and began exterminating the Washington financed and equipped Islamic State. Cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea hit ISIL targets with pinpoint accuracy and showed Washington’s EU vassals that Washington’s ABM system could not protect them if Europe permitted Washington to force Europe into conflict with Russia.
“Washington’s response was more lies: ‘the missiles hit Iran,’ said the idiots in Washington. The entire world laughed at the lie. Washington, some said, is whistling past its empire’s own graveyard.”
Roberts goes on: “This is a sea change. It will affect the behavior of every government. Even some of the craven vassals states, whose ‘leaders’ are bought-and-paid-for, will move toward a more independent foreign policy.
“The remaining danger is the crazed American neoconservatives. I know many of them. They are completely insane ideologues. This inhuman filth has controlled the foreign policy of every US government since Clinton’s second term. They are a danger to all life on earth. Look at the destruction they have wreaked in the former Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Georgia and South Ossetia, in Africa, in Afghanistan and the Middle East. The American people were too brainwashed by lies and by political impotence to do anything about it, and Washington’s vassals in Europe, UK, Canada, Australia, and Japan had to pretend that this policy of international murder was ‘bringing freedom and democracy.’
“The crazed filth that controls US foreign policy is capable of defending US hegemony with nuclear weapons. The neoconservatives must be removed from power, arrested, and put on international trial for their horrendous war crimes before they defend their hegemony with Armageddon.
“Neoconservatives and their allies in the military/security complex make audacious use of false flag attacks. These evil people are capable of orchestrating a false flag attack that propels the US and Russia to war.”
See Roberts’ column here.
Plus, Christians around the world (especially in the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Eastern Europe) are not hypnotized by Christian Zionists such as John Hagee. Here is a sample of the numerous pieces of communication that I often receive from Christians in these regions:
“I grew up in an Evangelical pastor’s house in Nigeria, reading the fallacies of Mr. Scofield’s ‘Bible’ teaching the false doctrines of dispensations. By the Grace of God I know better now.
“The current State of Israel is a nation based on the accursed Talmudic doctrines of the Pharisees [exactly right].”
This Middle Eastern Christian goes on to say, “Vladimir Putin is a man of God, who knows these people and their hate for our Lord Jesus and for Christians.
“God forbid those Obama-and-Netanyahu-rented bearded barbarians called ‘moderate rebels,’ Al Nustra, Al Qaeda, and ISIS enter the city of Damascus! Our Christian brothers and sisters would all be annihilated, raped, and forcefully converted to Islam, with the support of USA, NATO, and Israel.”
(Name and location withheld by this author)
Go outside the westernized Christian world and the believers that I have communicated with almost universally echo the Christian man’s sentiments above. Then again, they have not been indoctrinated by the teachings of dispensationalism and Christian Zionism.
Have American Christians not noticed that ISIS doesn’t attack Israel? Gee. I wonder why not. If ISIS is the mortal enemy of Israel, why don’t we hear about these terrorists attacking Israel? In truth, Israel is often a safe haven for ISIS terrorists, providing supplies and medical care for wounded ISIS warriors. Again, the Israeli Mossad, along with America’s CIA, and Saudi Arabia’s special forces helped create–and continue to maintain–ISIS.
The “crazed American neoconservatives” that Paul Craig Roberts refers to would be impotent without the massive support they receive from evangelical Christians throughout the United States. Pray tell, what will these Christians in America say to their brothers and sister in Christ from Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc., when they stand side-by-side at the judgment bar of God? It is the massive support for war in the Middle East by evangelical Christians in the United States that is forcing our brothers and sisters in Christ there into exile, causing increased persecution and torture among them, and killing thousands and thousands of them. Not to mention the torture and martyrdom of our Christian friends in the home of America’s great “ally,” Saudi Arabia. That is a future scene I shudder to think about!
There is a war on terror going on alright; but just who are the real terrorists?
P.S. I am pleased to announce that James Jaeger’s brand new film, “Midnight Ride: When Rogue Politicians Call For Martial Law” will be premiered on Friday, November 6, 2015, from 6pm through 11pm Mountain Time. Distinguished luminaries such as Pat Buchanan, Larry Pratt, Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Sheriff Richard Mack, Stewart Rhodes, Edwin Vieira, Jr., and several others are featured in this film. I am honored to also be featured.
I invite readers to go to my website on Friday evening, November 6, and watch the premiere of this outstanding film. And please tell your friends. DVDs of the film will also be available the night of the premiere via my website. Watch the film here.
© 2015 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved
Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck’s complete bio here.
PRAYER IS NOT ILLEGAL
By Coach Dave Daubenmire
October 22, 2015
“Well, there you go again.” That is what Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter 35 years ago in the 1980 Presidential debate.
Perhaps it would be better to quote Yogi Berra who famously said “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” I’ve seen this movie before. I’ve been down this road. I’ve seen this song and dance before. Been there, done that!
Those are all quotes that I could use to explain what I am feeling in my heart as I watch yet another Christian coach get in trouble for praying with his football team. This time it isJoe Kennedy from the Seattle, Washington area who has drawn the ire of the ‘Prayer Police.’
It ticks me off. Not the fact that the God-haters are throwing their weight around, but that we are letting them get away with it. I’ve lived this life. I’ve played this game. I watched them huff and puff and threaten to blow the house down.
I went through the same thing back in 1997. I was sued by the anti-America, Christ-hating ACLU for praying with our teams in Ohio. Google it; you’ll find all kinds of propaganda spewed by the lying scumbags insinuating that I violated the rights of my players. Go ahead and read it. It’s all B.S. They are master deceivers.
Let me give it to you with a little punch; I am sick and tired of the reruns and the same old, tired game plan that our side rolls out. Here’s the truth: There is no law against praying anywhere. There cannot be a law. The right to freely express one’s faith is an unalienable right. Unalienable means CANNOT be taken away. It’s like skin color, or height, or dare I say it, sexual orientation. You is what you is and it cannot be changed. (I spoke that way so the Christ-haters can accuse me of being ignorant.) That is what unalienable means.
The right to pray is unalienable. The First Amendment calls it “free exercise.” The God-haters (and their cops) like to point us to the “establishment clause”, but “establishment” and “free exercise” are connected by “or”. Sort of like love and marriage used to “go together like a horse and carriage” you can’t have one without the other. You still remember when marriage was marriage, don’t you?
The courts and their legal miscreants have separated the terms. Establishment doesn’t trump free exercise. Coach Kennedy and every kid in that school has the right to freely pray if they so desire. Free exercise cannot be inhibited by lawyers or judges. If it is restricted, it is not “free” exercise. Technically only Congress can take away the right to pray, and they are expressly forbidden to do so. In case you’re interested, here is the pertinent section of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Saying a prayer after a football game does not establish a religion. Only Congress can do that…but they can’t. Coach Kennedy and the players are engaging in “free exercise.” If Congress can’t establish a religion, how can a school or a measly old coach establish one?
Only in America, with our un-Godly, un-righteous courts, could such a charade have been foisted upon us. There is no separation between the church and the state. They just tell us that there is and then they use that to dredge our children through the cesspool of secular humanism.
Free exercise means free exercise. Coach Kennedy can pray or not pray. The same is true with every one of his players. Free exercise! Not ACLU enforced “disestablishment” of Christianity.
Where are the churches? WHERE ARE THE PASTORS? Where are the Christian lawyers who will expose the lie that courts can’t make laws? Why do we follow such foolishness? It is time that somebody, somewhere told the courts and the ACLU to go pound sand. www.defytyrants.com
Christians pay for the schools, yet Christian prayers are not permitted. All across the fruited plain, Islam is being invited into the schools with Halal meals and prayer rooms. Is it just me, or is there no separation between Islam and state? We could ask Hussein Obama, but then again we know where he kneels on the issue.
Since the 1947 Everson v Board of Education opinion, we have been sold a lie.
Religious liberty is absolute in America. If the government can inhibit the mention of God, then government has inserted itself ABOVE God. That has been the Christ-haters plan all along. They have used that lie to run Christianity out of the Public Square.
There is no separation between the church and state. Prayer in schools and Bible reading in schools are not unlawful. The posting of the 10 Commandments violates no law. Abortion has never been made legal. Homosexual sodomy is still a crime. Homosexual marriage can never be legal because it violates all Natural and Christian laws.
Courts cannot make law. They merely offer opinions. Christian values have been removed from America by tyrannical courts.
Coach Kennedy can pray. His players can pray. The school board can pray. The band can pray. The parents can pray. The bus driver can pray. Free exercise of prayer is UNALIENABLE!
It’s déjà vu all over again. How long will we allow ourselves to be controlled by the man behind the curtain?
COURTS CANNNOT MAKE LAWS!
What a bunch of misguided sheep we are.
© 2015 Dave Daubenmire – All Rights Reserved
Dave Daubenmire is a veteran 35 year high school football coach who was spurred to action when attacked and sued by the ACLU in the late 1990â€™s for praying with his high school football team. After a two year battle for his 1st amendment rights, the ACLU relented and offered coach an out of court settlement.
Challenging the “church of the Status Quo”, Pass The Salt Ministries is calling Christians to wake up and engage the culture. By taking the fight to the enemy, Coach Daubenmire has become a recognizable voice in the media as he is an unashamed, articulate, apologist for the Christian worldview. A popular, high-energy speaker, Coach Daubenmire’s motivational lectures, laced with powerful and relevant Scripture, is challenging Americans all across the country.
Thanks coach, It’s good to see someone besides myself still knows the real definition of UNALIENABLE! The education and media industry have done a great job of polluting the English dictionary, and the minds of our fellow Americans. There will soon come a time when our fellow Americans will support those who come to kill us, and for my part, I welcome it! There is not enough grit left in our country to stand up and fight back, and the shame I feel for them is too much to bear. At 75 there is just too much despair to deal with.
July 20th, 2015 by olddog
By Joshua Krause
As America continues to descend into a vicious police state, many have wondered how it all came to this. The easiest answer to that question, is that we let it happen. No matter how brutal a regime may be, tyrants never come to power unless they gain the approval, or at least the indifferent consent of their people.
So the real question is, how come so many people seem absolutely complacent in the face of our crumbling cultural values, and the steady march of tyranny? Even worse, how can so many people revel in it? It seems like the number of people who truly value freedom are severely outnumbered by idiots and power tripping busybodies. Granted, the number of people who want to be free has grown in recent years, but they’re still few and far between when compared to the glut of grovelling masses that we share the world with.
Here’s the awful answer to that question, and the dirty truth that most people can’t bring themselves to admit. Most people love freedom, but only as an idea. They like the idea that they can do whatever they want, they admire the archetype of the rugged individualist, and everyone loves underdogs and rebels. In other words, people love the banners and symbols of freedom, but do they love freedom in practice?
I would argue that no, many of them don’t. As strange as it may sound, most people really struggle with having freedom. Let me provide an example, of which there are many in the field of marketing.
In the year 2000, two psychologists conducted a study on how the number of choices we have affects our behavior. They went to a supermarket and displayed 24 different gourmet jams on a table, and provided $1 coupons to see how much interest it garnered. They did the same thing the next day, but instead of 24 jams, there were only 6. The large display attracted much more interest, but the small display generated 10 times as many sales.
Maybe you think that study is inconsequential, and I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that, but let me share another case that will clarify my point. One of the psychologists who conducted that study, did another study on the differences between end-of-life care in the United States and France. She interviewed parents in both countries who had children on life support. In France, the doctor makes the decision as to whether or not a child is taken off life support, and in the United States it is the parents’ decision.
She talked to these parents a year after their children had died. The American parents were much more distraught over their decision to pull the plug. They still had nagging doubts about whether it was the right decision to make, and they felt like they had “executed” their children. The French parents, on the other hand, didn’t feel nearly as bad about the situation. They were well on their way to coping with the tragedy.
The point I’m trying to make here is that most people don’t like having choices, despite how much they’ll argue to the contrary. The more choices they’re given, the more likely they are to not like the choices they have or make. There’s much more doubt about whether or not that choice was correct, which leads to some pretty counter-intuitive conclusions. You can measure how free you are by the number of choices you have, and most people claim to love freedom, but in many cases those people are happier when they have fewer, or no choices. I think most people are simply happier without freedom, which is unfortunate and sad to say the least.
And that is why so many people accept tyranny, and why it will always be a problem for the human race. Because tyranny is so much easier than freedom. It is acquiescence. It means giving up. Tyranny is for quitters, and it amounts to handing over the reins to someone else. Most people are happier when they don’t have a choice, and they don’t even realize it.
However, there is another way to look at this odd human behavior.
There was another interesting fact that was gleaned from that study. The American parents who had chosen to take their sick children off life support, still regretted their decision. But when asked if they would have had it any other way, most of them claimed that they would have still made the same decision. Their decision made them unhappy, they knew it made them unhappy, but when they were asked if they would have rather let the doctor make that choice, they all said no.
And that right there is an example of people who truly want freedom, and not just the rosy idea of freedom. Those who truly want freedom are willing to accept the painful struggle of having a choice in life, and prefer it to the ignorant bliss that comes with not having a choice. However, it was only applicable to that particular situation. Would those same parents prefer to have a choice in every other aspect of their lives?
Unfortunately, that kind of person is a rare bird these days. If you could ask everyone in the world about their ethics and political beliefs, you’d probably find a wide variety, but most of them would have one thing in common. There’s always some part of their lives that they are willing to relinquish to a “higher authority,” and that part differs depending on their ideology. Most people don’t really want the full freedom package.
So it’s up to the rare few who really want freedom, without compromise, to make it a reality for themselves. The human race will always teeter on the edge of a tyrannical abyss, because there is an inherent weakness in our species. We’re happier when we don’t have so many choices (or freedom), which means that accepting tyranny is easy for us. It takes all our strength and moral fiber to rise above it, because we default towards tyranny (which is defined by the lack of choice in our lives) when we stop caring. It’s our natural inclination.
Just as human weakness and apathy leads to ignorance, violence, and hatred, it also destroys freedom. And the political and financial elitists of the world want you to give in to your weaknesses, and fall back on those baser instincts. They want you to give up. They want you to yearn for a simple life, where your choices are taken care of by someone else. They want you to be a slave.
But do you really want that? Do you have the strength to make that choice?
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
July 14th, 2015 by olddog
By LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
The United States is not a constitutional republic. It is an oligarchy controlled by wealthy financiers who hire politicians to pass legislation beneficial to them and employ journalists to keep the citizens ignorant and compliant.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans believe in democracy. It is simply an ideological contest between two different forms of totalitarianism based on big government, where they represent only themselves in their pursuit of personal power and profit.
Over the last hundred years, the Democrat Party has moved farther and farther to the left, evolving from populism to Marxism and developing an operational model resembling that of the mafia. Its leaders are a gaggle of coffeehouse communists and unindicted felons, who seek the lifestyles of the rich and famous while practicing the politics of Joseph Stalin.
The Republicans are democratic only in the sense that they are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder, where their political power and, ultimately, compensation from their rich donors increase proportionally with the expansion of government.
The federal government is now an industry competing with the private sector for revenues and resources, but, unlike the private sector, government is unconstrained by regulation and the rule of law.
The cost of public-sector pay and benefits, for example, which in many cases far exceed what comparable workers earn in the private sector, combined with hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities for retired government workers, are weighing down the economy.
The fundamental problem is public-sector collective bargaining. It is appropriate in the private sector, where workers bargain with private, profit-making corporations and where market forces provide an independent check on both sides’ demands.
Yet there is an unholy alliance and a mutually beneficial relationship for money and votes between Democrats and public sector unions, which, in terms of government services, translate into higher costs, lower efficiency and, worst of all, less democracy.
Why are such illogical and dishonest policies allowed to continue? Because it is profitable.
To foster big government from which they personally benefit, the Democrats nurture a Marxist-type victim class, while the Republicans serve the affluent, both at the expense of the Middle Class, whose propensities toward liberty and accountability represent a threat to the hopelessly corrupt status quo that the two major parties and the media endeavor so vigorously to protect.
Ergo, the War on the Middle Class, now pursued by both Democrats and Republicans, albeit for different reasons.
As a consequence and, not surprisingly, today the main the activity of the federal government is lying. Barack Obama lied to get elected, lied to enact his policies and lied when those policies failed. In response, the Republicans added cowardice to their own set of lies.
As George Orwell noted: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
That is why the political establishment and the media find Donald Trump so frightening; the danger that the truth might be spoken.
There is, however, a greater peril – when blatant and outrageous lies are no longer sufficient to soothe the electorate into complacency, such a government must begin to curtail liberty and oppress the people in order to sustain itself, an approach with which both Democrats and Republicans find agreement.
The United States is on the cusp of a second civil war, one to determine who should control the federal government. It is not a contest between the Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives, but a battle between the entrenched power and tyranny of the bipartisan political-media establishment versus the rights and liberties of the American people.
Only the truth will set us free.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at email@example.com.
THIS IS A NO BRAINER FOLKS
PICK UP THE PHONE AND DO YOUR DUTY
July 13th, 2015 by olddog
By Dr. Kelley
The 21st Century Cures Act is going through the U.S. Congress right now, and it will likely pass into law unless some opposition materializes (it passed through the House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee with a vote of 51 to 0). The Act is a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, removing many of the safety mechanisms in place that are supposed to keep the public protected from unsafe drugs and medical devices.
The 21st Century Cures Act allows drugs to be rushed to the market, removes phase 3 testing as a requirement for drug approval, bases drug approval on biomarkers rather than actual health outcomes, and encourages the production of new antibiotics at a time when microbiome destruction is increasingly being linked to chronic diseases.
Rushing Drugs to Market
With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, drugs will be rushed to market with little testing required. A New York Times piece, “Don’t Weaken the F.D.A.’s Drug Approval Process” notes that the 21st Century Cures Act “could substantially lower the standards for approval of many medical products, potentially placing patients at unnecessary risk of injury or death.” The Act weakens an already weak regulatory process that is currently doing a poor job of protecting the public from adverse reactions to drugs and medical devices. (In the currently weak system, preventable medical errors in hospitals are the third leading cause of death in the United States, and, “between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.” source)
The End of Evidence Based Medicine
Modern medicine is supposed to be “evidence based medicine” backed up by replicable, placebo controlled scientific experiments that show that a drug or medical device effectively treats the disease or symptom that it is purported to treat. This standard of evidence will no longer exist if the 21st Century Cures Act passes into law. The Act will allow drug approval to be based on biomarkers and surrogate measures rather than health outcomes. This has been disastrous in the past and it will be even more disastrous in the future. For example, we’re now seeing that statins do well at reducing cholesterol, but despite improving that biomarker, they don’t improve health outcomes for large portions of the population (notably, the female portion of the population).
A New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article, “The 21st Century Cures Act — Will It Take Us Back in Time?” notes that:
But though a drug’s effect on a biomarker can make approval quicker and less costly, especially if the comparator is placebo, it may not always predict the drug’s capacity to improve patient outcomes. Bevacizumab (Avastin) delayed tumor progression in advanced breast cancer but was shown not to benefit patients. Similarly, rosiglitazone (Avandia) lowered glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with diabetes even as it increased their risk of myocardial infarction. In 2013, patients began to receive a new drug for tuberculosis approved on the basis of a randomized trial relying on a surrogate measure of bacterial counts in the sputum — even though patients given the drug in that trial had a death rate four times that in the comparison group, mostly from tuberculosis.
Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO), one of the co-sponsors of the 21st Century Cures Act, bragged on Twitter that, “In 120yrs we have gone from #snakeoil to mapping the #humangenome. W/your help #Cures2015 is ready to take us further.” But if pharmaceuticals are no longer required to have evidence that they improve health outcomes, how are they any better than snake oils? One only needs to look as far as the recent history of psychiatry to see that the line between snake oils and “evidence based medicine” is already woefully thin. Removing regulatory and procedural requirements from the drug approval process, via the 21st Century Cures Act, will just encourage the production of more dangerous pharmaceuticals that are no better or safer than snake oil.
Diminishing requirements for evidence of efficacy is bad for the medical system too. Basing medicine on scientific inquiry and actual evidence of efficacy is a bedrock of medicine, and without it the medical system will lose credibility.
The Loss of Informed Consent
The 21st Century Cures Act will diminish another bedrock of modern medicine – informed consent. The NEJM article notes that:
“Informed consent by patients in drug trials has traditionally been sacrosanct, with exceptions made only when consent is impossible to obtain or contrary to a patient’s best interests. But another clause in the proposed law adds a new kind of exception: studies in which ‘the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk’ — a major departure from current human subject protections. It is not clear who gets to determine whether a given trial of a new drug poses ‘minimal risk.’”
Informed consent is crucial not only for the credibility of modern medicine, it is crucial for liberty.
Dangerous New Antibiotics
One of the least controversial, but in reality most dangerous, parts of the 21st Century Cures Act is its encouragement of new antibiotics. Before I go into why this part of the Act is dangerous, let me acknowledge that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a huge problem, and antibiotic resistant infections are causing many deaths. Without being able to keep pathogenic bacteria in check, many medical procedures will be impossible, and many lives will be lost. But we got into the predicament of bacteria being resistant to antibiotics by over-using antibiotics in both agriculture and medicine, and to encourage increased use of antibiotics will only perpetuate the problem. The solution to antibiotic resistance is prudent use of available antibiotics and finding sustainable ways to reduce harm caused by pathogenic bacteria (perhaps by using healthy bacteria to keep the unhealthy bacteria in check), not doubling down on the “kill all bacteria” tactic that led us to the problem of antibiotic resistant bacterial infections in the first place. Bacteria will continue to adapt in us and around us, and increasing the intensity of the war between us and bacteria is beyond foolish. We will lose any war that we wage against bacteria because we need bacteria – they are not separate from us – and they play a larger role in human health than we can currently imagine.
A healthy and balanced microbiome (“the ecological community of commensal, symbiotic and pathogenic microorganisms that literally share our body space”) is crucial for all areas of health, and a disturbed microbiome has been linked to all of the diseases of modernity, including mental health disorders, neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory bowel disease and Crohn’s disease, mysterious diseases like fibromyalgia, autism, etc. And while there is acknowledgement of the role that a healthy microbiome plays in these diseases, researchers and journalists alike have been loath to acknowledge the role antibiotics have played in contributing to these diseases of modernity. No one wants to be anti-antibiotic. Everyone knows that antibiotics have saved millions of lives, but that doesn’t mean they are without consequences. And the good that penicillin has done doesn’t mean that all antibiotics are equally safe or effective. I can make a pretty thorough argument that fluoroquinolone antibiotics, like Cipro/ciprofloxacin and Levaquin/levofloxacin, drugs that work by “inhibition of the enzymes topoisomerase II (DNA gyrase) and topoisomerase IV (both Type II topoisomerases), which are required for bacterial DNA replication, transcription, repair, and recombination,” are at least partially responsible for many of the diseases of modernity (more information can be found HERE, HERE and HERE). Fluoroquinolone antibiotics do not have the same safety profile as amoxicillin, and to assume that they do because both are categorized as antibiotics, is foolish on multiple levels.
The 21st Century Cures Act will encourage the production of new antibiotics, regardless of their safety profile or mechanism of action. Doctors Avorn and Kesselhem note in the NEJM that:
The proposed legislation would make immediate changes with respect to new antibiotics and antifungals by enabling their approval without conventional clinical trials, if needed to treat a “serious or life-threatening infection” in patients with an “unmet medical need.” In place of proof that the antimicrobial actually decreases morbidity or mortality, the FDA would be empowered to accept nontraditional efficacy measures drawn from small studies as well as “preclinical, pharmacologic, or pathophysiologic evidence; nonclinical susceptibility and pharmacokinetic data, data from phase 2 clinical trials; and such other confirmatory evidence as the secretary [of health and human services] determines appropriate to approve the drug.” Antimicrobials approved in this manner would carry disclaimers on their labeling, but there is no evidence that such a precaution would restrict prescribing to only the most appropriate patients. If passed in its current form, the bill would also provide hospitals with a financial bonus for administering costly new but unproven antibiotics, which could encourage their more widespread use. The bill gives the secretary of health and human services the authority to expand this nontraditional approval pathway to other drug categories as well, if “the public health would benefit from expansion.”
Fluoroquinolone antibiotics like Cipro and Levaquin, some of the most popular antibiotics on the market, cause a chronic illness known as fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome or, colloquially, “floxing,” that includes damage to connective tissue (tendons, ligaments, cartilage, fascia, etc.) throughout the body, damage to the nervous systems (central, peripheral, and autonomic), and more. Rather than putting mechanisms in place that help victims of iatrogenic antibiotic poisoning, or to prevent their pain and suffering in the first place, the 21st Century Cures Act opens the door for more damaging antibiotics to flood the market.
The Ever-Increasing Power of the Pharmaceutical Industry
The current medical system lacks the mechanisms required to protect consumers from the dangers of pharmaceuticals. The FDA is failing to protect people from dangerous drugs, the justice system is failing to compensate people for harm done by dangerous drugs, doctors, pharmacists and even research scientists are so indoctrinated in the “there’s a pill for that” culture that they fail to question it, and the drug-consuming public ends up poisoned and sick because no one is keeping the pharmaceutical companies in check. All powerful entities need checks and balances, the pharmaceutical industry is no exception. The 21st Century Cures Act gives the too-powerful pharmaceutical industry even more power, power that will undoubtedly be abused.
Pros and Cons
There are a couple good elements to the 21st Century Cures Act. It increases the NIH budget, which some can argue is an improvement. It also focuses on finding pharmaceutical solutions to rare diseases, which many people with rare diseases will find to be cause for hope.
I fear though, that people with rare diseases will be turned into guinea pigs because the pharmaceutical companies seeking cures for their rare diseases will have no limits put on what they can do to the people suffering from them. I also find it objectionable that there is no mention in the Act of investigating the causes of “rare” diseases or “rare” adverse drug reactions.
The potential harm that can be brought on by the 21st Century Cures Act far outweighs its potential benefits, and I encourage all Americans reading this to contact your Congressional Representatives to voice your concerns about this bill.
Human Health is Too Important to Leave to Congress
The human body is amazingly, beautifully, mind-bogglingly complex and intricate. New discoveries about our biology are being made every day. For example, it was recently discovered that the brain has a lymphatic system, a discovery that may have huge implications for human health. Additionally, the burgeoning fields of epigenetics and microbiome research have far more questions than answers within them, and exciting discoveries are being made within those fields every day. Though there are undoubtedly brilliant scientists working in the biological sciences, even they are far from knowing “enough” about unforeseen consequences of messing with a biological system (through use of a drug) that connects to all other biological systems. Any doctor or scientist who is worth his/her title realizes how little anyone knows about the complex workings of the human body, is aware that medicine is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, and has humility about the consequences of what he/she doesn’t yet know.
If scientists can’t possibly know “enough” about human biology to produce pharmaceuticals that are exact and without side-effects (aka collateral damage), the shills and corporate-whores in Congress certainly don’t know “enough” about human health to legislate major changes that affect how medicine is implemented. They have that power though, and the 21st Century Cures Act is a consequential piece of legislation that is going to have major effects on the entire medical system if it is signed into law. Most of those effects are negative.
The 21st Century Cures Act diminishes the rocks on which modern medicine are based – informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and basing medicine on scientific evidence. The people of America, and the world, need to fight to keep those bedrocks in place. If all medical decisions, and all medical legislation, were made with informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and scientific evidence in mind, the world would be a much better place. Don’t assume for a second that current medical and legislative decisions are being made with those basic principles in mind. They are constantly being eroded. Diligently protect them to the best of your ability – and call your Representatives.
Written by Lisa Bloomquist and published by Collective Evolution, July 1, 2015.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml“
June 25th, 2015 by olddog
Foundation of global government cemented with passage of secretive bill
June 24, 2015
One of the most devastating blows to US sovereignty since the country’s founding was dealt today as the Senate handed President Obama his Trans-Pacific Partnership victory.
Despite massive opposition from the American people, Tea Party Republicans and a majority of Democrats, Obama was granted fast-track authority by a 60-38 vote.
Sections of the TPP published by Wikileaks have revealed the treaty’s vast influence over multiple areas including individual rights, internet freedom and even the rule of law itself. Unelected corporate boards and the President can now wield unprecedented control over almost every aspect of human activity.
“If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,” Wikileaks’ Julian Assange wrote.
Secret TPP chapters regarding immigration also grant President Obama an even greater ability to erode the country’s Southern border.
“Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input…” notes Breitbart.
The TPP, which covers 12 countries and more than 40% of the world’s economy, will place North America under the same global government structure as the European Union, where laws are increasingly crafted outside of public influence.
WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA
The scumbags in congress/senate have just sold us out completely, and there is no possibility of recourse as there is no possibility of organizing a rebellion without secret communication. All of the brave men and women who have been warning you to take action will now be hunted down and disposed of. There is no active constitution or common law left, and the military has been sanitized of patriots. Even with my extraordinary vocabulary of foul verbal expressions I find myself unable to express how putrid this travesty of justice is. And the most horrible part of all this is the majority of Americans have not the courage to stand up and refuse to obey. America has just committed suicide with their complacency. They are just plain stupid, and congress/senate is full of the most degenerate sons of bitches on earth. I hope those bastards die of the most agonizing/painful disease known to humanity.
February 4th, 2015 by olddog
This article was forwarded to me by what I consider the real first lady of America, Marilyn Barnewall
About ten years ago, I wrote an article about the preservative’s contained in children’s vaccines. Thimerasol has 49.6% Mercury in it and that’s the preservative used. I couldn’t find my article, but here is one I used as a point of reference at the time I wrote my article. Fox News is obviously selling this “vaccinations are totally safe” line – why? I haven’t heard them once mention all of the non-inoculated illegal alien children coming into the country which is (in all likelihood) the cause of the measles outbreak. Why are they avoiding the most logical reason as the cause? Something smells here (because of the avoidance of common sense and logic).
By Kelly Patricia O Meara
© 2003 News World Communications Inc.
The mother of an autistic child wonders aloud when health officials
will wake up to the epidemic that has claimed not only her son but
hundreds of thousands of other children in the United States, with no
end in sight. She muses, “Maybe someday this will be as important as
SARS and we’ll get the same attention. God knows we need it.”
Autism is a severely incapacitating developmental disability for which
there is no known cure. According to a recently released report by the
California Department of Developmental Services, or DDS, entitled
Autistic Spectrum Disorders, Changes in the California Caseload:
1999-2002, the rate of children diagnosed with full-syndrome autism in
the Golden State between 1999 and 2002 nearly doubled from 10,360 to
20,377. The report further revealed that “between Dec. 31, 1987, and
Dec. 31, 2002, the population of persons with full-syndrome autism has
increased by 634 percent.” That is a doubling of autism cases every
four years, and the staggering increases are not limited to California.
According to data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, the
increased autism rate in California is in line with the increases other
states are experiencing. For example, in 1992 Ohio reported 22 cases. A
decade later the number had increased by 13,895 percent to 3,057. In
Illinois the rate of autism cases climbed from just five in 1992 to
3,802 – an increase of 76,040 percent.
Mississippi, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia reported no
cases of autism in 1992, but by 2002 the number of cases reported were
461, 404 and 144, respectively.
Only Puerto Rico can claim to have an increase of less than 100
percent, with the remaining states reporting increases of at least 500
percent during the same period.
Although once considered rare, during the last two decades the chance
of a child being diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed from one in
10,000 to one in 150. In California, full-syndrome autism now is the
No. 1 disability among children and more prevalent than childhood
cancer, diabetes and Down’s syndrome. It is estimated that within the
next four years autism cases in the Golden State will exceed the total
number of cases of both cerebral palsy and epilepsy. To get a better
idea of how quickly the epidemic is spreading one need only consider
that in 1987 there were 2,778 persons with autism in California. By
2002 the number had increased to 20,377, and in 2002 3,575 new cases
had been added to the rolls, far exceeding the total number of cases in
the state 15 years earlier.
For years there has been a debate about the cause or causes of autism,
but the vast majority of finger-pointing has been directed at childhood
vaccines as the culprit. And considering what is put into the vaccines
injected into hours-old infants, it is easy to understand why they are
at the top of the list of suspects: formaldehyde (used in embalming),
thimerosal (nearly 50 percent mercury), aluminum phosphate (toxic and
carcinogenic), antibiotics, phenols (corrosive to skin and toxic),
aluminum salts (corrosive to tissue and neurotoxic), methanol (toxic),
isopropyl (toxic), 2-pheoxyethanol (toxic), live viruses and a host of
unknown components considered off-limits as trade secrets. These are
just part of the vaccine mixture.
For those who believe there are elements in vaccines that may be
responsible for the increased number of autism cases and other
neurological disorders, thimerosal currently is at the top of the list
of possible culprits being investigated.
Despite official insistence that the evidence linking injected
thimerosal to autism is inconclusive, the data suggest otherwise. In
1999 the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, or IOM,
must have thought there was something seriously wrong when it supported
removal of thimerosal from vaccines, stating that it was “a prudent
measure in support of the public goal to reduce mercury exposure of
infants and children as much as possible.” The IOM further urged that
“full consideration be given to removing thimerosal from any biological
product to which infants, children and pregnant women are exposed.”
A recently published study in the Journal of American Physicians and
Surgeons by Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D., and president of the Genetic
Centers of America and his son, David Geier, president of Medcon Inc.
and a consultant on vaccine cases, was titled “Thimerosal in Childhood
Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders and Heart Disease in the United
States.” It presents strong epidemiological evidence for a link between
neurodevelopmental disorders and mercury exposure from
thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines.
Specifically, the authors evaluated the doses of mercury that children
received as part of their immunization schedule, then compared these
doses with federal safety guidelines. Furthermore, to compare the
effects of thimerosal in vaccine recipients, the incident rates of
neurodevelopmental disorders and heart disease reported to the
government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System were analyzed. The
results were dramatic. The report revealed that “U.S. infants are
exposed to mercury levels from their childhood-immunization schedule
that far exceed the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA [Food
and Drug Administration]-established maximum permissible levels for the
daily oral ingestion of methyl mercury.”
The authors concluded that “in light of voluminous literature
supporting the biologic mechanisms for mercury-induced adverse
reactions, the presence of amounts of mercury in thimerosal-containing
childhood vaccines exceeding federal safety guidelines for the oral
ingestion of mercury and previous epidemiological studies showing
adverse reactions to such vaccines, a causal relationship between
thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines and neurodevelopment disorders
and heart disease appears to be confirmed.”
It is no secret among government and health officials that mercury is
toxic and causes serious adverse reactions. In July 1999 the American
Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Public Health Service issued a joint
statement calling for the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. Five
years after the joint statement, however, it still is difficult for
parents and physicians to be sure that the pharmaceutical companies
have indeed removed the toxic substance from their vaccines.
According to Mark Geier, “The 2003 Physicians’ Desk Reference, or PDR,
still shows childhood vaccines containing thimerosal, including
diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis. DTaP, manufactured by
Aventis Pasteur, contains 25µg [25 micrograms] of mercury, Hemophilus
influenzae b (Hib) vaccine manufactured by Wyeth contains 25µg of
mercury and pediatric Hepatitis B vaccine, manufactured by Merck,
contains 12.5µg of mercury.”
Geier continues, “In addition, the influenza vaccine that is
recommended for an increasing segment of the pediatric population in
the U.S. also contains 25µg of mercury. Assuming that the labeling is
correct, it is possible that children in the U.S. in 2003 may be
exposed to levels of mercury from thimerosal contained in childhood
vaccines that are at higher levels than at any time in the past.
Possible total childhood mercury in 2003 is more than 300µg.”
Whether the “labeling is correct” is the question du jour. According to
Len Lavenda, a spokesman for Aventis Pasteur, the maker of DTaP,
“Aventis only sells the DTaP vaccine in the preservative-free
formulation. The PDR references both the single and multidose. However,
when we received the license for the preservative-free we ceased sales
of the multidose vial. For some reason, the package insert takes much
longer to revise than one would expect. I believe it is at the FDA
waiting for approval, but the fact is we do not sell or market that
product. In March 2001 we stopped all sales of that product in the
preservative formulation. We did not recall the product at that time
because it was our belief that if we did children may go unimmunized.
It’s been two years since anyone has been able to purchase the
preservative formulation from us.”
Lavenda continues: “The package insert talks about both the single and
multidose vials and it says that the single-dose vial is
preservative-free, and that is all that is sold. The PDR is outdated,
but parents don’t have to worry about their children being administered
25µg of thimerosal. It just takes time to get the paperwork caught up.
The current package insert does not accurately reflect what is being
Geier is astounded by Lavenda’s admission. “If this is true, they
should be in jail. They can’t have an insert on a drug that is totally
wrong. It is against all regulations. If I’m a doctor and I’m giving
you a shot and the insert says such and such is in the shot, it had
better be in it. If doctors can’t rely on the instructions that come
with what we’re injecting then all bets are off. This is a far worse
admission than admitting that thimerosal is still in the vaccine. There
are at least 15 laws that say the insert has to match what is in the
product. This is absolutely horrendous. In my entire career in medicine
I have never heard of a drug company claiming that what’s in the insert
and the accompanying product don’t match. This is total mislabeling and
fraud by their own admission. Legally they should be forced to close
down because our clinical decisions are based on their labeling.”
Assuming that the package inserts are correct, Geier tells Insight,
“The EPA limit is 0.1 micrograms of mercury per kilogram body weight
per day. It doesn’t take a genius to do the calculations when on their
day of birth children are given the hepatitis B vaccine, which is 12.5
micrograms of mercury. The average newborn weighs between 6 and 7
pounds, so they would be allowed 0.3 micrograms of mercury – but in
this one shot they are getting 12.5 micrograms. That’s 39 times more
than allowed by law. And it gets worse when you consider that children
are getting multiple vaccinations at 2 months. And this limit is for
oral ingestion and not injection, which is much worse.”
Rhonda Smith, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, tells Insight that, except for mere traces, thimerosal
has been removed. “All routinely recommended licensed vaccines,” says
Smith, “that are currently being manufactured for children in the U.S.,
except influenza, contain no thimerosal or only trace amounts – a
concentration of less than 0.0002 percent.” But according to the 2003
immunization schedule and the package inserts, there appear to be a
number of childhood vaccines that still contain mercury, including
those for tetanus and diphtheria.
This scenario becomes even more bizarre when one further considers that
thimerosal is not a necessary component in vaccines. It first was
introduced by pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co. in the 1930s and
is added to vaccines only as a preservative – the theory being that
multiple doses are taken from the same bottle and that thimerosal will
protect against contamination. However, according to Geier, “the
solution to any such problem is to make vaccines available in a single
dose, which will cost the pharmaceuticals about one penny more. What is
interesting is that if you look up the mumps, measles, rubella [MMR]
vaccines in the PDR you’ll see that they do not contain thimerosal
because it would kill the live virus. The MMR is available in multidose
packaging and, yet, there is no preservative – nothing. What they did
was put a label on it that says ‘This product does not contain
preservatives. Handle with care.’ It’s that simple.”
Geier insists, “I’m pro-vaccines, but the bottom line is that our kids
are getting massive amounts of mercury. Mercury has been withdrawn from
everything, including animal vaccines, yet we keep injecting it into
our children. Everyone should absolutely refuse to take a vaccine shot
that has thimerosal in it, and they should insist on reading the
vaccine package insert. Our data showed that the more mercury children
received in their childhood vaccines the more neurodevelopment
disorders there are. We’ve looked at this every possible way and every
time there’s massive evidence to support it.”
So, if everyone acknowledges the toxicity of mercury and top U.S.
health officials have called for its removal, why is thimerosal still
“Maybe,” concludes Geier, “the mercury isn’t being taken out all at
once because if the pharmaceutical companies did that you would see an
unbelievable change in the rate of autism and there would be massive
lawsuits. If you look at the graphs now they go up and up. If you stop
the thimerosal all at once you’d see the numbers fall dramatically.”
Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., a longtime advocate for victims of autism, has
a grandson who became autistic after receiving nine vaccines in one
day. Burton recently sent his second request in as many years to the
White House asking for a conference of scientists, researchers and
parents to look into the causes of autism.
The Indiana lawmaker tells Insight, “There is no doubt in my mind that
the mercury in vaccines is a major contributing factor to a growing
number of neurological disorders among children, but in particular
Burton explains that “thimerosal is a toxic substance – mercury – and
should not be put in close proximity of people, should not be injected
into people, especially children who have a newly formed immune system
that may not be able to handle it. To my knowledge there never have
been long-term tests on thimerosal and we never should have used
mercury in vaccines, period. Now what we’ve got is an epidemic that is
absolutely out of control.”
The Indiana congressman continues, “One reason this isn’t getting the
attention it needs is that the Food and Drug Administration has very
close ties to the pharmaceutical companies, as does the Department of
Health and Human Services [HHS] and the Centers for Disease Control.
I’ve said in the past that in some cases it appears that it’s a
revolving door and people leave government health agencies and go to
work for the pharmaceuticals, which I think have undue influence on our
health agencies. Of course, they may not want to look at this because
there’s a possibility that large claims would be filed and the
pharmaceutical companies would have to cough up the money to take care
of these kids who have been damaged.”
Burton means business. He insists, “The FDA, CDC and HHS should put out
in a very public way the dangers of mercury, but as soon as they do it
will amount to an admission that their mercury is causing these
problems. So the reports that come out of the FDA, CDC and HHS use
ambiguous terms. Well, if they’re not sure, and there’s the remotest
possibility that mercury in vaccines could cause autism, they ought to
get thimerosal off the market. Too many kids are being ruined for life
because of this stuff.”
Barbara Loe Fisher is founder of the National Vaccine Information
Center, a charitable organization dedicated to the prevention of
vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. Fisher tells
Insight, “There are many things in vaccines that could be causing these
disorders, and thimerosal is only part of the problem. In the last 20
years, we’ve gone from giving children 23 doses of seven vaccines to 38
doses of 12 vaccines. I think the mercury is part of it for some kids,
though I’m not sure it’s the answer for all.” But this is a no-brainer,
says Fisher. “Mercury shouldn’t be in vaccines. They’ve taken it out of
everything else so why not the vaccines? The one thing that people
really need to look at is the dramatic rise in chronic disease and
disabilities in our kids in just the last two decades. You have to
admit that there is something occurring that a growing number of
children cannot get through without being immune-system and
brain-system damaged. And what is the one thing that we expose every
child to? Those vaccines.”
Fisher concludes, “I’ve always argued that public health is not
measured only by an absence of infectious disease. It also is measured
by the absence of chronic disease. By that score we get a big fat ‘F.’
So we don’t have measles and mumps, but look what we have now. It’s
just really simple: Take the mercury out and let’s see what happens.”
Even so, based on the Aventis admission that the package insert does
not reflect what is in the vaccine, it will be difficult to know when,
if ever, the thimerosal actually has been removed. This skews the data
about the relationship between thimerosal and autism. More important,
it means parents cannot be sure the vaccinations their children receive
are free of mercury.
Neither the Wyeth nor Merck pharmaceutical companies, nor HHS or FDA,
returned Insight’s calls about this matter.
Personally, I find it incredible that so many parents are stupid enough to comply with the dictates of the pharmaceutical-medical-political establishment. America is long on gullibility and short on common sense.
All it takes is the appearance of authority and they bend over like a fag. Parents are letting the government agencies take their children away and put them in the child-welfare system for not complying with their orders and I for one accuse them of being absolute cowards, and there are no publicly suitable words to express my opinion of the enforcers.
November 19th, 2012 by olddog
THIS IS WHY OLDDOG SUPPORTS SECESSION
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War Committed “in the Name of 9/11″
Initiating a Legal Procedure against the Perpetrators of 9/11
International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”
Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)
Kuala Lumpur, November 2012
The tragic events of September 11, 2001 constitute a fundamental landmark in American history, a decisive watershed, a breaking point. Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of 9/11.
September 11 2001 opens up an era of crisis, upheaval and militarization of American society. The post September 11, 2001 era is marked by the outright criminalization of the US State, including its judicial, foreign policy, national security and intelligence apparatus.
9/11 marks the onslaught of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification by the US and its NATO allies to carry out a “war without borders”, a global war of conquest.
A far-reaching overhaul of US military doctrine was launched in the wake of 9/11.
9/11 was also a stepping stone towards the relentless repeal of civil liberties, the militarization of law enforcement and the inauguration of “Police State USA”.
In assessing the crimes associated with 9/11 in the context of a legal procedure, we must distinguish between those associated with the actual event, namely the loss of life and the destruction of property, from the crimes committed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 “in the name of 9/11″. The latter build upon the former. We are dealing with two related dimensions of criminality. The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 involving acts of war are far-reaching, resulting in the deaths of millions of people as well as the destruction of entire countries.
The 9/11 event in itself– which becomes symbolic– is used to justify the onslaught of the post 9/11 US-NATO military agenda, under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), not to mention the ushering in of the Homeland police state and the repeal of civil liberties.
The crimes committed in the name of 9/11 broadly consist in two intimately related processes:
1. The launching of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), used as a pretext and a justification to Wage a War of Conquest. This GWOT mandate was used to justify the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT mandate has since extended its grip to a large number of countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the US and its NATO allies are intervening selectively under a counterterrorism mandate.
2. The derogation of civil liberties and the instatement of an Orwellian police state apparatus within Western countries. In the US, the introduction of the PATRIOT legislation and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks set the stage for the subsequent restructuring of the judicial and law enforcement apparatus, culminating in the legalisation of extrajudicial assassinations under an alleged counter-terrorism mandate.
The 9/11 attacks constitute what is referred to in intelligence parlance to as a “massive casualty producing event” conducive to the deaths of civilians.
The dramatic loss of life on the morning of 9/11 resulting from an initial criminal act is used as a pretext and a justification to wage an all out war of retribution, in the name of 9/11 against the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, namely the “state sponsors of terrorism”, including Afghanistan, Iraq as well as Iran.
We are dealing with a diabolical and criminal project. The civilian deaths resulting from the 911 attacks are an instrument of war propaganda, applied to build a consensus in favor of an outright war of global domination.
The perpetrators of war propaganda are complicit in the conduct of extensive war crimes, in that they readily justify acts of war as counter-terrorism and/or humanitarian operations (R2P) launched to protect civilians.
The “Just War” (Jus ad Bellum) concept prevails: The killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq are “rightfully” undertaken in retribution for the deaths incurred on 9/11.
Evidence is fabricated to the effect that the “state sponsors of terrorism” had committed, on the morning of 9/11, an outright act of war against the United States.
Realities are turned upside down. The US and its allies are the victims of foreign aggression. America’s crimes of war in Afghanistan and Iraq are committed in the name of 9/11 under a counter terrorism mandate.
The 9/11 attacks are used to harness public opinion into supporting a war without borders. Endless wars of aggression under the humanitarian cloak of “counter-terrorism” are set in motion.
Chronology of Events
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an in-depth police investigation.
CIA Director George Tenet stated that same morning that Osama bin Laden had the capacity to plan “multiple attacks with little or no warning.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks “an act of war” and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would “make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those [foreign governments] who harbor them”.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey, without mentioning Afghanistan, pointed his finger at “state sponsorship,” implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, “I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution.”
That same evening at 9:30 pm, a “War Cabinet” was formed integrated by a select number of top intelligence and military advisors. And at 11:00 pm, at the end of that historic meeting at the White House, the “War on Terrorism” was officially launched.
The war cabinet had decided to launch an an illegal and criminal war on Afghanistan, based on essentially two interrelated concepts:
1. The 9/11 attacks although allegedly conducted by Al Qaeda were upheld as an all out military attack by a foreign power.
2. Afghanistan in allegedly supporting Al Qaeda, was responsible for an act of military aggression directed against the United States of America.
The tragic events of 9/11 provided the required justification to wage war on Afghanistan on “humanitarian grounds”, with the full support of World public opinion and the endorsement of the “international community”. Several prominent “progressive” intellectuals made a case for “retaliation against terrorism”, on moral and ethical grounds. In taking on this stance they provided legitimacy to the conduct of war crimes. The “just cause” military doctrine (jus ad bellum) was accepted and upheld at face value as a legitimate response to 9/11.
In the wake of 9/11, the antiwar movement was completely isolated. The trade unions and civil society organizations had swallowed the media lies and government propaganda. They had accepted a war of retribution against Afghanistan, an impoverished country in Central Asia of 30 million people.
The myth of the “outside enemy” and the threat of “Islamic terrorists” was the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s military doctrine, used as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the repeal of civil liberties and constitutional government in America. The post 9/11 era was also characterised by the development of Islamophobia, including routine ethnic profiling directed against Muslims.
Where was Osama bin Laden on September 11, 2001?
Is there any proof to the effect that Osama bin Laden, the bogeyman, coordinated the 9/11 attacks as claimed in the official 9/11 narrative?
According to CBS news (Dan Rather, January 28, 2002), “Enemy Number One” was admitted to the urology ward of a Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. Rawalpindi is the Headquarters of the Pakistani military including its intelligence apparatus. He could have been arrested at short notice which would have “saved us a lot of trouble”, but then we would not have had an Osama Legend, which has fed the news chain as well as presidential speeches in the course of the last eleven years.
DAN RATHER. As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan. (transcript of CBS report, see
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html , see also
CBS News footage of the Rawalpindi, Pakistan, hospital where bin Laden was allegedly treated the day before 9/11. [Source: CBS News]
The foregoing CBS report which is of utmost relevance indicates two obvious facts:
1. Osama bin Laden could not reasonably have coordinated the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed;
2. The hospital was under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts were known to both the Pakistani and US military.
U.S. military and intelligence advisers based in Rawalpindi. were working closely with their Pakistani counterparts. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, at the time, that the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden were unknown. According to Rumsfeld: “Its like looking for a needle in a stack of hay”.
Recovering from his hospital treatment in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, how could Osama have coordinated the 9/11 attacks?
How could Afghanistan be made responsible for these attacks by Al Qaeda? Bin Laden is a national of Saudi Arabia who, according to CBS News, was not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan at the time of the attacks.
September 12, 2001: The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security
The immediate response of the US and its NATO allies to the 9/11 attacks was to the declare a war of retribution against Afghanistan on the grounds that the Taliban government was protecting “terror mastermind” Osama bin Laden, who at the time of the attacks was in Pakistan, protected by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus. In a bitter irony, the Pakistani government and military, which had facilitated bin Laden’s hospitalization in Rawalpindi on September 10, offered to assist the US in “going after bin Laden”. An agreement to this effect was reached on September 12 in Washington between the head of Pakistan’s military Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmed and Secretary Colin Powell.
Parroting official statements, the Western media mantra on September 12, 2001 had already approved the launching of “punitive actions” directed against civilian targets in Afghanistan. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: “When we reasonably determine our attackers’ bases and camps, we must pulverize them — minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage” — and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror’s national hosts”.
By allegedly harboring bin Laden, the Afghan government was complicit, according to both the US administration and NATO, for having waged an act of war against the United States.
This decision was taken by the Bush-Cheney war cabinet in the evening of September 11, 2001. It was based on the presumption, “confirmed” by the head of the CIA that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
On the following morning, September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, endorsed the Bush administration’s declaration of war on Afghanistan (taken by the war cabinet at 11pm on September 11), invoking Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
Meanwhile, on two occasions in the course of September 2001, the Afghan government –through diplomatic channels– offered to hand over Osama Bin laden to US Justice. These overtures were turned down by president Bush, on the grounds that America “does not negotiate with terrorists”.
The War on Afghanistan: First Stage of the “Global War on Terrorism”
The war on Afghanistan was launched 26 days later on the morning of October 7, 2001. The timing of this war begs the question: how long does it take to plan and implement a major theater war several thousand miles away.
Military analysts will confirm that a major theater war takes months and months, up to a year or more of advanced preparations. Confirmed by press reports, the war on Afghanistan was already in an advanced state of readiness prior to September 11, 2001, which begs the question of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
In other words, the 9/11 attacks were used as a means to trigger a military agenda which was already on the drawing board of both the Pentagon and NATO.
The repeal of civil liberties in America was launched in parallel with the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan. Immediately following 9/11, the PATRIOT legislation was adopted. The Homeland Security apparatus was launched, with a view to “protecting Americans against terrorists”. This post-911 legal and institutional framework had been carefully crafted prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: NATO’s Legal Argument
In invoking Article 5 on the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s Atlantic Council endorsed a criminal military agenda, in derogation of international law.
The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.
On the morning of September 12, 2001, NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, responded to the decision of the War Cabinet taken a few hours earlier at 11pm on 9/11, adopted the following resolution:
“if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)
In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (NATO,
What is Article 5, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
An act of war by a foreign nation (Afghanistan) against a member of the Atlantic Alliance (the USA) was considered as an act of war against all members under NATO’s doctrine of collective security.
Under no stretch of the imagination, can the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon be categorized as an act of war by a foreign country. But nobody seemed to have raised this issue.
“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”
There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.
In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theater war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.
The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.
There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.
The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:
1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America;
2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:
“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack. The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.
Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad.
If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.
Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.
If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States.
(Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.
No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council.
(NATO, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report
The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.
Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.
US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.
On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks… ” NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).
The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.
NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:
“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.
The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.
This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.
Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.
Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.
The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.
We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.
On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.
I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)
In other words, 2 days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):
NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, 3 days before the commencement of the bombings.
Two days later, on 4 October, NATO agreed on eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to an illegal declaration of war on Afghanistan: to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it; to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory; to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism; to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures; that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.
NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009
Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty. The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.
What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.
The pretext was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.
The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (see Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).
UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
3. Calls upon all States to:
“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178
SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION,
Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)
Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.
The US led war on Afghanistan, using 9/11 as a pretext and a justification is illegal and criminal.
The US and NATO heads of state and heads of government from 2001 to the present are complicit in the launching of a criminal and illegal war.
The Big Lie: Al Qaeda Made in America
Amply documented but rarely mentioned by the mainstream media, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA going back to the Soviet- Afghan war. This was a known fact, corroborated by numerous sources including official documents of the US Congress, which the mainstream media chose to either dismiss or ignore. The intelligence community had time and again acknowledged that they had indeed supported Osama bin Laden, but that in the wake of the Cold War: “he turned against us”.
Both the 9/11 Commission Report as well as the Western media have largely upheld the “outside enemy” mythology, heralding Al Qaeda as the “mastermind” organization behind the 9/11 attacks. The official 9/11 narrative has not only distorted the causes underling the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, it has also erased the historical record of US covert support to international terrorism, while creating the illusion that America and “Western Civilization” are threatened.
Without an “outside enemy”, there could be no “Global War on Terrorism”. The entire national security agenda would collapse “like a deck of cards”. The war criminals in high office would have no leg to stand on.
After 9/11, the campaign of media disinformation served not only to drown the truth but also to kill much of the historical evidence on how this illusive Al Qaeda “outside enemy” had been fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.
This is why a legal procedure directed against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 is absolutely essential.
History of Al Qaeda
Important to the understanding of 9/11, US intelligence is the unspoken architect of “Islamic terrorism” going back to the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.
Bin Laden was 22 years old and was trained in a CIA sponsored guerrilla training camp. Education in Afghanistan in the years preceding the Soviet-Afghan war was largely secular. With religious textbooks produced in Nebraska, the number of CIA sponsored religious schools (madrasahs) increased from 2,500 in 1980 to over 39,000.
“Advertisements, paid for from CIA funds, were placed in newspapers and newsletters around the world offering inducements and motivations to join the [Islamic] Jihad.” (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Peace Research, 1 May 2005)
”The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings…The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books,..”, (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)
Under the Reagan administration, US foreign policy evolved towards the unconditional support and endorsement of the Islamic “freedom fighters”. This endorsement has not in any way been modified.
In a twisted irony, throughout the post 911 era, US intelligence in liaison with Britain’s MI6, an Israel’s Mossad, continues to provide covert support to the radical Islamist organization allegedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda and its various affiliated groups including the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and factions within the Free Syria Army (FSA) are directly supported by the US and NATO.
In a bitter irony, the US and its allies claim to be waging a “war on terrorism” against the alleged architects of 9/11, while also using Al Qaeda operatives as their foot-soldiers.
Front row, from left: Major Gen. Hamid Gul, director general of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Director of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Willian Webster; Deputy Director for Operations Clair George; an ISI colonel; and senior CIA official,
Milt Bearden at a Mujahideen training camp in North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan in 1987.
Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)
Iraq: Alleged State Sponsor of the 9/11 Attacks
The formulation of a war of retribution conducted in the name of 9/11 was not limited to Afghanistan.
In the course of 2002, leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, “Osama bin Laden” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” statements circulated profusely in the news chain. While Washington’s official position was that Saddam Hussein was not behind the 9/11 attacks, insinuations abounded both in presidential speeches as well as in the Western media. According to Bush, in an October 2002 press conference:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source [Iraq], that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America. President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, October 7, 2002)
Barely two weeks before the invasion of Iraq, September 11, 2001 was mentioned abundantly by president Bush. In the weeks leading up to the March invasion, 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. (See . The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science Monitor – CSMonitor.com, March 14, 2003)
Meanwhile, a new terrorist mastermind had emerged: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.
In Colin Powell’s historic address to the United Nations Security Council, in February 2003, detailed “documentation” on a sinister relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was presented, focussing on his ability to produce deadly chemical, biological and radiological weapons, with the full support and endorsement of the secular Baathist regime. The implication of Colin’s Powell’s assertions, which were totally fabricated, was that Saddam Hussein and an Al Qaeda affiliated organization had joined hands in the production of WMD in Northern Iraq and that the Hussein government was a “state sponsor” of terrorism.
The main thrust of the disinformation campaign continued in the wake of the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. It consisted in presenting the Iraqi resistance movement as “terrorists”. The image of “terrorists opposed to democracy” fighting US “peacekeepers” appeared on television screens and news tabloids across the globe.
Iran: Condemned by a New York City Court for Supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 Attacks
In the wake of the Iraq invasion, the same alleged “state sponsorship” of terrorism accusations emerged in relation to Iran.
In December 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran was condemned by a Manhattan court, for its alleged role in supporting Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks.
The investigation into Tehran’s alleged role was launched in 2004, pursuant to a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission “regarding an apparent link between Iran, Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers”. The 9/11 Commission’s recommendation was that this “apparent link” required “further investigation by the U.S. government.” (9/11 Commission Report , p. 241). (See Iran 911 Case ).
In the December 2011 court judgment (Havlish v. Iran) “U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case”.
According to the plaintiffs attorneys “Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s. Citing their national security and intelligence experts, the attorneys explained “how the pragmatic terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi’a divide in order to confront the U.S. (the “Great Satan”) and Israel (the “Lesser Satan”)”. Iran and Hezbollah allegedly provided “training to members of al Qaeda in, among other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings.” (See Iran 911 Case ).
This judicial procedure is nothing more than another vicious weapon in the fabricated “War on Terror” to be used against another Muslim country, with a view to destabilizing Iran as well as justifying ongoing military threats. It also says a lot more about the people behind the lawsuit than about the accused. The expert witnesses who testified against Iran are very active in warmongering neocon circles. They belong to a web of architects of the 21st century Middle-Eastern wars, ranging from high profile propagandists to intelligence and military officers, including former U.S. officials.
But what makes this case absurd is that in September 2011, a few months before the judgment, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned the official 9/11 narrative, was accused by Al-Qaeda leaders of “spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks”. The semi-official media outlet of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, insisted that al-Qaeda “had been behind the attacks and criticised the Iranian president for discrediting the terrorist group.” (See Julie Levesque, Iran Accused of being behind 9/11 Attacks. U.S. Court Judgment, December 2011 (Havlish v. Iran),
Global Research, May 11, 2012)
Al Qaeda: US-NATO Foot-soldiers
Ironically, while Washington accuses Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, the historical record and evidence indelibly point to the “state sponsorship” of Al Qaeda by the CIA, MI6 and their intelligence counterparts in Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Realities are turned upside down. Al Qaeda death squads have been recruited to wage America’s humanitarian wars throughout the Middle East an d North Africa.
In Syria Al Qaeda units were recruited by NATO and the Turkish High command: “Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, our sources report, is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels.” (http://www.debka.com/article/21255/ Debkafile, August 31, 2011).
In Libya, jihadists from Afghanistan trained by the CIA were dispatched to fight with the “pro-democracy” rebels under the helm of “former” Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Commander Abdel Hakim Belhadj:
Western policy makers admit that NATO’s operations in Libya have played the primary role in emboldening Al Qaeda’s AQIM faction (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). The Fortune 500-funded Brookings Institution’s Bruce Riedel in his article, “The New Al Qaeda Menace,” admits that AQIM is now heavily armed thanks to NATO’s intervention in Libya, and that AQIM’s base in Mali, North Africa, serves as a staging ground for terrorist activities across the region. http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-natos-pan-arab-terrorist-blitzkrieg/
“Crimes against Civilization”
9/11 mythology has been the mainstay of war propaganda, which in itself constitutes a criminal act under international law.
Fiction prevails over reality. For propaganda to be effective, public opinion must firmly endorse the official 9/11 narrative to the effect that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. A well organized structure of media disinformation is required to reach this objective. Perpetuating the 9/11 Legend also requires defying as well smearing the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Throughout the post 9/11 era, a panoply of Al Qaeda related events and circumstances is presented to public opinion on a daily basis. These include terrorist threats, warnings and attacks, police investigations, insurgencies and counter-insurgencies, country-level regime change, social conflict, sectarian violence, racism, religious divisions, Islamic thought, Western values, etc.
Muslims are presented as the perpetrators of the 9/11, thereby unleashing a Worldwide demonization campaign.
In turn, 9/11, Al Qaeda – War on Terrorism rhetoric permeates political discourse at all levels of government, including bipartisan debate on Capitol Hill, in committees of the House and the Senate, at the British House of Commons, and, lest we forget, at the United Nations Security Council. All these various bodies are complicit in a criminal project.
September 11 and Al Qaeda concepts, repeated ad nauseam have potentially traumatic impacts on the human mind and the ability of normal human beings to analyze and comprehend the “real outside World” of war, politics and the economic crisis.
What is at stake is human consciousness and comprehension based on concepts and facts.
With September 11 there are no verifiable “facts” and “concepts”, because 9/11 as well as Al Qaeda have evolved into a media mythology, a legend, an invented ideological construct, used as an unsubtle tool of war propaganda.
Al Qaeda constitutes a stylized, fake and almost folkloric abstraction of terrorism, which permeates the inner consciousness of millions of people around the World.
Reference to Al Qaeda has become a dogma, a belief, which most people espouse unconditionally. According to the media, “Muslims were behind the attacks”, thereby justifying a war of retribution against Muslim countries.
Racism and Islamophobia are an integral part of war propaganda.
Is this political indoctrination? Is it brain-washing? If so what is the underlying objective?
People’s capacity to independently analyse World events, as well as address causal relationships pertaining to politics and society, is significantly impaired. That is the objective!
The routine use of 9/11 and Al Qaeda to generate blanket explanations of complex political events is meant to create confusion.
It prevents people from thinking. It strikes at the core of human values. In a sense, it destroys civilization.
All of these complex Al Qaeda related occurrences are explained by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.
The criminality underlying post 9/11 propaganda is of much broader nature, affecting people’s mindsets, redefining fundamental social, political and institutional relations.
“Crimes against Civilization” have been committed.
9/11 mythology precipitates the World into barbarity.
Copyright © 2012 Global Research
April 8th, 2012 by olddog
By Doug Book
A week ago, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy observed that implementation of the Affordable Care Act stood to “…change the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
Although Kennedy was probably unaware of it at the time, that “change” is precisely what the authors of ObamaCare have hoped to impose on the American public for decades. For healthcare itself was never the real purpose of the massive, complex, and overreaching law as the following information should make clear.
Charged with defending the constitutionality of the Act before the Court, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Justices that some 40 million Americans were either permanently or occasionally without health insurance.
But were that number 50 million, as has been claimed by some ObamaCare advocates during the past year, these facts must be considered:
- 8 million of that number are Medicaid recipients and therefore NOT uninsured
- 10 million are illegal aliens
- 11 million earn in excess of $75,000/yr and pay a substantial portion of any healthcare costs out of pocket
- 9 million earn over $50,000/yr and also pay for much of their own healthcare
Of the 20 million higher income individuals above, many are young and CHOOSE to not have health insurance. And interestingly, in a Gallup poll, 60% of those who are uninsured and making between $30,000-$75,000 per year rate their healthcare as “good” or “excellent” in spite of having no insurance!
So rather than 50 million, it is only some 20 million American citizens who might actually be uninsured for extended periods of time. And even they can obtain healthcare at no charge from hospitals and clinics, which are compensated in part each year by federal or state government grants and must by law provide care, regardless of ability to pay.
In 2010, the “…Medicare chief actuary, [said] that Obamacare would raise nationwide health costs by over $300 billion through 2019 in relation to what those costs would be without Obamacare.”
And the Senate Budget Committee had reported the addition of another $17 trillion in unfunded mandates over the next three quarters of a century, thanks to spending obligations added by Obamacare.
Do the American people NEED a 3,000 page law and dizzying expense factors in order to provide healthcare for 20 million people? Doesn’t this extraordinary departure from common sense and fiscal responsibility make it obvious that the LAST thing the congressional Democrat supermajority of 2008 really had in mind was the effective implementation and administration of healthcare?
When Barack Hussein Obama vowed to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” black voters believed it would translate into more free goods and services; organized labor dreamed of increasing dues, membership, and power; and gullible, guilt-ridden whites envisioned the post-racial melding of happy races and forgiveness of past sins.
But the radical left, typified by the inner circle of the Manchurian Candidate, backed Obama’s duplicitous ramblings because they understood the REAL significance of his “utopian” vision of the future. And that vision has assumed the form of law in ObamaCare as the claim of universal coverage becomes a scheme of nationwide enslavement.
Five men have the deadly serious job of making certain that it doesn’t come to pass.
BY DOUG BOOK
While the American media provide cover for the Constitutionally ineligible Barack Hussein Obama, Vladimir Putin and the nation of Russia are reaping a treasure trove of defense secrets and missile technology by threatening to reveal the true history of the Manchurian Candidate.
Obama has spent millions to prevent his personal story from being revealed to the American public. Records have been destroyed, information has been hidden, false claims have been advanced, potential whistle-blowers have been threatened and official documents have been forged. Enabled by a complicit media and the craven cowardice of political opponents, the most egregious felonies in the nation’s history have served to make the American people easy prey for the schemes of a dedicated Communist and committed enemy of our Constitutional Republic.
And those schemes have included the betrayal both of the United States and her allies.
§ In 2009 Obama scrapped the long awaited missile defense system for Poland and the Czech Republic because Russia objected.
§ He has refused to keep secret the technical data on the U.S Standard Missile-3, as called for in the 2012 defense authorization bill.
§ Obama will not pledge to keep American missile technology from China, North Korea and Iran, as it would “…interfere with [his] constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs…”
§ Obama will provide Russia information on every Trident missile supplied to Great Britain as part of an arms control deal signed with Russian President Medvedev.
§ Leaked cables show that the US will now provide Russia with ALL serial numbers of Trident missiles transferred to Britain.
§ Obama proposes the United States CUT its nuclear arsenal by 80%, yet demands no reciprocity on the part of Russia or any of America’s enemies.
§ Joe Miller, 2010 US Senate candidate from Alaska, reports that, under the guise of drawing a boundary, 7 Alaska-area islands and oil rich sea beds containing perhaps billions of barrels were given to Russia in an unannounced, secret deal by Obama’s State Department.
Under Obama’s programs, by 2016, defense will account for 20% of the national budget, yet bear over HALF of the deficit-reduction cuts.
In mid-March, Obama declared he would “…provide the Russians with detailed technical information about the anti- missile systems he plans to base in Eastern Europe…”
And Congressman Darrell Issa said that “the American people should be very afraid,” continuing with “I judge that in fact he is going to sell out our national defense after the election.”
On March 26th, Obama’s conversation with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was accidentally picked up on an open microphone. “This is my last election…After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama told Medvedev, who said he would relay that message to the new Russian “president” Vladimir Putin. “On all of these issues, but particularly missile defense this, this can be solved but it’s important for him (Putin) to give me space.”
Why would an American President need to secretly petition a notorious KGB thug for “space?” Because Vladimir Putin is aware of Obama’s criminal abuses of the United States and the American people. He has Obama by the throat, possessing information which can put the Manchurian Candidate in prison for a lifetime. And he is using that information to literally blackmail the American president into betraying the U.S. and her allies around the world.
And though Barack Obama has certainly needed no persuasion to betray the American people and inflict massive damage on the United States since his election, that treachery is now proceeding according to a schedule and terms dictated by Putin, making the guilt of the American President even more obvious and his chances for re-election more tenuous. Thus, the plea for space.
How much MORE damage could the treasonous Barack Obama cause with another 4 years in power? And who might blackmail him next?
January 19th, 2012 by olddog
WHAT IS A PATRIOT?
A PATRIOT DEFENDS HIS COUNTRY FROM HIS GOVERNMENT!
ALL THREE BRANCHES OF OUR GOVERNMENT ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL, SO NOW WE HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES.
WILL YOU FIGHT BACK OR LAY DOWN?
FOLLOW THESE LINKS AND LEARN, THEN CALL YOUR DC SCUMBAGS AND RAISE HELL!
Compromise ‘Unlikely’ as Protests Grow Against SOPA
Why We’ve Censored Wired.com
Internet Censorship Bill Authored by Bob Goodlatte…
SOPA protester on the streets of Tucson. (qik Video)
SOPA: Co-sponsors Defect, Backtrack After Blackout
The Secret Behind SOPA
ACT NOW TO STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP
STOP PIPA (Senate 968) & SOPA (HR 3261)
On Wednesday, January 18th, OpenCongress is proud to join the global online action against the "PIPA" Internet censorship bill. We're voluntarily restricting access to OpenCongress to protest PIPA (S. 968) and its House companion bill, "SOPA" (H.R. 3261) — together, the worst Internet legislation in history.
PIPA is an existential threat to our mission of public education through technology and free political speech online. The Internet is the most important innovation of our time for a truly representative democracy. PIPA establishes a dangerous legal framework for censorship of sites like OpenCongress, which brings together data about what's happening in government from a wide variety of sources.
If you value OpenCongress and the information we provide, call the D.C. offices of your U.S. senators and urge them to vote against PIPA. Find your senators' phone numbers and step-by-step calling instructions here: whip the Senate against PIPA.
PIPA is a perfect, egregious example of systemic corruption in the U.S. Congress and how corporate money directs the political process. It is vital that the public registers our opposition before the Senate rushes to vote on PIPA as soon as it returns next week, Tuesday, January 24th.
The Participatory Politics Foundation, our non-profit organization behind OpenCongress, is a founding member of the American Censorship coalition. For more information on participating sites and to join the protest, visit: SOPAstrike.com.
-David & the OpenCongress Team
THE FREEDOM TO DISSENT IS
WORTH EVERY KNOWN
January 5th, 2012 by olddog
Posted by Drome on January 3, 2012 at 6:38pm in Food, Health and Nutrition
The Doctrine of Signatures is profound ancient wisdom that is purposely being suppressed. It states that every fruit and vegetable has a certain pattern that resembles a body organ, and that this pattern acts as a signal or sign as to that fruit or vegetable’s benefit to us.
Modern science confirms that the ancient “Doctrine of Signatures” is astoundingly accurate. Why does this vital knowledge remain hidden?
The healing and nourishing properties of any fruit or vegetable reflected in, and ultimately revealed by, that fruit or vegetables’ outer physical shape, form, or “signature” in relation to the human body.
Kidney Beans actually heal and help maintain kidney function—and they look exactly like human kidneys.
A Walnut looks like a little brain, a left and right hemisphere, upper cerebrums and lower cerebellums. Even the wrinkles or folds on the nut are just like the neo-cortex. We now know walnuts help develop brain function.
The cross section of a Carrot looks like the human eye. The pupil, iris and radiating lines look just like the human eye. And science now shows carrots greatly enhance blood flow to the eyes and aid in the general function of the eyes.
Celery looks just like bones. Celery specifically target bone strength. Bones are 23 percent sodium and these foods are 23 percent sodium. If you don’t have enough sodium in your diet, the body pulls it from the bones, thus making them weak. Foods like celery replenish the skeletal needs of the body.
Avocadoes target the health and function of the womb and cervix of the female—they look just like these organs. Avocadoes help women balance hormones, shed unwanted birth weight, and deter cervical cancers. It takes exactly nine months to grow an avocado from blossom to ripened fruit.
Figs are full of seeds and hang in twos when they grow. Figs increase the mobility of male sperm and increase the numbers of Sperm as well to overcome male sterility.
Slice a Mushroom in half and it resembles a human ear. Mushrooms have been found to improve hearing, as mushrooms are one of the few foods that contain vitamin D. This particular vitamin is important for healthy bones, even the tiny ones in the ear that transmit sound to the brain.
Our lungs are made up of branches of ever-smaller airways that finish up with tiny bunches of tissue called alveoli. These structures, which resemble bunches of Grapes, allow oxygen to pass from the lungs to the blood stream. A diet high in fresh fruit, such as grapes, has been shown to reduce the risk of lung cancer and emphysema. Grape seeds also contain a chemical called proanthocyanidin, which appears to reduce the severity of asthma triggered by allergy.
Ginger, commonly sold in supermarkets, often looks just like the stomach. So its interesting that one of its biggest benefits is aiding digestion. The Chinese have been using it for over 2,000 years to calm the stomach and cure nausea, while it is also a popular remedy for motion sickness.
Sweet Potatoes look like the pancreas and actually balance the glycemic index of diabetics. Olives assist the health and function of the ovaries.
The Doctrine of Signatures may sound strange to us, but its wisdom is ancient, rediscovered in modern times. Of course, in modern America we’ve been taught by the big corporations to buy “processed foods,” rather than to buy local fresh vegetables and cook them ourselves.
Americans have no time for cooking; most are busy working and consuming en masse, according to the messages drilled in by television, radio, newspaper, the news, culture, society. The resultant omnipresence of cheap, high-calorie, nutrient-poor processed foods (or “food like substances”) in homes, schools, government institutions and food programs, and on every street corner creates default food choices that drive obesity.
These subsidized, cheap, low-quality foods are heavily marketed and consumed by our ever-widening population with an obesity rate approaching three out of four Americans. The more Americans eat, the fatter they become. And the fatter they become the more they develop heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a myriad of other chronic ailments. This is a big score for big pharma. The sicker our population becomes, the more medications are sold for high cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, and many other lifestyle driven diseases. In essence, big food and big pharma profits by creating a nation of sick and fat citizens.
This structure is built into the very fabric of our economy and culture. It could be called the medical, agricultural, food industrial complex. It is nothing short of sheer violence against us—the social, political, economic and environmental conditions that foster and promote the development of disease. However, by using this wisdom of the Doctrine of Signatures we can take more of a proactive role regarding our health. We are our best own doctor and dietician, we just need to believe it.
The Doctrine of Signatures was made popular in modern times by a Swiss physician, alchemist and philosopher named Paracelsus (1493-1541) who scholars consider to be the father of modern chemistry. Paracelsus noted how the qualities of plants are often reflected in their appearance. He thus theorized that the inner nature of plants may be discovered by their outer forms or “signatures.” He applied this principle to food as well as medicine, remarking that “it is not in the quantity of food but in its quality that resides the Spirit of Life”—a belief familiar to those who choose to eat organic food while also being justifiably concerned over Genetically Modified substitutes that lack the “life force,” or spirit.
The “Doctrine of Signatures” enjoyed a revival in the 1600s after Jakob Böhme (1575-1624), a master shoemaker in the small town of Görlitz, Germany, began writing on the subject. At 25 years old, he experienced a sublime mystical vision where he saw the true relationship between man and his Creator—that man is both the Creator and the Created.
December 17th, 2011 by olddog
The Tavistock Institute sits at the center of a web of evil, if one is inclined toward free-market thinking principles. It’s safe to say that most of the American population hasn’t a clue when the Tavistock Institute is mentioned what it stands for. It’s not a new organization. This London based not-for-profit organization was founded in 1947. The Institute operates a $6 billion a year network of foundations and it’s all funded by US taxpayers.
Ten major institutions are under its direct control but 400 subsidiaries and 3,000 think tanks and study groups that develop, implement, and impose some of its research. For instance, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI International), a $150 million-plus per year operation with 3,300 employees, is a subsidiary of the Tavistock Institute.
The Stanford Research Institute orchestrates program surveillance for Kaiser and Bechtel, as well as about 400 other companies, plus it implements extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. SRI is located on the West Coast of the United States. Its main focus is behavioral sciences and mind control.
The Tavistock Institute was originally established to study the effects of the condition called ‘shellshock,’ which affected many of the British soldiers who survived the First World War. The initial research established a breaking point for men under stress and made important progress in terms of treatment.
When Sigmund Freud moved to England and settled in Maresfield Gardens he became one of the main psychiatrists and somewhat of an academic rock star thanks to his work on behavioral science theories and mind control tactics.
Today, the Tavistock network extends from the University of Sussex to MIT, Esalen, the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, US Air Force Intelligence, the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown and the Mitre and Rand corporations. A network of secret groups indoctrinates personnel from these organizations so there’s an element of modern day cloak-and-dagger tactics surrounding the Institute.
The elite have used such hidden-in-plain-sight organizations as the Tavistock Institute to propound fear-based promotions that frighten Western Middle Classes into giving up wealth and power to pre-made globalist solutions such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. But in the 21st century, these promotions are increasingly exposed and thus losing their effectiveness.
Everything from global warming to Peak Oil and the war on terror itself has been undermined by countervailing information to be found on the ‘Net. Even central banking – the elite’s most important falsification – has come under sustained attack.
August 27th, 2011 by olddog
Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations
as armed police and attack dogs stand guard
Curtsey of Jackie Juntti at WGEN: email firstname.lastname@example.org
James Alan Daum is one of the very hardest working patriotic Americans I know. His knowledge of Law and such won him a very large settlement against police tactics and the like. Anyway, this is so important it cannot be over stressed. It is the state of the union and the fact that every official involved – and this in my mind means every last one at every level as each is under Oath to stop such actions – committed treason and did so through state-sponsored domestic terrorism.
Please even if you leave off my comments post this.
From: James Alan Daum
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 10:38 AM
To: James Alan Daum
Subject: Fw: Children herded like cattle; forced vaccinations
Normally, I don't forward general information but this particular article is of interest to me even though it is sensationalism without giving the sort of facts that I need to determine the issue.
In the Jacobson case (H.I.) the judicial assize decided that Jacobson could be forced to surrender his body to injections of smallpox disease under the "Police Power" and that the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" held the "Police Power" with justices Brewer and Peckham dissenting for unknown reasons.
I condemn this decision as a political fatuum judicium. Under the provisions of appellate review the justices are like a pagan oracle answering only the limited issues brought to the temple and addressing only the argument of attorneys George Fred Williams and James A. Halloran appearing for Jacobson.
Jacobson was charged with a crime and fined five dollars for refusing to be vaccinated under a regulation of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
He was not indicted by a Grand Jury and the judge did not allow his defense to be presented to the trial jury.
Among the wrongs I see is that the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" is not a natural person and cannot be a party versus a real being.
The majority opinion that this corporate body is entitled to or is granted or constitutionally reserves the "Police Power" is blatently false.
Jacobson, if he is a United States Citizen, has the right to be "secure in his person" and if he does not want virus put into his body with a hypodermic needle then he has the right to refuse the demand and to mandate that his body be respected.
There may be other reasons that the justices wrote their judgment and, perhaps, former slaves and the descendents of slaves are considered livestock rather than people subject only to the jurisdiction of the United States of America but the record does not reveal whether Jacobson was a negro African-American or other such tentative civilian.
The notes given refer to English subjects of the British Empire and European practices upon their denizens but there is no evidence that Jacobson was an immigrant from Europe.
There is little revealed about the regulation itself beyond that all the "inhabitants" of the city over twenty-one years of age shall receive a free shot with children certified "unfit subjects" being exempted.
There would be some reason had Jacobson been employed by the municipality working with the public on condition that he acquiesce to a contract of hire but there is no mention of this.
Another issue would be if Jacobson required a license to operate a business working with the public or were he a doctor in a hospital but his profession has not been mentioned.
Finally, if Jacobson been in military service he would be under a specific obligation to obey orders. (George Washington vaccinated his soldiers by scraping the sores of the victims and scratching the pus on the skin of the healthier men – he also shot some for infractions but I do not know if this involved refusing innoculations.) The entire text of the case does not say if Jacobson was anything but a private citizen refusing to allow himself to be subjected to the "injurious or dangerous effects of vaccination."
If more people learned how to issue an injunction from their tribunal then there would less outrageous articles like the one below.
I will assume that the article is about "free public schools" but can't presume how many of the parents and children are on welfare or are otherwise under the authority of the state through civil marriage or divorce proceedings. Breeders enter into scads of contracts that would comprise normal constitutional rights and people kennels would be justly regulated for the public good.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022267_vaccinations_health_freedom.html#ixzz1W8caPjeR
(NaturalNews) Following the State of Maryland's threats against parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, children were herded into a Price George County courthouse being guarded by armed personnel with attack dogs. Inside, the children were forcibly vaccinated, many against their will, under orders from the State Attorney General, various State Judges and the local School Board Director, all of whom illegally conspired to threaten parents with imprisonment if they did not submit their children to vaccinations .
The State of Maryland has now turned to Gestapo tactics to force its medical will upon the People, stripping parents of any right to decide how they wish to protect their own children from infectious disease. Health authorities there have already announced their intent to essentially kidnap parents and throw them in jail, removing them from their children for up to thirty days if they continue to refuse to have their children vaccinated. This will all be conducted at gunpoint, with armed personnel and attack dogs at the ready, making sure nobody steps out of line, and suppressing any attempt at public dissent against the Orwellian vaccination policies.
The entire campaign against these parents is blatantly illegal. There is no law in Maryland requiring the vaccination of children, thus parents who refuse to do so may not be legally charged with violating any law. Instead, Maryland health and school authorities are using Gestapo-like tactics, threatening to charge the parents with child truancy violations, criminalizing them for daring to protect their children from the dangerous chemicals found in vaccines (including thimerosal, a chemical additive containing a neurotoxic form of mercury).
The desperation of organized medicine is becoming increasingly apparent
As more and more parents are becoming informed about the dangers of vaccinations and their link to autism, state health authorities are increasingly turning to "Gunpoint Medicine" to force the People to submit to the poisons of conventional medicine. Parents who attempt to save their children from deadly chemotherapy chemicals are being arrested and having their children kidnapped by Child Protective Services (see http://www.naturalnews.com/Abraham_Cherrix.html ), and oncologists who used to be armed only with radiation machines and chemotherapy injectors and now arming themselves with U.S. Marshals and other local law enforcement authorities who are using loaded firearms to enforce "the will of the State" against parents who resist.
Even the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced its strong opposition to the Maryland "Gunpoint Medicine" vaccination campaign. In a press release published Nov. 16, the AAPS states:
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons today condemned the “vaccine roundup” executed in Prince George’s county Maryland this week, and promised to do everything it can to support parents who refuse to immunize their children.
“This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights,” said Kathryn Serkes, director of policy for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the few national physician groups that refuse corporate funding from pharmaceutical companies.
In a scenario reminiscent of cattle round-ups, the state’s attorney has issued summons to more than 1600 parents of children who have not provided certificates of immunization for their children. But instead of toting a cattle prod, this state’s attorney chooses to wield a syringe to keep the “herd” in line.
Read the rest of the press release at: http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-11-16-07.php
Gunpoint Medicine: Why drug pushers must now rely on Gestapo tactics
Conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine is the only system of medicine in the world that is so unpopular with informed consumers that it must be administered at the barrel of a gun. There is no other system of medicine anywhere in the world that resorts to such tactics to recruit patients.
At the Nov. 17th event in Maryland, activists Jim Moody and Kelly Ann Davis from SafeMinds (www.SafeMinds.org) were able to get in front of TV news cameras and voice their opposition to the coerced vaccination policy. Yet, amazingly, most parents just lined up like cattle ready to be branded, not bothering to question the sanity or legality of the very system in which they were now agreeing to participate.
A health freedom blog called Center for the Common Interest (www.CommonInterest.info) also covered the event, and it reports that a local activist named Donovan Hubbard videotaped the event and plans to make the video available online. (NaturalNews would like to contact Donovan and / or publicize his video. If you know of a way we can contact him, please call us at (520) 232-9300 to let us know…)
What's next for Gunpoint Medicine?
As the truth continues to emerge about the extreme dangers of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals, Big Pharma is becoming increasingly desperate to coerce the public into relying on its products. It is now working closely with state authorities (including Governors of several states) to mandate the use of vaccinations on young children. This results in the criminalization of parents who refuse to subject their children to these dangerous chemicals.
In effect, Big Pharma is hoping to turn natural health followers into criminals.
The FDA has already criminalized nutritional supplement companies who dare to tell the truth about the health benefits of their supplements. (Read the true history of armed FDA raids on vitamin companies here: http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html )
Next, parents who refuse to subject their children to the chemical pharmaceuticals proposed by Big Pharma will be criminalized, rounded up and incarcerated for "refusing to comply with public health policy." This is all being done by the State in the name of "protecting the children" from their own natural health parents. (Insane, isn't it, to think that protecting your child from toxic chemicals is now a criminal act in the United States?)
The end game of all this is to apply Gunpoint Medicine tactics to everyone: Adults and senior citizens included. Anyone suffering from high cholesterol, for example, who does not submit to Big Pharma's statin drugs could be arrested, strapped to a table and medicated against their will. People with cancer could be arrested for choosing to treat that cancer with safe and effective botanical medicines instead of patented, high-profit Big Pharma drugs. If you think the prisons are full enough right now from all the arrests for marijuana possession and other victimless crimes, just wait until the State starts arresting all the natural health moms and dads across the country who refuse to participate in the utterly insane and extremely harmful system of medicine that now dominates U.S. health care today.
The State is very clear about medicine: If you want to remain a free citizen, you must submit to the synthetic drugs made by the very same corporations that now control government health regulators. Any person who resists such "treatments" will be branded a threat to public health — a designation just beneath "terrorist" in the eyes of many government bureaucrats. As such, they believe there is no limit to the level of force they may use to coerce such people into submitting to Big Pharma's chemicals. Today, it's armed guards with attack dogs. Tomorrow, it might be water boarding or other torture methods. Think that's impossible? Think again: Just five years ago, nobody in their right mind would have thought that parents who did not want to get their children vaccinated would end up in prison, their children kidnapped by state authorities and forced to subject themselves to dangerous chemical injections at gunpoint. Yet that is precisely what is happening right now in the state of Maryland. It happened on Saturday, in fact.
Where is the outrage?
What's most interesting about this issue of using the threat of imprisonment to force vaccinations upon children is not necessarily who is speaking out against it, but who has chosen to remain silent.
The American Medical Association, for example, has said nothing in opposition to the policy. Neither has the Food and Drug Administration. Where is the outrage from the Maryland Hospital Association? None of these organizations seem to have a problem with Gunpoint Medicine. The idea of rounding up parents and coercing their children into receiving injections of toxic chemicals does not seem to bother these organizations. And why should it? All of these organizations are closely tied to Big Pharma. They're all in favor of vaccinations for all, it seems, and I have no doubt that some individuals in these organizations (especially the AMA) are strongly in favor of the Gunpoint Medicine coerced vaccination policy being played out in Maryland right now.
Organized medicine believes the People are too stupid to be allowed to make their own health decisions. Bureaucrats and physicians should be the ones making these decisions, we're told, and any person who disagrees with such decisions should be labeled a criminal, arrested and prosecuted. This is no exaggeration. It is, in fact, a shockingly accurate description of Maryland's current vaccination policy.
It wasn't too long ago that Americans would have stood up and rallied against this kind of medical tyranny. The major news networks would have denounced Maryland's vaccination policy with strong language and harsh accusations. People would have been marching in the streets, demanding their health freedom. But today, it's a different America. The People are drugged up on pharmaceuticals and dosed on fluoride. They're too intoxicated to think straight, and they're frightened into submission by a fear-based government that invokes domestic tyranny at every opportunity to control and manipulate the People into doing whatever it wants.
The "free" America we all once knew is long gone, and it has been replaced with The United States of Corporate America, where police tactics are now used to enforce hazardous public health policies, and the people who run the State no longer think there's anything wrong with rounding up the population at gunpoint and performing large-scale medical experiments on their children. That's what modern vaccines are, after all: A grand medical experiment whose effects will only become known after a generation of mass poisoning has come and gone.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022267_vaccinations_health_freedom.html#ixzz1W8cVvUCb
SURELY!, you don't have to wonder what I think of these scumbag bureaucrats. Who the hell gave bureaucrats the right to make and enforce law? Even when it is a State law, it does not conform with the constitution, and is automatically null and void. The States are also under the dictates’ of the United States Constitution. The people have surrendered their Constitutional common law to public policy without a whimper, due to their ignorance of their rights, and a fear based federal policy. The Gestapo government in Washing must be stomped out of existence and a new Declaration of Independence established. OR! You can kiss your freedoms goodbye.