Wednesday, September 17, 2014

The Collapse of Al Gore's Global Warming Sham...

Inflation??? What inflation???

There Is No Price Inflation If You Don't Eat Meats, Poultry, Fish, Eggs, Dairy, Cereals or Bakery Products

Robert Wenzel

The headline Consumer Price Index, released today by the Department of Labor, says that prices declined 0.2 percent in August.

But most of the decline is a result of production gains in the energy sector, pushing gasoline prices and the like lower.

Here's what is going on beneath the surface. It's what you won't see mainstream media report.

Over the last 12 months, the food at home index has risen 2.9 percent, with the index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs up 8.8 percent.

Last month alone, the index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.5 percent. The index for beef and veal rose 4.2 percent. The index for dairy and related products rose 0.6 percent, and the cereals and bakery products index advanced 0.2 percent.


"The worst thing Americans can do is to encourage the government to continue the suspension of our liberties in the purported attempt to keep us safe from the dangers that the government’s policies have produced. That includes things like mass surveillance, indefinite detention, torture, and assassination of American citizens. The fact is that such policies don’t keep us safe. They only make the government more powerful and deprive us of our ever-more of our freedom. Better to live and die a free person, no matter how dangerous that might be, than to live life as a cowering, fearful serf, no matter how safe you might be."

ISIS, Fear, and Anti-American Terrorism
by Jacob G. Hornberger

In yesterday’s blog post, “Perpetual Fear under Empire,” I pointed out that fear is the coin of the realm when living under an empire. As the Roman citizens learned when living under their empire, imperial escapades in overseas lands always produce endless crises. Then, Roman officials would use the crises as the way to get Roman citizens all riled up and afraid, thereby making them more submissive to the ever-growing controls and taxation that the government was imposing on them.

But I wish to make something clear. When I say that it’s ridiculous for grown men and women to be cowering in fear over ISIS, that’s not to say that there isn’t a danger of retaliatory terrorist attacks here in the United States. On the contrary, I think the possibility of retaliatory strikes, especially here on American soil, is a virtual certainty. You cannot go out and bomb people and not expect that the survivors aren’t going to retaliate. And one of the ways people retaliate against powerful armies is by initiating terrorist strikes against their citizens.

After all, even though there are still people who recite the “They hate us for our freedom and values” mantra regarding 9/11, the reality was that the 9/11 attacks were in retaliation for what the U.S. government had been doing in the Middle East prior to the 9/11 attacks (and after the end of the Cold War).

Those U.S. actions included the Persian Gulf War against the U.S. government’s former partner and ally, Saddam Hussein; the intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage treatment plants with full knowledge of what that would mean to the health and safety of the Iraqi people; the brutal sanctions that were imposed on Iraq for more than 10 years, which impoverished the Iraqi people and contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children; U.S. Ambassador Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to “Sixty Minutes” that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions had been “worth it”; the deadly “no-fly zones” over Iraq; the unconditional military and financial support of the Israeli government; the stationing of U.S. troops near the Islamic holy lands of Mecca and Medina; and the support of brutal dictatorships in the Middle East.

Why would it surprise anyone that people in the Middle East would become get angry over such things?

Longtime supporters of FFF know that prior to the 9/11 attacks, we were publishing articles telling people that there was a good possibility of terrorist attacks on American soil. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with that analysis. It just took a knowledge of what the U.S. government was dong in the Middle East. We weren’t the only ones. That’s also what Chalmers Johnson’s said in his pre-9/11 book Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.

Thus, with U.S. bombs falling on Iraq once again, I’d say there is a good possibility that the same thing is going to happen again here in the United States, either on some building, shopping mall, street, or other place where there are lots of people. As we learned on 9/11, people in the Middle East get angry when they see their friends and relatives are getting killed by some foreign power and they seek revenge.

But is that any reason for Americans to cower in fear?


For one thing, there is no possibility — none — that ISIS (or anyone else for that matter) is going to cross the ocean, invade and conquer the United States, and take control over the IRS, the DEA, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the rest of the federal government. If that’s what you’re afraid of, forget it. Neither ISIS nor anyone else (including Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba) has the military capability to pull off such an enormous undertaking.

For another thing, the chance of being the among the ones who get hit by a terrorist retaliatory strike here on American soil are so remote that it’s not worth losing sleep or pacing the floors over. The odds against getting hit by ISIS terrorism are probably larger than the odds of winning the lottery. That, of course, won’t be any consolation to those who do get hit but because the possibility of being hit is so remote, it’s not something to live in fear over.

If you do want to live your life free of the possibility of terrorism on American soil, there is but one solution: dismantle the U.S. military empire, bring all the troops home and discharge them, dismantle the Cold War-era military-industrial complex, abolish the Cold War-era CIA, terminate all foreign aid, stop all assassinations, indefinite detentions, and torture, and end America’s foreign policy of interventionism.

There really isn’t any other way. But if Americans love their empire and want it to continue, then everyone should just understand that terrorist retaliation is a price of empire. (Financial bankruptcy is another price.)

The worst thing Americans can do is to encourage the government to continue the suspension of our liberties in the purported attempt to keep us safe from the dangers that the government’s policies have produced. That includes things like mass surveillance, indefinite detention, torture, and assassination of American citizens. The fact is that such policies don’t keep us safe. They only make the government more powerful and deprive us of our ever-more of our freedom. Better to live and die a free person, no matter how dangerous that might be, than to live life as a cowering, fearful serf, no matter how safe you might be.


Time to go AWOL...

Is It Wise For Obama To Send Thousands Of U.S. Troops Into The Ebola Death Zone?
By Michael Snyder

When there is a major problem somewhere in the world, Barack Obama loves to show that he is “doing something” by sending a contingent of U.S. troops to the affected area. But is it really wise for Obama to send thousands of young American men and women into the Ebola death zone? What are our troops going to do – shoot the virus? Of course not. The UN already has 6,000 uniformed peacekeepers in the region, and they are not doing much good. The truth is that this is a medical crisis that requires medical personnel. By sending thousands of troops into the heart of the Ebola pandemic, we make it much more likely that Ebola will be brought back to the United States. Obama should keep in mind that hundreds of health workers have become infected even though they wear protective gear and are trained to deal with Ebola patients. Our troops have not been trained to deal with Ebola patients and they probably will not be wearing full protective gear when dealing with the general population. But there are sick people among the general population that could pass Ebola to them.

It is absolutely imperative that we keep Ebola isolated to the areas that it is already affecting. The number of Ebola victims has doubled over the past month, and there are computer models that are projecting that millions of people could soon be sick if the virus continues to spread at this pace.

Putting medically untrained troops directly into the death zone seems like a very questionable thing to do. If a single one of them gets sick and brings the virus back home, it could turn out to be one of the most foolish things that Obama has ever done.

On Tuesday, Obama visited the CDC and finally admitted that this Ebola outbreak is “spiraling out of control” and that strong action needed to be taken immediately…

President Obama stressed his sense of urgency on Tuesday at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, warning that as America scurries to help west African nations grapple with the deadly Ebola epidemic, ‘We can’t dawdle on this one.’

Of course this is something that he should have done a month or two ago, but at least he is finally stepping up to the plate.

However, Obama continues to insist that the chance of an Ebola outbreak happening in the United States is “extremely low”…

‘Our experts here at the CDC and across our government agree that the chances of an Ebola outbreak here in the United States are extremely low,’ Obama declared.

But he described a battery of new biosecurity measures, including toughened airport screening and a growing capacity for lab testing, that will help ‘in the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores.’

He better be right about that.

One thing that Obama has correctly identified is the need to build a lot more treatment facilities for Ebola in the affected regions. Right now, all of the existing facilities are completely full and there are no empty beds left…

Countless taxis filled with families worried they’ve become infected with Ebola currently crisscross Monrovia in search of help.

They scour the Liberian capital, but not one clinic can take them in for treatment.

“Today, there is not one single bed available for the treatment of an Ebola patient in the entire country of Liberia,” said Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization’s director-general.

“As soon as a new Ebola treatment facility is opened, it immediately fills to overflowing with patients,” the WHO said.

Obama’s plan calls for building 17 new Ebola treatment facilities with approximately 100 beds each.

Needless to say, that is not going to get the job done. 1700 beds is going to be kind of like spitting into Niagara Falls if we actually do see hundreds of thousands of cases in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea by early next year.

But should we give Obama credit for trying to do something about this crisis even though he has waited far too long and his plan is not well thought out?

I am not so sure.

Meanwhile, the WHO said this week that the Ebola outbreak continues to grow “exponentially” and that a billion dollars may be needed to bring it under control.

And one U.S. health official told the U.S. Senate on Tuesday that if Ebola continues to spread like wildfire that we could be “dealing with it for years to come”…

“If we do not act now to stop Ebola, we could be dealing with it for years to come,” said Beth Bell, director of the national center for emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At a Senate hearing on Ebola, she noted that 100 CDC staff are working in West Africa and hundreds more are assisting from Atlanta. “The best way to protect the U.S. is to stop the outbreak in West Africa.”

Most Americans still do not seem too concerned about this virus.

But this is not the bird flu. This is a disease that is killing more than half the people that it infects.

Dr. Kent Brantly, one of the American doctors that contracted the virus but eventually recovered, says that this is a crisis that we need to be taking very seriously…

“From the time I fell sick, just two months ago, the death toll has tripled,” Brantly said, noting World Health Organization estimates of 5,000 cases, with about half of those patients dying from the virus. “In nine months down the road, we are looking at hundreds of thousands, not just in cases, but deaths.”

So what do you think?

Is Obama responding appropriately to this crisis?

Is the world handling this outbreak well?

Please feel free to share your thoughts by posting a comment below…


Some debate...

“Fair and Balanced” Reporting Epitomized
Thomas DiLorenzo

The logo of FOX News is “Fair and Balanced Reporting.” This was certainly on display this evening when the topic of bombing all the Muslim countries of the Middle East into the stone age was the topic of discussion. On one side of the “debate” was Senator Lindsey Graham. On the other side was John Bolton. The bone of contention during the debate was whether or not the U.S. government should carpet bomb the entire country of Iran now, or wait until after doing the same to Syria first. Fair and Balanced: You Decide.


An idea whose time has come...

Call the Anti-Police: Ending the State's "Security" Monopoly

By William Norman Grigg

“How would things be different,” muses Dale Brown of the Detroit-based Threat Management Center, “if police officers were given financial rewards and commendations for resolving dangerous situations peacefully, rather than for using force in situations where it’s neither justified nor effective?”

Brown’s approach to public safety is “precisely the opposite of what police are trained and expected to do,” says the 44-year-old entrepreneur. The TMC eschews the “prosecutorial philosophy of applied violence” and the officer safety uber alles mindset that characterize government law enforcement agencies. This is because his very successful private security company has an entirely different mission – the protection of persons and property, rather than enforcing the will of the political class. Those contrasting approaches are displayed to great advantage in proto-dystopian Detroit.

“We’ve been hired by three of the most upscale neighborhoods in Detroit to provide 24/7 security services,” Brown proudly informed me during a telephone interview. “People who are well-off are very willing to pay for Lamborghini-quality security services, which means that our profit margin allows us to provide free services to people who are poor, threatened, and desperate for the kind of help the police won’t provide.”“Unlike the police, we don’t respond after a crime has been committed to conduct an investigation and – some of the time, at least – arrest a suspect,” Brown elaborates. “Our approach is based on deterrence and prevention. Where prevention fails, our personnel are trained in a variety of skills – both psychological and physical – to dominate aggressors without killing them.” Police typically define their role in terms of what they are permitted to do to people, rather than what they are required to do for them. Brown’s organization does exactly the reverse, even when dealing with suspected criminals.

To illustrate, Brown refers to an incident from a security patrol in which he encountered a black teenager “who was walking in a neighborhood at about 3:00 a.m. dressed in a black hooded sweatshirt, doing what is sometimes called `the drift’ – it was pretty clear he was up to something.”

Rather than calling the police – who, given their typical four-hour response time, wouldn’t have arrived soon enough to be of any help, as if helping were part of their job description – Brown took action that was both preventive and non-aggressive.

“I told him, `There are criminals here who might rob you, so you’ll get free bodyguard service anytime you’re in the neighborhood,’” Brown related to me. “I also asked for his name and personal information for a `Good person file’ that would clear him with the cops next time he decided to go jogging in a black hoodie a three in the morning. He didn’t have to give me that information, of course, but he told me what I needed to know – and we’ve never seen him there again.”

Brown and his associates take a similar approach to dealing with minor problems that usually result in police citations that clog court dockets and blight the lives of harmless people.

“When we see someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated, we offer to take their keys and call their families to get them home,” he reports. “This way we keep them safe from harm – and, just as importantly, protect them from prosecution. Again, everything we do is the opposite of what the police do. If you have a joint in your pocket, the cops will be all over you – but if you’re facing actual danger, they’re nowhere to be found, and aren’t required to help you even if they show up.”

That contrast is most visible in confrontations with potentially dangerous people. Brown’s company receives referrals to provide security for people who face active threats, such as victims of domestic violence. One representative case involved a young mother whose daughter had been abducted by a violent, abusive father with a lengthy criminal history. The child was rescued and reunited with her mother without guns being drawn or anybody being hurt.

For reasons of accountability and what the private sector calls “quality assurance,” Brown and his colleagues recorded that operation, as they document nearly everything else they do. However, they weren’t playing to the cameras. The same can’t be said of the Detroit PD SWAT team that stormed the home of 7-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones at midnight in May 2010 while filming the assault for a cable television program.

Officer Joseph Weekley, who burst through the door carrying a ballistic shield and an MP5 submachine gun, shot and killed Aiyana, who had been sleeping on the living room couch. By the time she was killed terrified little girl had already been burned by a flash-bang grenade that had been hurled into the living room.

The home was surrounded with toys and other indicia that children resided therein, and neighbors had pleaded with the police not to carry out the blitzkrieg. The cops did arrest a suspect in a fatal shooting, but he resided in a different section of the same building. In any case, the suspect could have been taken into custody without a telegenic paramilitary assault – if the safety of those on the receiving end of police violence had been factored into the SWAT team’s calculations.

Owing in no small measure to public outrage, Weekly has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and careless discharge of a weapon resulting in death. A jury deadlocked on the charges in July 2013. Weekley now faces a second trial that will produce a conviction only if the prosecution can overcome the presumption that the officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable. This is a function of the entirely spurious, and endlessly destructive, doctrine of “qualified immunity,” which protects police officers from personal liability when their actions result in unjustified harm to the persons or property of innocent people.

The rationale behind qualified immunity is the belief that absent such protection competent and talented people wouldn’t enlist as peace officers. In practice, however, qualified immunity merely emboldens incompetent and vicious police officers.

“Police should be subject to exactly the same laws and liabilities that the rest of us face,” contends Brown. “If we don’t have perfect reciprocity, then police should be held to a higher standard of accountability than the rest of the citizenry. If they commit criminal acts that result in injury or death, police should do double the time that a `civilian’ would face, because they’re supposed to be professionals.”

As private sector professionals, Brown observes, “we have double accountability – first to our clients who pay us, and then to the criminal justice system and civil courts if we do something wrong. And because the police usually see us as competitors, they are very eager to come after us if we screw up. But in all the years we’ve been working, we’ve had no deaths or injuries – either to our clients or to our own people – no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.”

Not only do Brown and his associates operate without the benefit of “qualified immunity,” they are required to expose themselves to physical risk on behalf of their clients – something that police are trained to avoid.

“For police officers, going home at the end of the shift is the highest priority,” Brown observes. “For us it can’t be. When we’re hired to protect a client, his home, his business, his family, we’ve made a choice to put the client’s safety above our own, and to make sure that he or she gets home safely at the end of the day.”

When people seek help from the police, Brown points out, they’re inviting intervention by someone who has no enforceable duty to protect them, but will be rewarded for injuring them or needlessly complicating their lives.

“Let’s examine this logically,” Brown begins. “What is this human being – the police officer – going to get out of becoming involved in your troubles? Will be he rewarded for helping you to solve them, especially if this involves a personal risk? Would solving your problem be worth getting injured or killed?”

“We’re dealing with a basic question of human motivations,” Brown continues. “Police are not required to intervene to protect you – there is a very long list of judicial precedents proving this. They’re actually rewarded for not intervening. Here, once again, I emphasize that Threat Management is not comparable to the police. We follow exactly the opposite approach. People don’t have to work with Threat Management, but if they choose to, that’s what we expect of them.”

Some critics of TMC and other private security firms insist that their personnel cannot match the qualifications and experience of government-employed police officers. That objection wildly overestimates the professional standards that must be met in order for an individual to become a government-licensed purveyor of privileged violence.

“An individual can become a police officer in six months,” Brown points out. “Can you become a doctor or an EMT in six months? Is there any other profession in which employees can become `qualified’ to make life-and-death decisions on behalf of other people after just a few months of training?”

By way of supplementing Brown’s point: In Arkansas, an applicant can become a police officer in a day, and work in that capacity for a year, without professional certification of any kind. However, to become a licensed practicing cosmetologist, an applicant must pass a state board examination and complete 2,000 hours of specialized training. For an investment of 600 hours an applicant can qualify to work as a manicurist or instructor.

While Arkansas strictly regulates those who cut hair or paint nails in private, voluntary transactions, it imposes no training or licensing standards whatsoever on armed people who claim the authority to inflict lethal violence on others. This is not to concede that there is any way one human being can become legitimately “qualified” to commit aggressive violence against another.

“Law enforcement attracts a certain personality type that is prone to narcissism and aggression,” Brown asserts, speaking from decades of experience. “People like that get weeded out from our program very early. We protect innocent people from predators, and we can’t carry out that mission by hiring people who are predatory themselves. Our people receive extensive training in firearms and unarmed combat techniques, but they’re also taught to look at all humans as members of the same family. The question we want them to ask themselves is – in what circumstances would you shoot, or otherwise harm a member of your family? They’re trained to apply that standard in all situations involving a potential use of force. People who can’t think that way aren’t going to fit in with our program.”

Brown emphatically agrees that the phenomenon called “police militarization” is a huge and growing menace, but insists that the core problem is “not the military hardware, or the other trappings of militarization, but the system itself. Police agencies attract the wrong kind of people and then tell them, `You’re like God’ – they get to impose their will on others and use lethal force at their discretion. And when someone who is really golden shows up – that is, an ethical, conscientious person who wants to protect the public – they get redirected into a role that will minimize their influence for good by people who are worried about their own job security.”

“Ideally, the best approach would be to abolish the current system and start over,” Brown concludes. “But the very least we should demand would be total equity and complete accountability – which would mean, as a starting point, doing away with this idea of `qualified immunity.’ Police are citizens, and they should be governed by the same laws that apply to all citizens. No exceptions, no special protections.”

Several studies have shown that there are between three and four times as many private peace officers – such as security guards, armored truck drivers, and private investigators – as sworn law enforcement officers in the United States. That fact demonstrates that the security market is completely unserved by government law enforcement agencies. This shouldn’t be surprising, since – as I have observed before – police agencies serve the interests of those who plunder private property, and thus can’t be expected to protect it.

Police personnel practice aggressive violence from the shelter of “qualified immunity.” The absence of such protection doesn’t deter talented, motivated people such as Dale Brown and his associates – and others providing similar services in Houston, Oakland, and elsewhere — from seeking employment as private security officers who actually accept personal risk to protect property.

Why not abolish qualified immunity for all security personnel? Critics of that proposal might protest that this would undermine the state’s monopoly on the provision of “security” by requiring its employees to compete on equal terms with the private sector. Which is precisely the point.


"There is reason to suspect that the same people who carried out 9/11 also carried out the anthrax attacks..."

The Smoking Guns of the 2001 Anthrax Attacks

Washington's Blog

Must-Read: “The 2001 Anthrax Deception”

Professor Graeme MacQueen has written a must-read book on the anthrax attacks on America: The 2001 Anthrax Deception.

Even those of us who have paid close attention to – and written broadly on – the 2001 anthrax attacks will learn stunning new information.

For example, we learned the following eye-opening facts from the book:

There was a set of 3 letters sent around the same time as the initial anthrax mailings, which attempted to frame the Russians for the anthrax attacks, and which warned of further attacks. These letters could not have been sent by Dr. Bruce Ivins (the scientist the FBI blamed for the attacks), nor could they have been “copycat” letters

Less than 3 months before the anthrax attack, the government carried out a simulated exercise called “Dark Winter”, where: a lethal germ had been aerosolized then released; anonymous letters threatened anthrax attacks; Iraq and Al Qaeda are blamed for the attacks; and preparations are made for the drastic reduction of civil liberties in the United States, including martial law

The National Academy of Sciences found that the anthrax mailed to Congressmen and the media could have come from a different source altogether than the flask maintained by Ivins

The Department of Justice argued in a lawsuit that the anthrax used in the attacks was of a completely different nature (dried, aerosolized, and specially treated to act as a lethal weapon) than maintained by Dr. Ivins (a standard liquid solution):

PBS’ Frontline, ProPublica and McClatchy newspaper all found that Dr. Ivins was doing valid and important work during the timeframes when the FBI claims that he “went missing”

There is reason to suspect that the same people who carried out 9/11 also carried out the anthrax attacks...

Read the rest here:

David Hooper 2014 “Anatomy of a Great Deception”...

Tuesday, September 16, 2014


OOPS!!! Be sure to wear a jacket...

Billionaires and Communists Plan “People’s Climate March”
Written by Alex Newman

With United Nations bosses gathering dictators and government representatives in New York next week for a “climate” summit amid the ongoing implosion of their man-made “global warming” theories, a coalition ranging from billionaire front groups to the Communist Party is planning what it calls “the People’s Climate March.” What critics refer to as the “global rent-a-mob,” organized in part by the Rockefeller-funded alarmist organization, claims the worldwide demonstrations demanding a UN global-warming regime will be “the largest climate rally in history.” They may well be, but that hardly changes the fact that most Americans reject failed anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theories and that virtually every falsifiable “climate” prediction has been dead wrong.

The “People’s” Climate March, not to be confused with the open-air gulag UN member-state known as the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, is set to take place on September 21, the day before UN “climate dignitaries” converge in New York to plot a new anti-carbon regime for humanity. As with many other pseudo-popular movements, the establishment-backed march is there to provide some semblance of public support for deeply unpopular policy machinations. In this case, the goals include carbon taxes, energy rationing, mass wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to Third World dictators, further empowering the UN, and imposing a draconian planetary regime supposedly aimed at curbing “global warming” that will devastate the poor.

It would be easy to assume that nobody bothered informing the organizers and their dupes that there has been no warming for 18 years and counting even as polar ice continues to hit new record-highs — defying every prediction and climate model advanced by the UN and its fellow warming alarmists over the last few decades. More likely, though, is that the establishment figures behind the “climate” coalition have ambitions that go far beyond stopping warming that, based on the undisputed temperature record, stopped almost two decades ago. “This is an invitation to change everything,” the People’s Climate March says on its website promoting the rallies.

Everything? Well, almost. “With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we’ll take a stand to bend the course of history,” the promo for the march continues. “We’ll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.” Beyond New York City, the coalition is also planning “climate” demonstrations to “change everything” in London, Berlin, and other major cities. It remains unclear how many actual “people” will be turning out, but organizers claim it will be huge.

Among the groups partnering with the march are the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, numerous self-described socialist groups, Big Labor, the billionaire George “New World Order” Soros-funded, myriad Islamic groups, crony capitalists, pseudo-environmentalist establishment front groups, and many more. As U.S. Communist Party boss John Bachtell wrote in the CPUSA mouthpiece People’s World in a recent propaganda piece promoting its “People’s Climate March”: “Solutions to the climate crisis inevitably collide with the capitalist system.” In other words, to solve the fake “crisis,” prepare to lose your prosperity and your God-given rights.

Another one of the outfits partnering with the march, Socialist Alternative, also recently outlined the real agenda being advanced by socialists purporting to be concerned about non-existent warming: “solving climate change” with global socialism. According to the outfit’s Pete Ikeler, capitalism combined with fossil fuels now threatens “all advances” made by humanity over its history. The problems are allegedly so bad that perhaps “industrialization” was not such a good idea after all, he suggested. “The solution, therefore, ... is the replacement of capitalism with a rational, planned, and democratic economy — otherwise known as socialism,” it says. “Humanity is indeed at a crossroads — and capitalism is in the way. We urge all members of the 99% to join in the struggle for system change to stop climate change.”

Amplified by Russian state-owned propaganda outlets and Western propagandists styling themselves “journalists,” People’s March organizers, echoing UN talking points, claim to be creating the necessary momentum to provide enough cover for globalists to foist their climate regime on humanity. “The People's Climate March can be — and in many ways already is — creating a tipping point moment for the world,” reads a statement from event organizers quoted by Russia’s RIA Novosti. “There's real power in this kind of human energy.”

The Rockefeller oil dynasty-funded outfit, which seeks to impose a draconian UN-run regime to reduce concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, has previously organized major global-warming protests around the world. Unsurprisingly, the “green” AstroTurf (phony grassroots) machinations, which a recent Senate report once again confirmed are being bankrolled and used by what it called “the Billionaires’ Club,” always get plenty of establishment-media attention, too. However, the increasingly discredited “mainstream” press has consistently failed to tell the whole story.

For instance, take the basic premise behind the whole AGW edifice supposedly requiring global socialism: The notion that carbon dioxide — exhaled by humans and essential for plant life — is “pollution” that will supposedly lead to catastrophic warming. With no temperature increases for 18 years and counting even as CO2 levels grew, countless scientists who rely on the scientific method and observable evidence to reach conclusions concede that the theory must be incorrect. Dozens of excuses have been concocted to explain what alarmists refer to as the “pause” in global warming, including Obama’s favorite, the “Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” The simplest explanation — the theory is wrong — remains off the table for the UN and most of its member regimes.

Beyond the obvious problems with AGW theories, the notion that CO2 is harmful is considered ludicrous by respected scientists who study the issue. “CO2 is 'the gas of life,’” explained Dr. Tom Segalstad, associate professor of resource and environmental geology and geochemistry at the University of Oslo. “The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the 'greenhouse effect'. Clouds have much more influence on temperature.”

Dr. Segalstad is a contributing author with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced a landmark survey of climate science and came to very different conclusions than the UN’s discredited “climate” fear-mongering reports. NIPCC lead author and meteorologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who also worked with the UN climate body until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review, also pointed out that human-added CO2 is not destabilizing the climate.

Even if CO2 were harmful “pollution,” rather than a beneficial and natural gas that is crucial to life on this planet, efforts to limit human emissions of the gas to control “climate” would still be beyond laughable. Water vapor, of course, is the primary “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, accounting for around 95 percent of the crucial-to-life so-called “greenhouse effect.” That gas is entirely beyond human control, and there is no dispute on any of those facts — even among the most devoted alarmists, whom critics ridicule as a “cult” for refusing to change their beliefs despite the undeniable evidence.

Carbon dioxide, meanwhile, accounts for about 0.04 percent of the gases present in Earth’s atmosphere. Of that, according to scientific estimates, less than 3.3 percent comes from human emissions such as the burning of fossil fuels. The vast majority comes from the oceans at around 42 percent, or the biosphere at about 55 percent — volcanoes, wild fires, decomposition, and more. In other words, around three percent of the “greenhouse gases” can be attributed to human activities. Of that tiny sliver attributed to humans, Americans are responsible for less than 20 percent.

None of that matters to the establishment forces whipping up “climate” hysteria to advance their own sinister objectives. Indeed, the “People’s Climate March” will hardly be the only global-warming alarmism event in New York City next week demanding UN “action.” Among other happenings, a pseudo-religious “climate” festival dubbed the “Religions For The Earth Conference” will be asking the gods to forgive humanity for its carbon sins. Separately, a coalition that includes top international mega-corporations, dubbed “The Climate Group,” will be organizing global-warming “awareness activities” all week as part of “Climate Week NYC.”

As what top establishment figures refer to as “useful idiots” converge on New York to demand their own enslavement under the guise of stopping a demonstrably manufactured crisis, the Obama administration has already indicated that it plans to foist the UN climate regime on America by decree. Instead of obtaining Senate approval as required under the U.S. Constitution, the White House intends to use “executive action” to further devastate the U.S. economy and what remains of the market amid its absurd war on “the gas of life.” Americans, a solid majority of whom consistently reject discredited AGW theories, must ensure that their elected representatives take action to protect the public, the economy, and the Constitution from the lawless machinations.


8 Subliminal Messages Hidden in Corporate Logos...

"Unless proven otherwise, consider them all tools of the Empire."

Obama Met Privately With Top Journalists Before ISIS War Speech

Robert Wenzel

Michael Calderone at HuffPo reports:

President Barack Obama met with over a dozen prominent columnists and magazine writers Wednesday afternoon before calling for an escalation of the war against the Islamic State, or ISIS, in a primetime address that same night.

The group, which met in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in an off-the-record session, included New York Times columnists David Brooks, Tom Friedman and Frank Bruni and editorial writer Carol Giacomo; The Washington Post's David Ignatius, Eugene Robinson and Ruth Marcus; The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins and George Packer; The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart; The New Republic's Julia Ioffe; Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll; The Wall Street Journal's Jerry Seib; and The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, a source familiar with the meeting told The Huffington Post.

Unless proven otherwise, consider them all tools of the Empire.


" Ukraine and Russia provide the most recent examples of neocon policy, as effectuated by Obama. The thinking shown in this case goes back to the presidencies of Clinton and Bush."

Why U.S. Hegemonic Ambitions Are Failing

By Michael S. Rozeff

The current hegemonic ambitions of the U.S. government go back to the heavy influence of neoconservative thought that began to be expressed during the Clinton administration. The neocons realized that the U.S. was the sole remaining superpower and they aimed for the U.S. to achieve global hegemony with power as a foundation. Hegemony requires a military component and the U.S. government had it. What is more natural, thought the neocons, than for the U.S. to build up its global hegemony with its military power as a foundation?

Hegemony has other essential components, however, since no state or hegemon ever rules entirely by coercion or the threat of force, that path of control being far too costly and causing far too much resistance among subjects. Hegemonists require a degree of legitimation among large groups of people and among states that come under their sway. That in turn requires acceptance or even support among these peoples or states. This comes about by persuasion that focuses on some ideologies that are acceptable to the subject parties. Certain bases of acceptance must be present from some standpoints, be they political, economic, racial, ethnic, religious, scientific, artistic, ideological or whatever.

The neocon hegemonic thrust found expression in Bush’s attack on Iraq and his anti-terror campaign. Anti-terrorism became one of the legitimizing rallying points of the drive for U.S. hegemony. That became one of the bases of acceptance. A global war on terror was thought to provide an entry point by which U.S. global leadership and dominance could be asserted and attained. This seemed like an ideal way of gaining legitimacy. Whoever was not counted as for this goal would be counted as against it and regarded as an obstacle or worse, evil and pro-terrorist. Also, all sorts of crimes and activities of other states and groups, even domestic ones, could easily be labeled as terrorist, thereby widening the possibilities of using force.

In practice, this anti-terror idea was mainly put into practice by combining it with the superior military force of the U.S. The neocon emphasis was always on power and its application, and neocons gave little thought to its use by the U.S. ever leading to failure. Even today, they still think the same way. When power seems to fail, they always call for even greater doses of power to be applied. In their hearts, they do not really understand that hegemony cannot rely solely on force.

But when power was applied in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, success eluded the neocons and the U.S. government. Wars dragged on or forces thought to be defeated regained strength or new forces emerged. The U.S. did not gain acceptance and a basis for hegemony among the native populations based on anti-terrorism because they did not broadly buy into the anti-terror story. They didn’t see themselves as being rescued by U.S. forces. They may or may not have been experiencing oppression to various degrees, but they didn’t welcome U.S. forces with open arms as their liberators. Terrorism was not a problem for Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria prior to the interference of the U.S. Therefore it could not serve as a rallying point for their peoples. Rather, these peoples viewed the U.S. military forces as uninvited intruders or occupiers. There was no way that the U.S. could realize its hegemonic ambitions in these places by reference to an ideology of anti-terror. The most that such an ideology could achieve was to persuade the American public of the justice of the aggressions of the U.S. government. This was useful to the government but miles apart from the neocon goal of hegemony over foreign nations. Furthermore, as the costs of these aggressions came to be realized, they would tend to undermine the support of the American masses.

The neocons, Bush and Obama had a second ideological basis in their attempts to bring foreign peoples into their fold by their acceptance and not by brute force. That appeal was that they would free these peoples from their governments, whom the U.S. regarded as dictatorial, and they’d bring them liberty. They’d bring them rights of many kinds. They’d help institute new systems of voting and government. Women wouldn’t have to accept an inferior status. Whatever perceptions of injustice, real or imagined, that neocons believed existed in these countries, democracy would alleviate the problems. They’d bring democracy. Democracy, like anti-terror, was and still is an important rallying cry to make American interference acceptable to the broad masses of people in these lands and others. And perhaps accompanying that cry is the promise of greater economic prosperity by more greatly integrating these economies into the world economy or the West’s financial and trading system. The rhetoric of spreading democracy and rights also served the dual purpose of holding on to the acceptance of these wars among the American media and masses, just as the anti-terror appeal did. Americans like the idea of liberation, of liberating oppressed peoples.

Put into practice, this democracy appeal fell completely to pieces in country after country as religious, tribal and ethnic divisions came to the fore after the U.S. military succeeded in deposing the old governments. In every country exposed directly to U.S. forces or to the U.S. arming and training of native forces (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria), no stable democracy, no nationwide democracy, and no democratic peace have emerged. Deadly contests and rivalries for power remain.

Although democracy seemed to neocons like a reasonable basis for acceptance of U.S. hegemony, it failed on several grounds. The neocons failed to understand the societies that they were invading and/or undermining. They didn’t understand their laws, ways and their divisions. It was thought that bringing down the existing governments would suffice. However, these societies had no core group of democrats that could persuade everyone to form a new democratic state and live happily ever after. The U.S. invasions encouraged terrorists and terrorism, both directly and indirectly. The U.S. military played off one group against another. The region was infused with new and more sophisticated weapons. The direct attacks by U.S. forces encouraged armed resistance from many among the native populations.

As the anti-terror strain of thought failed to support the hegemonic ambitions of neocon/U.S. government thought, so did the pro-democracy concept. The most basic and heartfelt reliance of neocon thought was on power (“shock and awe”) as expressed by the U.S. military. It was not on the soft power without which no government can sustain its power to govern. That soft power depends on the acceptance by native populations. They have to think that what the government is doing is by and large sensible in order to support it, even if their notions of what is sensible are distorted or mistaken. If the American interlopers could not generate that acceptance directly by their own edicts and measures or indirectly through new puppet governors and intermediaries, then the hegemonic missions would fail.

Hegemony must have some grounds for acceptance among those governed by the hegemon. At times, the U.S. has failed so badly that it has resorted to paying tribesman directly. It has created a temporary economic inducement in both Iraq and Afghanistan by this means. This showed that it had failed to find other grounds. At other times, its failure was signaled by so-called surges in which it had to re-introduce more troops to control the situation. Failing to generate non-coercive means of gaining acceptance, the U.S. substituted coercive means.

This is what is happening again in Iraq regarding the Islamic State. The neocon Republicans argue that Obama drew down American forces in Iraq too quickly and now must send them back in. But even if Obama had kept those forces there, their continued presence would still have signified a failure of hegemonic ambitions to have found a non-coercive basis, as their re-introduction against IS also signifies.

We may say that Bush’s failures to achieve his neocon ambitions rest on poor understanding of the societies invaded, naive expectations concerning democracy, an excessive reliance on military force, an exaggerated belief that foreign peoples would benefit from an American presence and grasp it with open arms, an oversimplified understanding of the difficulties of creating a new and viable state, a lack of understanding of the behavior of American armed forces in their relations with native populations, and various tactical blunders all along the way. In terms of creating and sustaining hegemony over new lands, he and the neocons relied far too heavily on military means, believing that American superpower status would win the day. He and the neocons failed to understand that extending hegemony requires a great deal of soft power and they had developed no firm grounds for gaining the acceptance of native peoples. Anti-terror and democracy didn’t suffice.

Ukraine and Russia provide the most recent examples of neocon policy, as effectuated by Obama. The thinking shown in this case goes back to the presidencies of Clinton and Bush.

The neocon goal, the hegemonic goal, was advanced enormously with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. All the U.S. had to do was bring the new Russian Federation into the western orbit and it would have been well on its way to opening Russia fully to western capital and western influences. This project was entirely feasible. Russia had its share of democrats among its elite and still does; this embraces its major leaders, including Putin. It had numerous and important economic relations with European countries and still does. The masses did not share these democratic aspirations as fully as its government, but neither were they rebellious. Medvedev is the most western-oriented leader. Putin has consistently reached westwards to Europe, but he also pays more attention to mass sentiment and thus is more sensitive to the status of Russia as an independent and unique power. He reaches toward the west economically but he won’t kowtow and he appeals to certain cultural and religious senses of his public.

Instead of reaching out to the new Russia and the new Russian leaders, the U.S. and the EU decided to bring the eastern European nations into the EU and into NATO. This was despite the fact that a gradual and peaceful entry of Russia into western ways was possible. Greater integration with the West was possible and was occurring despite NATO’s expansion.

It is really a separate story to understand how NATO succeeded in expanding its role. This was pushed under several aggressive leaders, to the point where NATO has prosecuted warfare in Afghanistan, Libya and the old Yugoslavia. The current secretary-general Rasmussen continues this tradition vigorously and he is exceedingly vocal in demonizing Putin and Russia in order to build up NATO and its role further. His militarism is matched only by the U.S. neocon senators and their media propagandists. The NATO expansion could not have occurred without U.S. support. The U.S. wants NATO belligerence toward Russia. This tends to drive Europe toward the U.S. and away from Russia.

It is a misreading of Putin to see him as wanting to invade eastern European countries or rebuild a USSR. Putin is being demonized intentionally by some such as Rasmussen. This demonization rejects the attempt to achieve the western hegemonic goal by means of soft power. Putin’s demonization most clearly serves the purpose of NATO and of militaristic neocon thinking.

The attempt by the U.S. to take Ukraine into the western and NATO orbit has pushed Russia further away from integration with Europe through the resulting sanctions. The policies of Clinton and Bush that separated Russia from the West have now been taken further into economic relations. This is contrary to the ambition of bringing Russia into a western embrace, which is where it seemed that important Russians wanted to take it.

Why did the U.S. not cultivate peaceful relations with Russia by ending NATO? That would have meant accepting a significant degree of independence of Russia. Russian interests in the Middle East conflicted with those of the U.S. Of greater importance, it would have meant allowing Russian influence on Europe to grow. It would have meant a reduced influence of the U.S. in Europe. The U.S. prefers to keep Europe in its orbit and to consolidate its control over eastern Europe, using a militaristic NATO as a tool. It prefers at times such as now to deal with Russia as a hostile power, raising European hostility to Russia and keeping Europe allied to the U.S.

Having rejected the easy path to a soft hegemony over Russia, via economic investments, trade and joint projects, U.S. leaders now think that some form of western political hegemony over Russia can be achieved by means of sanctions. This will not work. Putin won’t give in. Would any American president give in under similar conditions? Furthermore, the Russian masses are no more amenable to U.S. pressures than Arabs have been.

U.S. leaders perhaps hope to create a color revolution in Russia or a putsch that deposes Putin. These possibilities are unlikely, and if they did occur the consequences would be very uncertain, as they have been in Ukraine and elsewhere. The U.S. can’t count on achieving its hegemonic aims by policies or events that create major uncertainties.

The last three U.S. presidents had some degree of ambition to achieve some degree of hegemony regarding Russia, but all three rejected the easy path of cooperation. They led the U.S. into pursuing a more and more belligerent, antagonistic and sabre-rattling path toward Russia that has little or no chance of bringing it into the western fold.

Successive administrations seemed to have feared that an independent and business-oriented Russia that forged strong economic relations with Europe would undermine the position of the U.S. in Europe. American hegemonic ambitions have run into a Russian wall where they can go no further. The U.S. cannot succeed militarily against Russia and it cannot find grounds that appeal to the Russian masses. It’s no accident that Obama has pivoted toward the Pacific and the Orient, but there it is running right up against a Chinese wall and Chinese fighter jets. Add Chinese submarines to the mix. In this region too, the U.S. has become more belligerent.

The hegemonic ambitions of the U.S., dashed in the Middle East, are growing in Africa. In eastern Europe and the Pacific, they are devolving into defensiveness against other great powers. American belligerence is looking more and more like a sign of American weakness and frustration.


It's all part of the plan, folks...

U.S. government likely to respond to Ebola pandemic with military force, martial law and forced vaccines

by Mike Adams

The U.S. government is putting plans in place right now to invoke extreme emergency actions across the USA in response to an anticipated Ebola outbreak sweeping through U.S. cities. Late last week, the U.S. State Department ordered 160,000 Ebola hazmat suits in anticipation of an outbreak, and President Obama has already called upon the Pentagon to dispatch troops and supplies to Africa.

Earlier this summer, Obama signed a curious executive order that claims to grant federal officers the lawful right to arrest and quarantine anyone who shows symptoms of an infection. Full details of this executive order are explained in this 11-part Natural News article series covering Ebola truths the government isn't publicly advertising.

What else might the government do in a viral pandemic outbreak that threatens U.S. cities? Full details of the spectrum of options are revealed in Episode Four of my FREE online course Pandemic Preparedness, available now at

There, you'll learn:

- Why Homeland Security does not want to admit to national vulnerabilities to biological weapons

- How government doesn't want the public to panic and lose trust in government

- Why the CDC seeks to create as much fear and panic as possible in order to enrich pharmaceutical interests

- Why government is primarily interested in the survival of government, not the survival of the citizens

- The U.S. government already has plans in place to survive massive pandemics: deep underground bunkers already exist for high-level officials

- Extensive plans are already in place for national emergency actions: confiscation of resources, quarantine of citizens, martial law, etc.

- Why quarantines will be enforced at gunpoint with lethal force

- Because most citizens are not prepared, they will become part of the crisis and create a crisis burden on government

- How government becomes a threat by mandating experimental vaccines

- History has proven that we can't trust the safety of government-promoted vaccines

- Scientific fraud has been openly admitted by a top CDC scientist

- If an Ebola vaccine is made available, it will be an experimental vaccine that's not tested for long-term safety

- The vaccine industry already has absolute legal immunity and zero liability from the harm caused by their products

- There are strategies you can use in almost any scenario to increase your odds of survival, even under a medical dictatorship

- Why you need to survive so that you can contribute to the rebuilding of society after the pandemic

- How WE (humans) caused the pandemics! We are the cause of the planetary imbalances that lead to viral outbreaks

Learn all these details and more at the FREE online Pandemic Preparedness course at

Learn more:

"The Constitution is the law of the land. It is the law that we the people have imposed on federal officials. They expect American citizens to obey their laws. They should obey our law, the law of the Constitution. When the president disobeys the law, the Supreme Court could should enjoin him from doing so. If he violates the law or a judicial order enjoining him from breaking the law, Congress should impeach him. If the legislative and judicial branches aren’t going to enforce the Constitution, then who is?"

The Supreme Court’s Abrogation of Responsibility on Declaring War
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Everyone agrees that under our system of government, the Constitution requires the president to secure a declaration of war from Congress before he can legally wage war. Everyone also agrees that presidents have violated this constitutional restriction on power several times, especially since World War II.

We now are being treated to the latest manifestation of this phenomenon. President Obama’s military forces have already dropped bombs on the Islamic state in Iraq, and the president has announced that he intends to do the same in Syria.

Violating the air space of a sovereign and independent country is an act of war. Nonetheless, Obama says that if the Syrian government enforces its airspace by firing on U.S. war planes, he’ll order his forces to drop bombs on the Syrian government.

As commentators are pointing out, Congress is doing the same thing it has always done when the president wages war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. It is doing nothing. With mid-term elections in November, the members of Congress are too scared of taking the wrong side of the issue and so they are just letting Obama wage this latest war in violation of the Constitution.

But what about the federal judiciary? Isn’t it the solemn responsibility of the judicial branch of government to enforce the Constitution? Doesn’t it do so in other contexts? Why not here?

Of course, the federal courts are unable to enforce the Constitution on their own initiative. They need a lawsuit to do so.

But have you noticed that while people file lawsuits to enforce the Constitution in other areas — such as Obamacare — no one files lawsuits to stop the president from violating the Constitution by waging war without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war.

There is a simple reason for that: long ago the Supreme Court made it clear that it would not fulfill its constitutional duty to enforce the Constitution in this area.

Rather than simply announcing that it was abrogating its solemn responsibility under the Constitution, the Court came up with all sorts of nonsensical rationalizations as to why the federal judiciary was precluded from enforcing this particular provision of the Constitution, such as “lack of standing,” or “a non-justiciable controversy” or “a political issue.”

Of course, none of those excuses for judicial abrogation are found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court just made them up as a way to avoid having to enforce the declaration of war requirement against the president.

Why would the Court do that? Why make an exception here? After all, the Constitution is clear: no congressional declaration of war means no waging of war by the president.

My hunch is that it’s because the Court knows that the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA wouldn’t comply with a judicial order stopping them from waging the war. Therefore, to avoid a “constitutional crisis,” which would involve a battle that the Court would clearly lose, the Court simply comes up with excuses as to why it is precluded from enforcing this critically important part of the Constitution.

Let’s say that the Court enters an injunction against the president, Pentagon, and CIA, ordering them to stop bombing Iraq and Syria. What are the chances that the president and his military and paramilitary forces are going to comply with the order?

The chances are nil, and the Supreme Court knows it.

Then what? How does the Court enforce its injunction? By sending a team of U.S. Marshalls against the CIA and U.S. military bases? It’s not difficult to know who’s going to win that dispute. My bet is that those U.S. Marshalls wouldn’t even be permitted to get past the front gate of CIA headquarters or any military base.

The Constitution is the law of the land. It is the law that we the people have imposed on federal officials. They expect American citizens to obey their laws. They should obey our law, the law of the Constitution. When the president disobeys the law, the Supreme Court could should enjoin him from doing so. If he violates the law or a judicial order enjoining him from breaking the law, Congress should impeach him. If the legislative and judicial branches aren’t going to enforce the Constitution, then who is?


How handle POLICE STATE encounters - Part I

"The Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse."

An Unbearable and Choking Hell: The Loss of Our Freedoms in the Wake of 9/11
By John W. Whitehead

“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life.”—Osama bin Laden (October 2001), as reported by CNN

What a strange and harrowing road we’ve walked since September 11, 2001, littered with the debris of our once-vaunted liberties. We have gone from a nation that took great pride in being a model of a representative democracy to being a model of how to
persuade a freedom-loving people to march in lockstep with a police state.

What began with the passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 has snowballed into the eradication of every vital safeguard against government overreach, corruption and abuse. Since then, we have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance. The bogeyman’s names and faces change over time—Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and now ISIS—but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

Ironically, just a short week after the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we find ourselves commemorating the 227th anniversary of the ratification of our Constitution. Yet while there is much to mourn about the loss of our freedoms in the years since 9/11, there has been little to celebrate.

The Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago. Most of the damage has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse.

Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, roving VIPR raids and the like—all sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—a recitation of the Bill of Rights would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

As I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the Constitution has been on life support for some time now. We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document. However, the reality we must come to terms with is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

Consider the state of our freedoms, and judge for yourself whether this Constitution Day should be a day of mourning, celebration or a robust call to action:

The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind and protest in peace without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. Yet despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. And protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” But to the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons. Police shootings of unarmed citizens continue to outrage communities, while little is being done to demilitarize law enforcement agencies better suited to the battlefield.

The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen's home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly posing as military forces—complete with military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a violent standing army on American soil. Moreover, as a result of SWAT team raids where police invade homes, often without warrants, and injure and even kill unarmed citizens, the barrier between public and private property has done away with this critical safeguard.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

The use of civil asset forfeiture schemes to swell the coffers of police forces has continued to grow in popularity among cash-strapped states. The federal government continues to strong-arm corporations into providing it with access to Americans’ private affairs, from emails and online transactions to banking and web surfing. Coming in the wake of massive leaks about the inner workings of the NSA and the massive secretive surveillance state, it was recently revealed that the government threatened to fine Yahoo $250,000 every day for failing to comply with the NSA’s mass data collection program known as PRISM.

The technological future appears to pose even greater threats to what’s left of our Fourth Amendment rights, with advances in biometric identification and microchip implants on the horizon making it that much easier for the government to track not only our movements and cyber activities but our very cellular beings. Barclays has already begun using a finger-scanner as a form of two-step authentication to give select customers access to their accounts. Similarly, Motorola has been developing thin “digital tattoos” that will ensure that a phone’s owner is the only person who may unlock it. All of this information, of course, will be available to the spying surveillance agencies.

The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. And now the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama, allows the military to arrive at your door if the president thinks you’re a terrorist (a.k.a. extremist), place you in military detention, jail you indefinitely and restrict access to your family and your lawyer.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. However, when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears.

The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether. For example, if you are thrown into a military detention camp, then what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is up to your jailers.

The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so. Thus, once the government began violating the non-enumerated rights granted in the Ninth Amendment, it was only a matter of time before it began to trample the enumerated rights of the people, as explicitly spelled out in the rest of the Bill of Rights.

As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level. This distinction is further blurred by programs such as the Pentagon’s 1033 program, which distributes excess military hardware to local police stations, effectively turning them into extensions of the military.

If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded. In this regard, ironically, Osama Bin Laden was right when he warned that freedom and human rights in America are doomed, and that the U.S. government would be responsible for leading us into an “unbearable hell and a choking life.”

The choices before us are simple: We can live in the past, dwelling on what freedoms we used to enjoy and shrugging helplessly at the destruction of our liberties. We can immerse ourselves in the present, allowing ourselves to be utterly distracted by the glut of entertainment news and ever-changing headlines so that we fail to pay attention to or do anything about the government’s ongoing power-grabs. We can hang our hopes on the future, believing against all odds that someone or something—whether it be a politician, a movement, or a religious savior—will save us from inevitable ruin.

Or we can start right away by instituting changes at the local level, holding our government officials accountable to the rule of law, and resurrecting the Constitution, recognizing that if we follow our current trajectory, the picture of the future will be closer to what George Orwell likened to “a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”


The right to remain silent...

Search and Seizure in Public Schools

Flex Your Rights

Even before the Columbine and Sandy hook tragedies unleashed the latest wave of zero tolerance policies in public schools, the courts have struggled over the basic question of how to handle search and seizure in public schools. In particular, the courts have attempted to balance basic 4th Amendment protections against the desire of school administrators to have drug-free schools.

We’ll explore the key Supreme Court case addressing this question. We’ll then provide tips for how students can flex their rights in an environment where basic constitutional protections are less respected than they ought to be.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

In the 1985 case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the scope of legal searches in public schools. The case involved a girl who was caught smoking cigarettes in a bathroom. After a subsequent search, a teacher found illegal drugs in her purse.

Alex Koroknay-Palicz, executive director of National Youth Rights Association, describes howNew Jersey v. T.L.O. changed everything about the application of the 4th amendment towards students.

“Ultimately the opinion of the court established a “reasonableness” approach to search and seizure rather than a “probable cause” approach as outlined in the constitution. This Supreme Court decision reinterpreted how the law applies in school with such wordings as: “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence,” “reasonably related to the objectives of the search,” or “reasonably related in scope.” Clearly the court has created a new way to apply this law based on no precedent or prior interpretations. The court has thrown out the probable cause clause of the Fourth Amendment and invented a murky, dangerous classification of reasonableness. Clearly this will have the effect of further limiting the rights of students in public school.”

To illustrate this new standard, consider the the following scenario. If a police officer suspects someone of stashing illegal drugs in a bus station locker, the officer would usually need to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to search. However, if a public school teacher spots a glazed-eyed student furtively putting a suspicious package in their locker, this fact pattern might constitute reasonable suspicion. This alone would likely be enough to search the student’s locker. (Under New Jersey vs. T.L.O., no warrant would be needed.)

Students: How to Protect Your Rights

Despite the minuscule 4th Amendment protections afforded in public schools, students still have some options for protecting their rights. Most importantly, students have the right to remain silent when being interrogated by school officials.

Whether you are out on the street and being confronted by a police officer, or being called into your principal’s office, you always have the right to remain silent.

If you are ever being accused of something that could get you into serious disciplinary trouble, insist that the school contact your parents. Your parents can be your greatest protection against the pressure of school administrators to incriminate yourself or unnecessarily confess to something.

Parents: How to Protect Your Kid’s Rights

When it comes to disciplinary issues, school administrators are often looking to make an example of someone to show that the rules are being enforced. Moreover, administrators often act like police and use similar interrogation tactics to gain confessions. That’s why it’s important for both you and your children to appreciate the power of the right to remain silent.

Consider the cautionary tale of the Central Park Five. After being suspected in a rape they didn’t commit, the teenagers were subjected to intense police interrogation. When their parents and guardians arrived at the station, they urged them to “just tell the police what they want to hear.” The teenagers’ false confessions were later used as the key piece of evidence in their conviction.

Make sure you talk to your children about their rights. Let them know that you will always be their advocate if they’re accused of a crime or under investigation.

Parents & Students: Taking Action

Students, if you ever feel that your person or belongings have been unreasonably searched at school, work with your parents or guardian to make a plan of action. Be sure to write down everything as soon as possible, connect with witnesses, and alert your local branch of the ACLU.

Taking action won’t likely lead to a financial payout, but it might help change your school’s policy or simply prevent others from having to go through the same situation.


Monday, September 15, 2014

Meanwhile, in Japan...

Over 2 trillion becquerels of radioactive waste flowed from Fukushima plant into Pacific in just 10 months
by: David Gutierrez

At least 2 trillion becquerels' worth of radioactive material flowed from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean between August 2013 and May 2014, plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has admitted. The rate of release was 10 times higher than TEPCO's pre-meltdown threshold for radioactive material.

A becquerel is a unit for measuring radioactive material that corresponds to one unit of radioactive decay per second. It is a way of describing how much radiation is being emitted by radioactive material, in contrast to measuring the mass or volume of the material itself, the energy carried by the radiation or the biological impact of exposure.

Radioactive sludge accumulating in bay
In March 2011, the Fukushima plant suffered multiple meltdowns triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami. Since then, TEPCO has struggled to contain the flow of radioactive water away from the plant. Currently, radioactive water is known to be leaking out of reactor buildings and downstream into the ocean. It is also suspected to be leaking into the ground from the plant, and flowing underground to the ocean from there.

TEPCO estimates that this water has been carrying 4.8 billion becquerels of strontium-90 and 2 billion becquerels of cesium-137 every day, based on measurements taken near the water intakes for reactors 1 through 4. This means that in the 10 months from August to May, the plant emitted 1.46 trillion becquerels' worth of strontium-90 and 610 billion becquerels of cesium-137, totaling 2.07 trillion becquerels of radioactivity released into the ocean.

This astonishing amount of radioactivity is actually an improvement over the first two years following the disaster. Between May 2011 and August 2013, 10 trillion becquerels of strontium-90 and 20 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 flowed into the bay, for a total of 30 trillion becquerels. The improvement does not mark an improvement in TEPCO's containment methods, however, but is a result of the concentration of nuclear material at the plant decreasing over time.

Water flowing away from the plant enters the bay, where it can then spread into the open ocean. This bay contains a port that is used by the plant to transport materials and equipment.

So much radioactive material has accumulated along the mud of the sea floor at this port that TEPCO is now pursuing a plan to coat the sea floor with cement, to prevent the material from migrating deeper into the ocean.

This may make it impossible to ever dredge the port and remove the radioactive material.

"The first priority is to keep the material where it is," said a TEPCO official. "No decision has been made on whether to recover the [radioactive] mud at some point in the future."

Radioactive swamp
TEPCO has already coated several other sections of sea floor, near the outlets of tunnels used to release the radioactive water used to cool the plant immediately following the meltdown.

Work has already begun on a project to coat 50,000 square meters of sea floor near the quay with a cement mixture. The remaining 130,000 square meters will also be coated in several smaller segments. Every part will then be re-coated, to ensure durability of the barrier.

Meanwhile, radioactive water continues to accumulate on-site, with both rainwater and groundwater continually seeping into the failed reactors and becoming contaminated. TEPCO has been attempting to pump this water out and store it in tanks all over the site, but numerous leaks have caused so much water to spill out that Kyoto University professor Hiroaki Koide has described the plant as a radioactive swamp.

TEPCO has also attempted to dispose of some of the water by directly discharging it into the Pacific Ocean, violating its own standards for safe radiation exposure levels.

Learn more:

"The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washington’s hegemony is essential to this corrupted form of capitalism."

Washington’s War Against Russia

Paul Craig Roberts

The new sanctions against Russia announced by Washington and Europe do not make sense as merely economic measures. I would be surprised if Russian oil and military industries were dependent on European capital markets in a meaningful way. Such a dependence would indicate a failure in Russian strategic thinking. The Russian companies should be able to secure adequate financing from Russian Banks or from the Russian government. If foreign loans are needed, Russia can borrow from China.

If critical Russian industries are dependent on European capital markets, the sanctions will help Russia by forcing an end to this debilitating dependence. Russia should not be dependent on the West in any way.

The real question is the purpose of the sanctions. My conclusion is that the purpose of the sanctions is to break up and undermine Europe’s economic and political relations with Russia. When international relations are intentionally undermined, war can be the result. Washington will continue to push sanctions against Russia until Russia shows Europe that there is a heavy cost of serving as Washington’s tool.

Russia needs to break up this process of ever more sanctions in order to derail the drive toward war. In my opinion this is easy for Russia to do. Russia can tell Europe that since you do not like our oil companies, you must not like our gas company, so we are turning off the gas. Or Russia can tell Europe, we don’t sell natural gas to NATO members, or Russia can say we will continue to sell you gas, but you must pay in rubles, not in dollars. This would have the additional benefit of increasing the demand for rubles in exchange markets, thus making it harder for speculators and the US government to drive down the ruble.

The real danger to Russia is a continuation of its low-key, moderate response to the sanctions. This is a response that encourages more sanctions. To stop the sanctions, Russia needs to show Europe that the sanctions have serious costs for Europe.

A Russian response to Washington would be to stop selling to the US the Russian rocket engines on which the US satellite program is dependent. This could leave the US without rockets for its satellites for six years between the period 2016 and 2022.

Possibly the Russian government is worried about losing the earnings from gas and rocket engine sales. However, Europe cannot do without the gas and would quickly abandon its participation in the sanctions, so no gas revenues would be lost. The Americans are going to develop their own rocket engine anyhow, so the Russian sales of rocket engines to the US have at most about 6 more years. But the US with an impaired satellite program for six years would mean a great relief to the entire world from the American spy program. It would also make difficult US military aggression against Russia during the period.

Russian President Putin and his government have been very low-key and unprovocative in responding to the sanctions and to the trouble that Washington continues to cause for Russia in Ukraine. The low-key Russian behavior can be understood as a strategy for undermining Washington’s use of Europe against Russia by presenting a non-threatening face to Europe. However, another explanation is the presence inside Russia of a fifth column that represents Washington’s interest and constrains the power of the Russian government.

Strelkov describes the American fifth column here:

Saker describes the two power groups inside Russia as the Eurasian Sovereignists who stand behind Putin and an independent Russia and the Atlantic Integrationists, the fifth column that works to incorporate Russia in Europe under US hegemony or, failing that, to help Washington break up the Russian Federation into several weaker countries that are too weak to constrain Washington’s use of power.

Russia’s Atlantic Integrationists share the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz doctrines with Washington. These doctrines are the basis for US foreign policy. The doctrines define the goal of US foreign policy in terms of preventing the rise of other countries, such as Russia and China, that could limit Washington’s hegemony.

Washington is in a position to exploit the tensions between these two Russian power groups. Washington’s fifth column is not best positioned to prevail. However, Washington can at least count on the struggle causing dissent within the Eurasian Sovereignists over Putin’s low-key response to Western provocations. Some of this dissent can be seen in Strelkov’s defense of Russia and more can be seen here:

Russia, thinking the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, opened herself to the West. Russian governments trusted the West, and as a result of Russia’s gullibility, the West was able to purchase numerous allies among the Russian elites. Depending on the alignment of the media, these compromised elites are capable of assassinating Putin and attempting a coup.

One would think that by now Putin’s government would recognize the danger and arrest the main elements of the fifth column, followed by trial and execution for treason, in order that Russia can stand united against the Western Threat. If Putin does not take this step, it means either than Putin does not recognize the extent of the threat or that his government lacks the power to protect Russia from the internal threat.

It is clear that Putin has not achieved any respite for his government from the West’s propaganda and economic assault by refusing to defend the Donbass area from Ukrainian attack and by pressuring the Donetsk Republic into a ceasefire when its military forces were on the verge of a major defeat of the disintegrating Ukrainian army. All Putin has achieved is to open himself to criticism among his supporters for betraying the Russians in eastern and southern Ukraine.

The European politicians and elites are so deeply in Washington’s pocket that Putin has little chance of courting Europe with a Russian show of good will. I have never believed that this strategy could work, although I would be pleased if it did. Only a direct threat todeprive Europe of energy has a chance of producing within Europe a foreign policy independent of Washington. I do not think Europe can survive a cutoff of the Russian natural gas. Europe would abandon sanctions in order to guarantee the flow of gas. If Washington’s hold on Europe is so powerful that Europe is willing to endure a major disruption of its energy supply as the price of its vassalage, Russia will know to cease its futile attempts at diplomacy and to prepare for war.

If China sits on the sidelines, China will be the next isolated target and will receive the same treatment.

Washington intends to defeat both countries, either through internal dissent or through war.

Nothing said by Obama or any member of his government or any influential voice in Congress has signaled any pullback in Washington’s drive for hegemony over the world.

The US economy is now dependent on looting and plunder, and Washington’s hegemony is essential to this corrupted form of capitalism.


Ebola lies...

Ebola: the covert op of modern medicine

Jon Rappoport

“Tell them the biggest lie, yes. But they have to want the kind of lie you’re telling. It has to give them equal parts fear and fascination.” (Ellis Medavoy, retired propaganda operative)

“Overwhelmed.” “Can’t contain.” “Rapid spread.” Crossed borders.” “Predicting five million deaths.” “Too late to stop it.”

These and other familiar terms are stock-in-trade for the disease propaganda establishment.

The word “outbreak,” of course, is at the top of the list.

It suggests that the population in question is otherwise healthy—but suddenly people are dropping like flies.

In West Africa, for example, where global attention is focused on Ebola, “otherwise healthy” is a cynical myth.

Contaminated water; a decade of brutal war displacing huge numbers of people; chronic grinding poverty; severe malnutrition and starvation; inherently toxic vaccines and medicines that are devastating to people whose immune systems are already on the brink of failing; industrial pollutants in the streams and soil—that’s the pre-Ebola baseline called “otherwise healthy.”

Then there is the matter of diagnosis of Ebola. As I’ve explained in past articles, two of the most widely used tests—antibody and PCR—are both pathetically unreliable methods for disease analysis.

Therefore, the counting of Ebola cases and deaths, which depends on those tests, lacks any degree of authenticity.

On top of that, examining the track record of the CDC and the World Health Organization,when they intentionally and falsely overstated case numbers and deaths from Swine Flu…well, only a fool would believe their reports on Ebola.

But none of this stops true believers, who suck up press reports and press images like thirsty desert travelers kneeling at an oasis.

Not to burst the bubble, but…consider the World Health Organization report, April 2009, titled, “Influenza (Seasonal).” Discussing ordinary flu, it estimates 5 million cases a year, around the world, and between 250,000 and 500,000 deaths. Every year. Like clockwork.

True numbers or false numbers, the point is this: because there is zero propaganda about ordinary flu, no dire imagery, no breathless press reportage, nobody cares. Nobody says “outbreak.” No one predicts the collapse of society.

Imagine what would happen if you kept those huge global flu numbers and simply substituted “Ebola” for “flu.”

Because of the heavy propaganda re Ebola, the world would go completely mad overnight.

When the Washington Post (9/9) now reports that, ahem, “…only 31% of Ebola cases have been lab-confirmed through blood tests [in Liberia],” not an eyebrow is raised.

Who cares? Who needs diagnostic tests? Who needs science? They’re all dying from Ebola. We know that because…well, they are, we saw the pictures of the Ebola-virus worm-like thing, everybody was healthy and then they dropped dead, it’s escaping across the borders, and it’s from Africa, where terrible things originate (never Brooklyn orPeoria), let’s all buy haz-mat suits.

Ebola health workers in West Africa have, in fact, been wearing haz-mat suits all long. Sealed off from the outside, working shifts inside those boiling suits, where they are losing 5 quarts of body fluid an hour, they come out for rehydration, douse themselves with toxic chemicals to disinfect, and then go back in again.

One doctor told the Daily Mail he could smell intense fumes of chlorine while he was working in his suit. That means the toxic chemical was actually in there with him.

No wonder some health workers are collapsing and dying.

But ignore all that. It doesn’t mesh with the narrative of the virus mowing down everyone in its path.

And to depart from the propaganda narrative again—if someone wanted to step up the killing rate in West Africa, seeding it with a virus wouldn’t be the best choice. Germs are too unpredictable in their effects.

Much more predictable: spread an undetectable poisonous chemical and CALL it a virus.

In that case, the image of the virus serves as the cover story.

Precedent? Enormous precedent for using a germ as a cover story?


Assuming that virus was ever really isolated and identified to begin with (an irrational stretch), its supposedly lethal impact has never been established on any scientific grounds. There is no reason to believe it has killed anyone.

In Africa, death by wasting away, starvation, protein-calorie malnutrition, contaminated water, poverty, war, overcrowding, stolen land have formed the basis of life for millions of people.

Local dictators, elite investors, foreign corporations have wanted to keep things that way—without revealing their hand. While they were taking over the abundant natural wealth of nations.

Their murderous ongoing op needed a cover story.

Enter the disease propagandists.

They established the narrative of a killer virus. HIV.

On October 19, 1985, researcher D. Serwadda announced a new disease in Uganda, with his paper on “Slim,” published in Lancet. The myth of Slim, soon called AIDS, absurdly listed two prominent symptoms: weight loss and diarrhea.

These “symptoms,” of course, have been endemic in parts of Africa for centuries. Among the obvious causes? Contaminated water and severe malnutrition—prolonged and exacerbated by local dictators selling out their countries to foreign corporate invaders, while keeping their own populations too weak to resist.

No virus necessary.

But linking Slim to AIDS to HIV yielded the desired cover.

I wrote about all this in 1988, in my first book, AIDS Inc. I explained that medical covert ops are the most dangerous on the planet, because they appear to be political neutral. They wave no partisan banners. They hide behind the expression of “humanitarian concerns.”

Sealing off West Africa now, under the banner of “stopping the Ebola epidemic and healing the people,” is another chapter in this sordid tale of centuries.

The true objective of the covert op has always been the same: steal the fertile land and the natural resources. Disable, weaken, and destroy the people.

As in all intelligence ops, the classic hallmarks are there: secret hidden objective; cover story; limited hangout (“during the heroic effort, some mistakes were made, lessons were learned”); subtle scapegoating (blame the victims).

The op deploys many unknowing dupes. They follow the script. They believe in it. A few people at the top know the score.

Consider this. If germs were actually the sole and primary cause of disease, regardless of other factors present, we’d all be long gone by now. There would be no people left on planet Earth.

Untold millions of germs a) circulate and b) live in our bodies. Many of them mutate on a regular basis. No bioengineering necessary.

There is, however, a more basic factor in disease. Some people call it “the terrain” of the body—otherwise known as the immune system.

Immune defense is much more than a few classes of cells. It is, in fact, the whole body and its processes, as well as the mind.

In many areas of the world, as I’ve just described, horrendous conditions deplete the immune system: malnutrition, starvation, sewage pumped into the water supply, overcrowding, poverty, war, hopelessness, industrial pollution on a vast scale, etc.

Then, with the damage done, any old germ that sweeps through the population brings about illness and death—because the body, which would otherwise throw off the germ easily, instead succumbs.

That is the true picture.

Germs, germs, germs as the sole cause of disease is THE cover story for modern medicine.

It sustains, for example, the whole fairy tale about the need for vaccination.

Generally speaking, when a healthy person naturally engages with certain germs, he mounts a full and acute inflammatory response, during which he throws off the germ.

This inflammatory response has visible markers; for example, fever, rashes, spots, swelling.

These are labeled “symptoms of the disease.” Actually, they aren’t symptoms. They’re signs that the body is doing its job.

Vaccines, with their immunosuppressive effects, weaken and damp down the full inflammatory response. Therefore, the visible “symptoms” don’t occur.

And doctors claim this Absence means the person has acquired immunity from the disease targeted by the vaccine.

Not so. Other “symptoms” will occur and will become visible, as the body tries to fight against the toxic elements in the vaccine.

Doctors say, “Look here. Different symptoms. This is a different disease. We eradicated the other disease with the vaccine. Now we have to develop a vaccine and drugs against this one…”

On and on it goes. Polio becomes meningitis. Measles becomes encephalitis.

At every step, the person’s immune system becomes weaker, because he is being subjected to germs and toxic chemicals, in vaccines, injected directly into the body, bypassing many centers of immune defense.

In West Africa, during the last five years, several vaccine campaigns have been launched: yellow fever, polio, meningitis. Given to people whose immune systems are already teetering on the edge of collapse, the effects are devastating.

But of course, no one says, “Vaccine-induced disease and destruction.” Instead, they say, “Heroic efforts are being made to reverse the ongoing health crisis in Liberia.”

Every time a new “epidemic” comes along—HIV, West Nile, SARS, bird flu, Swine Flu, Ebola—the propaganda machines goes to work with, “Germ, germ, germ, germ.”

This cover story fortifies and controls the false public perception of what disease is all about. It’s a poster ad.

“In order to fight the heinous virus, doctors are our only recourse. Without them and their potions, we are powerless.”

This is exactly the goal of the overall covert op.

The customer not only wants the product. He believes he can’t live without it.

This is why the medical cartel and its allies wage a ceaseless, vicious, and lying war against “natural health.” The whole thrust of natural answers is: expand the power of the immune system.

Otherwise known as: putting the medical cartel out of business.

Otherwise known as: dissolving the covert ops designed to control and decimate populations.