Mosquito Drone

Effects of Digital Milennium Copyright Act on Blogs

 Greetings

The following "take down" notice and action was taken on an article that I republished in its entirety, but someone claimed that I had plagiarized the article.  The article that I posted, with videos, related to Dr Chris Busy and his positions on Radiation and claims that the Military Industrial Complex personnel were libeling him and sites posting information related to that were being given DMCA notices in an effort to silence him.

Definitions have not changed, plagiarism,  would be the case IF I had claimed the published work as my own......which I did not.

The notice below from GOOGLE is standard format and should be chilling.

Truth matters not, the content of the article does.......the watchers are everywhere if they are able to fund staff that searches out names, words or topics that could be offensive to the Dominant Society. 

Imagine, this tiny, unimportant Blog earning a DMCA take down......crazy world....and just who's money is that doing this funding, hmmmmm?

I just checked out Chilling Effects website, quite an interesting world happening out there.

Thanks

Toni

take down notice below
______________


Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to \"draft\" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. The URL(s) of the allegedly infringing post(s) may be found at the end of this message.) This means your post - and any images, links or other content - is not gone. You may edit the post to remove the offending content and republish, at which point the post in question will be visible to your readers again.

A bit of background: the DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. If you believe you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim. In order to file a counter-claim, please see http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_counternotice&product=blogger.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org. We do this in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). You can search for the DMCA notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

If it is brought to our attention that you have republished the post without removing the content/link in question, then we will delete your post and count it as a violation on your account. Repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in further remedial action taken against your Blogger account including deleting your blog and/or terminating your account. DMCA notices concerning content on your blog may also result in action taken against any associated AdSense accounts. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

Affected URLs:

http://natural-health-home-remedies.blogspot.com/2013/02/christopher-busby-libeled-by-military.html

You Are A Slave To Your Government

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe “Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of the virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the laziest and commonest of the vices.” – George Bernard Shaw

The UN Agenda of Agenda 21 & Sustainable Development

... of a different kind — of crows, to be exact.  You may wonder: what’s up with crows? 

Well, it depends on whether you embrace socialism and government control of your every move or whether you prefer freedom to speak, travel and work as you please.



Crows are Clever

Crows are clever birds!  In fact, they are among the smartest birds on Earth. They communicate with each other through a variety of caws (calls) about danger, food and many other things. Crows are quite intelligent; they learn quickly and remember for a long time.

The collective noun for a bunch of them, a "murder of crows" probably relates to their rambunctious group behavior which can create havoc on land and in the air. Crows are highly competitive but also social and caring creatures; you’ll rarely see a lone bird. In any event, when they visit your neighborhood, you can’t escape their noisy calls screaming hell and murder all over. 


Many years ago, a young colleague of mine had befriended a crow.  It was a real treat to see it approach and steal some food from his inner-city roof top hideout when we worked on a joint project. Another memorable impression is the painting by Deborah McCarroll entitled
Contemplative Crows, reproduced here with permission.
Contemplative Crows, by Deborah McCarroll, 2011; acrylic on canvas; reproduced with permission.

Whether you like her painting or not is up to you. Personally I like it as these crows have a decidedly mischievous demeanor while contemplating their next move.


As the Crow Flies

While in the North Country hiking, fishing or hunting, I have often encountered crows (or their northern cousins, ravens) flying well above the tree tops in a straight line for miles without making any call at all. Obviously, those birds meant to get from point A to point B in the shortest time, whatever those points were; I never managed to figure it out. Presumably, that’s where the term "as the crow flies" originates from. 
Of course, the crows fly as they please. But they usually have a purpose. If they did not, they would not be a successful species. That’s one more reason to wonder, what can we learn from them?

Perhaps they have solved the "traveling salesman problem" before Google did? In case you are not familiar with that problem, it refers to the fastest/cheapest way to get to a number of destinations, given one available method of travel, such as by roads, adjusted for length, speed limits and other obstacles. With multiple methods of transportation (e.g., road, train, air), that problem of course becomes much more complex and has yet to be solved.
The crows seem to have figured it out just by themselves, without a supercomputer in their brains. If that observation doesn’t suit you, perhaps you can’t stomach "eating crow."



Eating Crow


Eating crow is another interesting colloquial idiom, apparently unique to North America as it does not seem to have parallels in any other language. Wikipedia defines it as "meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position [to the contrary]. "

Theurban dictionary defines it as "To eat crow implies, at its mildest, an unpleasant action since the flesh of the crow is believed to be unpalatable. As an expression, it denotes the anguish of humiliation at having to admit to wrongdoing or fallibility, usually in the wake of hubristic actions or words. "


I don’t know if crows actually are unpalatable or not - never tried to eat one. Who knows, with the right kind of preparation, they could be a culinary delight! Will have to talk about that with my favored "road kill restaurant maestro de cuisine" (his motto: You kill, we grill).



Eating crow is what is expected from many civil servants when higher politics demand. It happens every day and all over the world; I know it of first hand. Watching the daily news, it is obvious to many observers, even in countries expected and commonly thought to be without fault. Few of the individuals involved are willing to stand up for the truth and face the consequences.

The Crow Collective


If you are a raptor, like hawks and eagles, you’ll likely want to steer clear from crows as much as possible. Though much smaller than most raptors, crows will attack you without mercy until you leave the area. Smaller birds just hide where possible. If you are a human, you ought to be safe, possibly bar Alfred Hitchcock’s 1963 horror movieThe Birds.


Crows don’t need an organization like the United Nations (UN) to help them finding food, a roost for the night, or adjudicate some dispute. They are claimed to "hold court" over offenders. Crows help each other with a repertoire of well over 100 different caws. Crows also have an ability to count and can use some tools; some can even make tools.  No wonder, crows are considered to be among the most intelligent animals on earth. 


Perhaps you might ask then: Are crows smarter than people? If they can figure out how to make a living by working together for the common good, can we humans possibly learn some useful pointers from them? More to the point, does an international organization like the United Nations (UN) and its many offspring and sub-organizations have a crow-like ability to foster the greater benefit for all, possibly even to the detriment of some individual members?
On the face of it, the UN’s Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development (SD) goals would fit that description. However, are they really as advertised and do you really know what they entail? 



The UN and the Sustainable Development goals of Agenda 21


The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon, in addressing the UN’s 67th General Assembly recently under way in New York, urged the adoption of the UN’s program Agenda 21 with its sustainability goals and promises of “green” jobs, economic stability, etc., if adopted.  -  Not many crows listened.


A couple of months earlier, the UN’s Rio+20 conference tried to re-invigorate the same ideological agenda known as UN Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a framework for redistributing individual and collective wealth around the world according to socialistic principles.

Among the 10,000 or so attendees of Rio+20 were some groups of people adorned with colorful bird feathers. As far as I know crows were neither invited nor represented, dead or alive. 
One of the goals of Agenda 21 is the prescriptions for Sustainable Development. The term by itself sounds benign, even desirable.

However, on closer inspection, you may wish to reconsider.  SD intends to reorganize your entire life, rights to property, freedom of speech, and just about anything else you may think of as your natural right. For example, on Oct. 2, 2012, Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, Jan Eliasson, during a press conference on October at the UN headquarter in New York claimed Free speech is a gift given to us by the [UN’s] Declaration of Human Rights.


Surely, that is preposterous! The UN asserts the right to give to you (hence also to take away) your right to free speech!

Joseph Klein wrote about that as follows:  "Under Deputy Secretary General Eliasson’s logic, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which gave us the
gift of free speech, can be modified or interpreted in such a way that would restrict its use if people were deemed too provocative or irresponsible in what they express. " . Article 29 of the Declaration puts some real meaning onto that "free gift", where it says: These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

In other words, the UN and its derivatives are sacrosanct and can control your free speech. 


As Tom DeWeese wrote, "Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait". 

Let’s come back to crows for a moment. Few people like them but fewer can give specific reasons; they just feel like that.

 The same analogy applies to people who think that sustainable development and other euphemisms of that kind are worthwhile goals to pursue. Again, on the face of it, they sound perfectly clear, as well as achievable and desirable. Hardly anyone knows the many crucial details of Agenda 21 and SD, or thinks about any possible drawbacks, such as the potential limitation of your right to free speech, use of your property, or perhaps even the right to own any property at all. Do you really want to make that trade?


The answer is a brief and clear NO!  


Like many other institutions which take their cues from false information or from political or monetary desires, they quickly succumb to “the facts of life.” What I mean by that is that the good intentions originally agreed upon are rapidly being eroded and “redefined”. In the end, exactly the opposite of what was generally thought and hoped for is going to happen. The “free lunch” is going to turn out to be not free at all, perhaps even inedible.


The UN and its myriad of committees and sub-organizations have mostly become a system of self-serving groups, living off the avails of misinformation and deceit. The false claims of the Pacific island nations disappearing in a rising sea, a climate-(change)-driven demise of penguins, or the supposedly drowning polar bears in the Arctic are all myths propagated by the UN and its many offshoots in order to elicit our willingness to submit to the goals of Agenda 21.
I don’t think the crows would go for it; they are too smart to be taken in so easily.


A Murder, YES!  Deceit, NO!

Museum Of Modern Art Elitist Want You To Live In Stack & Pack Ghettos

Is New Mormon Bishop A Former CIA Torturer?

As a newly appointed ecclesiastical leader in Spokane, Washington, Bruce Jessen would have the opportunity to baptize new converts. He would also be expected to interview them regularly to evaluate their understanding of the church’s teachings and their fidelity to its precepts. Given Jessen’s background, the possibility exists that he might use the baptismal font as a theater for "enhanced interrogation" of those who give him unsatisfactory answers. 

Before becoming a Mormon Bishop – a position from which he may already have resigned – Bruce Jessen was a torturer in the employ of the CIA. Beginning in December 2001, he helped reverse-engineer the U.S. military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training in order to develop torture protocols used to "break" and "exploit" detainees. 

Beginning in 2002, Jessen – working with a fellow military psychologist named James Mitchell – trained interrogators in the use of those techniques. Jessen also supervised, and performed, the torture ritual called "waterboarding," a form of controlled suffocation through simulated drowning that was treated as a capital war crime when used by Japanese interrogators against U.S. and allied POWs during World War II. 

The approach devised and taught by Jessen was "based on coercive methods used by the Chinese Communist dictatorship to elicit false confessions from U.S. POWs during the Korean War," explains a 2009 report by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The objective was not to obtain sound intelligence, but rather to destroy the detainee’s will. 

This is very useful to interrogators ordered to provide "intelligence" that will ratify the desires of the ruling elite. One splendid example of this was the torture-wrought "confession" offered by Ib al-Shaykh al-Libi, who claimed to have information linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. Al-Libi (who later died of "suicide" in a Libyan jail during that brief period when Khadafy was an "ally") actually knew nothing of the sort, but was understandably eager to give his interrogators what they sought in exchange for an end to the torture.

Ethiopian-born British citizen Binyam Mohamed, who was abducted by U.S. officials and imprisoned at a CIA "black site" in Morocco, was also ministered to by interrogators instructed in Jessen’s doctrine, led by a sadist called "Marwan." After being freed following several years in the bowels of the American-run torture archipelago, Mohamed described how Jessen’s disciples broke him:

"`Strip him,’ shouted Marwan. They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor’s scalpel. I was naked. I tried to put on a brave face. But maybe I was going to be raped. Maybe they’d electrocute me, maybe castrate me. They took the scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut, maybe an inch. At first I just screamed…. I was just shocked…. Then they cut my left chest. This time I didn’t want to scream because I knew it was coming."

Marwan, angered by the resolution displayed by the captive, ordered the fiend with the scalpel to "go ahead with the plan."

"One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts," Mohamed recounts. "He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming."

This procedure was carried out dozens of times. One of Mohamed’s captors taunted him, suggesting that he should be emasculated since "I would only breed terrorists."

The "scalpel treatment" was inflicted on Mohamed on a monthly basis, reports Stephen Grey in his book Ghost Plane. "It was carefully controlled, so the wounds would not be too deep and would not leave permanent marks. In the end, [Mohamed] told his guards: `I will sign anything, confess to anything.’"

To use Jessen’s terminology, Binyam Mohamed had been successfully "exploited." For months his interrogators had demanded information about an American citizen named Jose Padilla, someone whom Mohamed had never met and whose name he had never heard. After months of being hung by his wrists, beaten with a leather strap, and having his skin flayed by experts, Mohamed finally provided the CIA’s surrogates with the "evidence" the Bush administration demanded. 

Padilla, a former gang-banger with no operational connections to al-Qaeda, was labeled an "unlawful enemy combatant" – the first U.S. citizen thus designated – and confined to a military brig without legal recourse for roughly four years. During that time, Padilla received the full Jessen Treatment – sensory deprivation, sleep disruption, stress positions, death threats, prolonged isolation in a medieval-quality cell.

 As noted in a lawsuit filed on Padilla’s behalf, the purpose of this regimen was "to destroy Mr. Padilla's ordinary emotional and cognitive functioning in order to extract from him potentially self-incriminating information."

Despite the Bush administration’s insistence – buttressed by the "testimony" extorted from Mohamed – that Padilla was involved in a "dirty bomb" plot, he was never charged with that offense. In a Soviet-grade federal trial, Padilla was eventually convicted of conspiring to "support" terrorism abroad. The key evidence in that trial consisted of transcripts of innocuous conversations in which government "experts" claimed to find "coded language" regarding terrorist activities. 

After Mohamed had signed a document implicating Padilla, he was sent to Guantanamo. During his flight on a CIA-chartered rendition plane, he was attended by an operative he described as "a white female with glasses." When she removed Mohamed’s shirt, the CIA officer was horrified to see that most of his upper body was covered with scars carved out by the agency’s scalpel-wielding subcontractors.

"When she saw the injuries I had, she gasped," Mohamed later recalled. "She said, my God, look at that. Then all her mates looked at what she was pointing at, and I could see the shock and horror on their faces."

The chief opposition to the torture program devised by Jessen and Mitchell came from their former colleagues in the military – including some who had been involved with them in teaching SERE courses in the 1980s. They were understandably concerned that the practice of torture would inspire retaliation against captured U.S. servicemen and incite future acts of terrorism against the U.S. With institutional support for their program collapsing, and public revulsion on the rise, Jessen and Mitchell requested from the CIA – and received – an "indemnity promise" guaranteeing them at least $5 million to pay any legal fees arising from criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit.

They needn’t have worried. None of the U.S. officials responsible for institutionalizing torture has ever been prosecuted or punished in any way. That treatment is reserved for critics of the torture program. This includes former CIA counter-terrorism operative John Kiriakou, who recently entered a guilty plea on a single charge of revealing the identity of an intelligence operative. 

His supposed offense – for which he was originally charged under the 1917 Espionage Act, which provides for the death penalty – was to speak critically of the torture program and identify one of the officials involved in it.

Kiriakou, who is one of six officials being prosecuted by the Obama administration for "leaking" information about the government’s crimes, accepted a plea bargain because he has five children. That fact, to use Jessen’s terminology, made him "exploitable." Accordingly, while the architect of the torture program was given an opportunity to hold forth from a pulpit, a whistleblower will spend at least two and a half years in prison.

What Americans Need To Know About Death Squads

Foundation

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, survivor of the Russian Gulag, had many profound insights from his experience that will help us understand the foundation death squads and torture squads are built upon:

“To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good, or else that it’s a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek justification for his actions.

Macbeth’s self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.

Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and other’s eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.

That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.”

Mass Grave Forensics

Including information about mass graves left behind by previous death squads in other nations is important because the significance of the reported stockpiling of plastic coffins and body bags has been missed. The plastic coffins and body bags are most likely for the worst case scenario number of their casualties projected from the effort to kill a couple of hundred million Americans and a few additional billions around the world deemed ”useless eaters” or some other label connoting collective inferiority.

 Since the main purpose of using death squads is to make the executed all vanish, the inferior dead will be interred in unmarked mass graves, probably with industrial solvents to expedite the breakdown of human flesh and bones. Enterprising investigative reporters should search government purchases for unusually large orders of human flesh dissolving chemicals to pair with the massive purchases of ammunition.

If you are confused about who has been targeted, that means you, the one who has not been given the location map and pass code to find and enter the giant underground safety bunker while all the killing is going on.

The self-appointed elites behind the death squads will not want future generations getting curious about why there are entire cemeteries filled with tombstones indicating millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide all died in the same year.

 If your name is on a .40 caliber problem solving recipient list, it is doubtful you will be using a body bag or plastic coffin.  Mass grave forensic statistics do not include the average number of bullets used per execution victim. This lack of useful information may explain why the death squad elements in the United States Government continue to order more ammunition. They are not certain how many rounds per person it will take to execute everyone they intend to make disappear.  One additional noteworthy pattern is that people in mass graves who were not restrained in some manner were shot in the hips or feet to keep them from running.

Identify Torture and Death Squads by Their Recruitment and Training

1. Screening of death and torture squad members is based upon physical strength and animosity toward specific political, religious or other beliefs, ethnic groups or other social distinctions (depending upon the population targeted for torture or mass execution).
2. They are offered the distinction of being drafted or recruited into “elite” units that require them to torture or execute prisoners or “detainees.”
3. They must demonstrate the ability to never discuss what the torture or execution squad does.
4. Loyalty is also tested by requiring them to snitch on other torture or death squad members who do not follow rules or orders.
5. They must demonstrate aggression toward targeted groups, individuals, and detainees.
6. They follow orders without question.
7. Training involves treatment that binds squad members to command authority:
(a) Trainees are physically and psychologically abused while being told how fortunate they are to be members of the unit (physical and psychological abuse of torture squad members will include the tortures they will be expected to apply to torture victims);
(b) They are kept in a constant state of fatigue and prevented from relieving themselves for long periods of time to keep them from thinking clearly;
(c) Trainees are required to swear allegiance to some physical symbol of unit or government authority;
(d) Trainees are told they will have protected special powers or authority over their fellow citizens;
(e) They are told their actions will never be questioned; (Anyone familiar with the trials of death and torture squad members in Argentina, Greece, and other places should know that is a falsehood. It may take years, but their crimes are documented and they are held accountable. In the case of the Greek military junta that held power from April 21, 1967 to July 23, 1974, the first torture related trials began in August 1975.)
(f) Trainees are told that if they show mercy to anyone ordered tortured or executed, they will take that person’s place;
(g) A special in-house language is used with code words and euphemisms for various types of torture, nicknames for victims to dehumanize them, nicknames for unit members to conceal identities, and classifying nonmembers as “outside world”;
(h) Frequent “training classes” are held depicting the target population as dangerous, criminal, conspirators, traitors, terrorists or other undesirable labels;
(I) Torturers are desensitized to pain and learn the torture techniques from the physical and psychological abuse incorporated into their training; and
(j) Successful torturers are given specific rewards for each confession or each desired piece of information obtained.

Adding It All Up

If you are wondering what kind of mind and reasoning produces death squads and torture squads, there are revealing quotes from administrations which actually created them.
Former Argentine Dictator Jorge Rafael Videla is quoted in a Daily Mail article by Leon Watson as providing the rationale for “disappearing” perceived enemies of the status quo:
‘In every war people are crippled, killed and disappeared, their whereabouts unknown, that is a fact,’ Videla said in an interview broadcast on local television.

‘Let’s say there were 7,000 or 8,000 people who needed to die to win the war against subversion,’ newspaper La Nacion quoted Videla as saying in a new book ‘Final Mandate,’ by journalist Ceferino Reato, based on a series of interviews with Videla.
‘There was no other solution,’ La Nacion reported Videla as saying. ‘We were agreed that was the price to win the war against subversion and that we needed it not to be evident so that society didn’t notice.’

‘For that reason, to avoid provoking protests inside and outside the country, it was decided that those people disappear. Each disappearance can certainly be understood as the cover-up of a death.’

To get some idea of the demeanor of former Dictator Videla discussing the actions of his administration, you may view a Spanish language video of the public confession.
For additional insight revelations, compare and contrast Videla with the statements, demeanor and conduct of Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Leon Panetta, Eric H. Holder, Jr, Janet Napolitano and President Barack Obama.

We also have an excellent example of these bizarre and evil mental processes from the Bush Administration, which established both torture and death squads, purportedly to operate abroad.

In the 2004 New York Times article “Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,” Ron Suskind reported the following experience during “a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush” [subsequently purported to be Karl Rove]:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued.

 ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

These “history’s actors,” and their fellow custom fabricated reality pimps and bimbos, are the individuals responsible for getting us to where we are today. A place historian Michael Wood compares to events and individuals responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire.
Despite expectations and pretensions to the contrary, you should note that the history of death squads indicates it is not strong governments that produce them, but weak, ineffective governments which cannot solve contemporary problems.

There are actually three types of death squads. In addition to the death squads acting under color of government authority described so far, there are two other types of death squads. There are vigilante death squads formed by “off duty” law enforcement or military, members of a political party or faction, members of a religion or religious faction, and ethnic or other self-identified groups with an ideology that justifies mass killing.

The last category of death squads is crime related. Drug cartels and street gangs both have death squads operating in the United States now. There are few, if any, actual random drive by shootings. These executions are gang death squad actions produced by their ideology. Consistent with the death squad training protocols, gang member trainees must “make their bones” (gang death squad jargon), demonstrate lack of mercy toward victims and demonstrate hostility toward the “outside world” by executing a stranger.

 A glimpse of the relevant street gang ideology can be seen in the statements made in a September 27, 2012 Chicago CBS affiliate Walter Jacobson interview of local gang members:
“There’s no solution to the violence,” one gang member tells him. “Killing, killing is the solution.”…

“Rob, steal and kill. That’s the only way. We didn’t grow up in Beverly Hills. We don’t get it handed to us,” he said.

“We ain’t living in Hyde Park,” added a third young man….
“The police hate us,” a young man said. “Every time they ride past us, they shoot us down and do all that. Do what you want to do, I don’t care about you all, keep riding. Who are you all? We’re not scare of you all. I’ll fight you too. Take that badge off.”

But he says the police cannot catch them or exact any consequences.
“I laugh at the police,” he said. “They’re a joke to me.”

There is another glaring example of death squad activity that has gone unrecognized. Regardless of whether you believe the Zionist Israelis, Illuminati, Al Qaeda, or International Bankers are responsible for 9/11, the act itself was carried out by a trained death squad. The ideologies attributed to each of these groups contain elements, such as the benefits of using false flag operations, which would justify to each of them the mass killings that occurred on 9/11.

Only One Way Out

Mass grave forensics and death squad murder prosecution evidence in other nations communicate a clear warning. If you allow yourself to be taken into custody by a death squad or torture squad, you will no longer have any control over how long you live, how you die, where you die, or how much pain and humiliation you will experience before you die.

 If taken, you can be absolutely certain you and all those you love taken with you will die by death squad or torture squad member hands.

Researching death squad information for this commentary, I found one thing missing from every nation on the planet, including nations who have lived through the terror and dealt with the aftermath of death squads formed by arrogant members of their own governments.

 No one anywhere has enacted laws to prevent the formation and operation of death squads or torture squads. No model legislation exists anywhere I looked.

The ugly reality here in the United States, right now, is that we face all three types of death squads as threats to our lives and liberty. As with other nations afflicted before us, elitist, arrogant individuals with access to United States Government authority are training and equipping death squads to eliminate those of us who do not meet their criteria for safe citizens. Foreign, criminal and vigilante death squads are already killing United States citizens or have killed citizens.

On an individual basis you have no chance of surviving or remaining unaffected in an environment with all three types of death squads operating, any of which may place your name or the name of a loved one on their final solution list.

You cannot rely on the United States Government to protect you because individuals in positions of authority are training their own death squads and allow the death squads of nations they consider friendly to kill us, Israel and Chile being prime examples.

The minimum level of organized resources that will give you and your family some chance of staying out of death squad or torture squad hands is the State level. For that to happen, someone in your State Government must be given responsibility for protecting citizens from death squads. No problem gets solved until someone is made responsible for finding a solution.

 Knowing from my research that no law exists to accomplish this, I found that I could not just write and publish this warning. I was compelled to develop model legislation to establish a State Police Death Squad Monitoring Task Force with appropriate delineated responsibility and authority.

As best I can determine, this is the only practical way out of the current multiple death squad threat mess for all of us. The draft text of this Death Squad Prohibition Model Legislation is at the end of this article after the Bibliography. I hope it will begin to fill the void for a solution to the recurring death squad problem. With the enactment of effective antideath squad laws, death squads and torture squads will hopefully become the weak link in the criminal, elite and arrogant having their way with the rest of us.

For those not privy, a key lobbyist secret is knowledge that few, if any, legislators have the time and skills to draft effective legislation. The best way to get what you want out of any legislative body is to hand your legislator a draft bill that does exactly what you want. All the legislator then has to do is send or hand deliver the draft bill to the Legislature staff specialist who registers and turns the draft into the proper format to introduce as an actual Bill.

 Five thousand people calling their legislator demanding something be done about death squads will not be as effective as you printing off a copy of this Model Legislation and handing it to your State Representative and Senator. If you then add in five thousand people calling for something to be done, your chances for success will improve.

Remember that the Bill must be processed as emergency legislation to take effect immediately. A regular Bill enacted into law will not take effect for up to a year later. We do not have that much time before we will need effective protection.

You may also consider printing and sending this entire article and Model Legislation to your State Representative and Senator as your request. If the Legislator or his staff has time to read the article, it will provide some powerful context for the need to have a law.

If you live in a State which fails to enact antideath squad legislation to protect you or enacts weak, ineffective legislation, you should seriously examine moving to a State that has enacted strong, effective legislation that does provide protection to its citizens.

If anyone has specific suggestions for improving the power of this Model Legislation to prevent or hasten the shutting down of operating death squads or torture squads, please send them to thesociologist@roadrunner.com. I will put a PDF file copy of this model legislation, and update with any effective improvements, on the Special Research Projects page of my website www.thesociologycenter.com.
Model death squad prohibition legislation

India May Ban GMO For 10 Years

It has been a devastating month for Monsanto as nations around the globe continue to enact bans and restraints on the company’s genetically modified crop varieties. India, the same country that hit Monsanto with ‘biopiracy’ charges for patenting life on the planet, is the latest nation to take a stand.

The nation’s new expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India is now calling upon the Indian government to enact a ban on all GMO crop field trials for the next 10 years.

The new law would forbid any biotech agencies from testing their latest GMO crops on India’s soil, therefore preventing the serious issue of contamination and environmental damage -- contamination that is much more than an unlikely but problematic scenario. Monsanto has been caught in the past contaminating even organic seed varieties, and has gone as far as to plant their experimental crops before the USDA allowed them to. Thankfully, the organic farmers were able to catch the contamination before it spread.

If the contamination was not caught, however, it could have gone anywhere and compromised the very genetic integrity of non-GMO farming grounds. It is for this reason that many companies outside of the United States generally dislike purchasing from U.S. farmers, as they sometimes contain even trace levels of GMO contaminants. More and more we receive reports of farmers being completely cut off from other nations after being found to contain trace levels of GMO contamination.



India is looking to stop this before it becomes much of an issue. At least the expert panel is. The Technical Expert Committee  said that the trials should be stopped immediately until an independent committee made up of experts and stakeholders took a closer look at the serious risks associated with the use of herbicide resistant crops. More specifically, the committee was concerned about their real sustainability. After all, Monsanto’s GMOs are consistently becoming more resistant to chemical herbicides, pesticides, and insecticides.

It has even led a panel of expert scientists to call upon the EPA to take action, fearing that resistant bugs known as rootworms will soon ruin the GMO corn industry as a whole.

Whether or not India will adhere to the recommendations of this committee is not yet known, but other nations certainly have listened to their own panels and experts over the past few weeks. India may soon join the ranks of Russia, Poland, France, Hungary, and Peru in taking a direct stand against Monsanto and GMOs as a wh

Is Drone Slaughter Murder?

October 12, 2012 "Information Clearing House" - - The Wall Street Journal recently reported on debates within the Obama administration about the legality of the drone war in Pakistan. State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, the former dean of Yale Law School and even more former darling of the left for his criticisms of the Bush administration’s aggressive theories of executive power, plays a prominent role in them. Koh apparently concluded that the drone war “veers near the edge” of illegality but does not quite tumble over it. That is a questionable judgment. The U.N. Charter permits countries to use military force abroad only with the approval of the U.N. Security Council, in self-defense, or with the permission of the country in which military force is to be used. The U.N. Security Council never authorized the drone war in Pakistan. Self-defense, traditionally defined to mean the use of force against an “imminent” armed attack by a nation-state, does not apply either, because no one thinks that Pakistan plans to invade the United States. That leaves consent as the only possible legal theory. But Pakistan has never consented to the drone war. Publicly and officially the country has opposed it. Before the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the CIA sent a fax every month to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency that would identify the airspace in which drones would be sent. The ISI would send back an acknowledgment that it had received the fax, and the U.S. government inferred consent on the basis of the acknowledgments. But after the raid, the ISI stopped sending back the acknowledgments. Now what to do? The administration argues that consent can still be inferred despite the unanswered faxes. The reason is that “the Pakistani military continues to clear airspace for drones and doesn’t interfere physically with the unpiloted aircraft in flight”—meaning that Pakistan does not shoot down the drones or permit private aircraft to collide with them. We might call this “coerced consent.” Consider it this way: You walk into a jewelry store and the proprietor announces that he will deem you to have consented to the purchase of a diamond tiara for $10,000, despite all your protests to the contrary, unless you use physical force to stop him as he removes your wallet from your pocket. Imagine further that he’s 7 feet tall and weighs 400 pounds. This is what a Pakistani official meant when he told the Wall Street Journal that shooting down a drone would be “needlessly provocative.” He meant that such an action would risk provoking retaliation from the United States, a risk that Pakistan cannot afford to take. Because Pakistan lies prostrate and endures the pummeling rather than makes a futile effort to stop it, it is deemed to consent to the bombing of its own territory. But don’t blame government lawyers like Koh for devising this theory. International law lacks the resources for constraining the U.S. government. Koh knows this now if he did not before. Since he built his academic career on the claim that international law can and should be used to control nation-states and harshly criticized the Bush administration for violating international law, this must have been a bitter pill to swallow. (Though he has swallowed so many bitter pills that perhaps he has lost his sense of taste: The man who told the Senate at the end of the Bush administration that the United States must “unambiguously reassert our historic commitments to human rights and the rule of law as a major source of our moral authority” has backed away from his earlier opposition to expansive war powers, targeted killing, military commissions, and military detention.) The weakness of international law governing the use of military force goes back to the signing of the U.N. Charter in 1945. The founders understood that a simple rule prohibiting the use of military force except in self-defense, or with the consent of another state, would not be adequate for regulating war. But they could not draft a code complex enough to anticipate all the contingencies that might justify war. Instead they set up the Security Council and reasoned that this body could determine when war might be justified for purposes other than self-defense. But the Security Council was frozen first by the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and then the cold peace rivalries between the United States, Russia, and China. It has authorized only two wars since its inception (the Korean War and the first Iraq War; it also retroactively approved the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001). Needless to say, there have been dozens of wars since 1945. Participants have included countries as diverse as China, the Soviet Union, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Israel, and Argentina. Even the supposedly pacific European countries participated via NATO in several of these wars. The United States has on several occasions justified wars (for example, in Kosovo in 1999, Libya in 2011) as humanitarian interventions—a principle that can be found nowhere in the U.N. Charter but enjoys some international support. In other cases, including current drone operations in Pakistan, the United States has invoked a new idea of the “unable or unwilling” country, one that outside powers can invade because that country cannot prevent terrorists located on its territory from launching attacks across its borders. But most U.S. wars can be fit into these two categories only with difficulty. Those wars are undertaken to shut down a destabilizing or dangerous regime, one that typically has used violence to keep itself in power. One can put the second Iraq War in this category, as well as the Panama intervention in 1990, the interventions in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the intervention in Granada in 1983. During the Cold War, the United States also often evaded the U.N. prohibition on interstate war by funding and training a domestic insurgency. The U.N. Charter does not permit states to use military force to unilaterally address long-term threats in this way. It is too easy for states to characterize other states as long-term threats regardless of whether they are. And yet this omission rendered the charter unworkable, because all states must take long-term threats seriously, whether or not the members of the Security Council can be persuaded or bribed to agree with them. Government lawyers like Koh must scramble to revise their interpretation of international law so as to keep up with the new events that justify, in the eyes of the president, a military intervention. The “coerced consent” doctrine, the “unable and unwilling” doctrine, and the exception for humanitarian intervention all whittle away at whatever part of the law on United Nations use of force blocks U.S. goals. If the United States ever decides to invade Iran in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, expect a new doctrine to take shape, perhaps one that emphasizes the unique dangers of nuclear weapons and Iran’s declared hostility toward a nearby country. It is curious that there is not a global outcry about the illegality of the wars in Pakistan or Libya, as there was about the illegality of the recent war in Iraq, which the Bush administration dubiously justified on the basis of Iraq’s violations of earlier U.N. resolutions that had suspended hostilities after the first Iraq War. Maybe the world doesn’t care as much about Pakistan, which has no oil. Or maybe people have finally realized that the United States, which has been almost continuously at war since the collapse of the Soviet Union, will not be swayed by legal arguments. A powerful army is too useful not to use, whether you are a Republican president or a Democratic one.

Julian Speaks At Ecuadorian Embassy

The Impending Economic Collapse with Survivalist James Wesley Rawles

This heavily credentialed individual, with military intelligence background has some very interesting insights into what America may be facing in the near future.  Great video.

Agenda 21 Propaganda

As a sometimes frequent traveler, I’ve repeatedly been bombarded by mindless propaganda at hotels across the United States lecturing about the use of towels in relation to saving the environment.

 Apart from a few hotels in actual desert regions devoid of water, this is mostly just a public relations stunt to promote a green agenda, with little if any tangible results and plenty of implied guilt to do one’s part.

This is the first time, however, that I’ve seen one overtly linked with the United Nations’ Agenda 21 program, which countless critics have exposed as a plan to stifle development and saddle nations with debt paid directly to the bankers in the name of saving planet earth. (Nevermind the real corporate polluters actually wrecking the globe.) Author Rosa Koire rightly calls it a “green mask” to conceal a far more insidious agenda for total control under United Nations auspices.

As these images from a hotel in Germany show, the flyer which promises to save 1 tree for every 5 towels not used includes a “Planet 21″ logo branding the chain’s participation in “sustainable development,” the unmistakable buzzword for Agenda 21.

The back of the flyer confirms that this is indeed part of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 environmental program (for eco-tyranny).




Germany was the first nation to have a “Green Party” to gain national prominence, dating back to 1980. Now, environmental controls over daily life can be seen everywhere. Soon, they will be as prevalent across the rest of the Western world as these controls are in places like Germany and California.

For instance, my rental car, like all the others, must display a round, green decal known as an “umweltplakette” in the window proving that a carbon tax was paid in order to drive in restricted areas, a.k.a. “Green Zones” as they are termed by the government (see map). Environmentally sensitive roadways are marked by signs as one enters the downtown areas. Those without the sticker can be fined if stopped in unauthorized areas.

Likewise, the zoo here bragged about its participation in a renewable resources program:

Is Mandatory Pediatric Chemo Institutionalized Child Abuse?

Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post

Mandatory chemotherapy for your child. The concept is horrific. But it is not just a concept. It has already happened and is still happening, which is why I am writing this article. We need to sound the alarm about this disturbing trend that, despite recent mainstream media references to a case of court-coerced chemotherapy, is still largely going unnoticed and/or unrecognized for what it really is: a human rights violation of the worst kind.

Moreover, as it involves our children who can not rightly advocate for themselves, we need to speak up and act on their behalf.

 
Court-Ordered Pediatric Chemotherapy Calls Into Question Who Has Parental Authority

Were it not for J.D. Heyes' Aug. 13th article for NaturalNews.com titled "Court forces chemo on eight-year-old Minnesota girl despite family's desire to use alternative medicine," and the CBS Minnesota article from Aug. 8th reporting on the matter, I would probably not be aware of this ongoing parental and human rights atrocity.

As reported by CBS, a Twin Cities family's 8-year-old daughter, Sarah, who had recently had 90 percent of a brain tumor surgically removed and was suffering from typical side effects from follow-up chemotherapy, such as nausea, sore throat, loss of weight and hair, was ordered by her doctors to continue for one more year of chemotherapy. 

 

Her parents, who wished to search out less toxic treatment alternatives, were contacted by child protective services when the child's doctors determined her survival was being compromised each day she went without further chemotherapy treatment.

According to CBS, "The Minnetonka family was ordered to court and was told if they did not work with them on a treatment plan, they would lose custody of Sarah." Subsequently, "The court and Parisian family eventually reached an agreement on a treatment plan which includes some chemotherapy, but "it's going to include a dose that is not going to send her tipping over the edge," Connors said."

But What If Chemotherapy Is Not "Therapeutic" At All?

There is a disturbing subtext to this story that will likely never get addressed by any mainstream media outlet, which, incidentally, is why the alternative media is so important. As the saying goes, a text without a context is a pretext. The problem is that conventional treatment with chemotherapy and radiation, and not the cancer to which it is being applied, is often the primary cause of the accelerated death of the patient.*

I often look up commonly used chemoagents by their material data safety sheet (MSDS) to ascertain just how toxic they are, and what I invariably find is quite disturbing. These MSDSs are federally mandated to be provided to the public by the manufacturers of chemicals and drugs to which the public will be exposed, either by accident or intention, e.g. prescribed chemicals. 

They contain toxicological risk assessments based on acute lethality in an animal model that reveal how dangerous these chemicals actually are. We know from these studies that chemotherapy drugs are acutely lethal to humans in the sub-gram dosage range and are often classified as carcinogenic.

Tamoxifen, for instance, a first-line treatment for breast cancer for well over 40 years, is classified by the World Health Organization and American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen. Or, 5-fluorauracil, one of the world's best-selling oncology drugs is so toxic that, based on its MSDS LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of test animals) rating, when administered at a dosage equivalent to the weight of 3 pennies (approximately 7.5 grams), is deadly enough to kill 50% of the adult humans given it, within one dose.

Children As Canaries in the Chemical Coal Mine

Children are already uniquely susceptible to the genotoxicity of synthetic chemicals because of the relatively faster rate at which their cells replicate in the normal course of their fast-paced bodily development, as well as their less developed detoxification systems. Indeed, in a groundbreaking report released by the President's Cancer Panel in 2010, in which our government agencies were indicted for "failing to carry out their responsibilities," childhood cancers overall, especially childhood leukemia and brain cancer, were found to be increasing at an alarming rate relative to most types of cancers in adult populations.

Chemical and radiation exposures are likely the primary reason for this observed discrepancy. This is why the use of conventional chemotherapy agents in children is so disturbing, since the very mechanism of action of most of these agents is to target cells that replicate faster, irrespective of whether they are malignant or benign. The collateral damage, in other words, is usually devastating, and cancer recurrence virtually guaranteed in a large number of cases not in spite of, but because of the treatment given.

Keep in mind that tens of thousands of children diagnosed with cancer each year are being pressured into being "treated" with chemotherapy as their only alternative. It is one thing to be falsely marketed to, or having the science misrepresented, or being told by a doctor that if you do not choose to take this chemical you will die much sooner. It is another to be told that your very own flesh and blood – your children, for God's sake – can be taken from you, because you did not want to see them poisoned to death for a condition like cancer, which is often caused by lifetime cumulative exposures to chemicals/poisons.

If You Don't Know How Your Chemicals Work It's A Human Experiment

This is why we have the medical ethical principle of informed consent. This is why human experimentation after the Second World War, and the horrors of the Nazi death camps, was explicitly rejected in the adoption of a medical ethical code that required voluntary consent before being subject to experimental drugs.

Mind you, most oncologists and the manufacturers that peddle them have no idea what the chemotherapy agents they use are actually doing to their patient's bodies -- which is the very definition of experimental medicine, making informed consent impossible.

In fact, much of the research available on the true nature of cancer, especially research on cancer stem cells, indicates that chemotherapy and radiation are not only are a miserable failure, but actually make the cancer far more malignant. Pediatric cancer stem cells have recently been characterized as a key factor in chemoresistance and radioresistance, especially in brain cancers, the #1 form of childhood cancer.

Who Owns Your Body, Your Child's Body Really?

Furthermore, who has, or should have, the ultimate authority in making these decisions about your child's body? If it is not you – the parent – and it is the State, or a privatized medical establishment which is seamlessly intertwined with it, or multinational corporations who defraud the government and the medical institutions with checkbook science for their patented, highly toxic nostrums, then are we not saying that our bodies, or our children's bodies are not self-possessed? That they are property, merely chattel, as would be the technical definition of the bodies of slaves?

Mandatory chemotherapy, from a human rights perspective, is no different from mandatory vaccination. The same pathological thinking, and denial of bodily self-possession is at play. What we are talking about here is a medical establishment that has far more to do with control of the populace than service to it.

If any treatment becomes compulsory, and that treatment by its very nature violates every natural law within the human body, i.e. using poisonous chemicals to suppress symptoms of chemical poisoning, then we have entered a truly Orwellian phase where being sick is required of us, as well as to maintain our parental rights, or even to be a parent, lest the State tear our children away from us.

I reject this implied reality. I encourage you to do the same. Coercing or forcing conventional chemotherapy on a child is abuse – nothing less. Until the profound density of evidence supporting natural treatments for cancer become mainstream knowledge, the pseudo-scientific medical dictatorship will continue to poison people to death while at the same moment claiming to save their lives. If this sounds radical or revolutionary, I assure you it is really simply a matter of observing and telling the truth.

Ecuador Takes A Stand For Wikileaks Assange

The Ecuadorean government has been working to ensure WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is not extradited to the US and this week went so far as to call such a possibility 'evil'.

Signs placed by supporters of Assange outside the Ecuador Embassy, London.(AP/Lefteris Pitarakis) "In legal terms … the evil that Ecuador wishes to prevent is the extradition [of Assange] to the US. Now if there are ways and means of that being tied down, I think that would be a just solution," stated the senior legal adviser to the country's embassy in London, where Assange has been staying in a bid to gain political asylum in Ecuador.

Assange began his quest for asylum after Britain's Supreme Court ruled that Assange must be extradited to Sweden, where he faces accusations of sexual assault. Assange and his legal team fear that he would then be extradited to the US on what Assange maintains are politically motivated charges of espionage over his work with the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.

Diplomats for Ecuador said they have taken part in numerous diplomatic talks with the Swedish and UK governments, seeking to guarantee that Assange will not be extradited to the US after the completion of legal proceedings in Sweden.

Officials have estimated there have been more than 20 meetings – including video conferences – with the UK Foreign Office – and around 10 meetings between Ecuadorean and Swedish diplomats.

Under extradition law, a rule called "specialty" ensures that an individual can only be extradited to one country within a certain amount of time; however, the rule can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition – in this case the UK. If this is done, Assange could more easily be extradited to the US after his hearing in Sweden.

Ecuador is working to make sure this won't happen.

Ecuadorean government officials have now invited Swedish authorities to the embassy in London to facilitate questioning between Assange and the Swedish prosecutor surrounding the allegations in Sweden.

Assange is yet to be formally charged with a crime.

Officials in Ecuador said Assange should not expect a decision on his actual asylum request until after the Olympics.

London's Militarized Olympics

The London Olympics are fast taking on the appearance and tone of a full-scale land, sea and air military operation rather than an international sporting event.

With surface-to-air missiles stationed on top of residential apartment blocks, Royal Navy battleships on alert and Royal Air Force fighter jets and helicopters patrolling the skies over Britain’s capital there is a foreboding sense of a nation at war instead of an occasion of internationalist fraternity that the ancient Games are supposed to embody.

The Games begin in just under two weeks. The latest development is the announcement by Britain’s Ministry of Defence that 3,500 extra troops are to be deployed to ensure security at the 30 venues hosting sporting events. This is in addition to the 13,500 military personnel already assigned to protect members of the public and sports teams from the risk of terrorist attack.

British General Sir Nick Parker, overseeing the security arrangements, has said that one of the contingencies being planned for is dealing with a “9/11 type event”.

The total troop deployment in and around London represents 7,000 more personnel than is currently on British operations in Afghanistan.

This figure is in addition to the 10,000 extra police officers and a division of 10,000 private security guards. It was the disclosure that G45, the private security firm with the Olympics contract, could not fulfill its manpower requirements to cover the Games that prompted the latest enlisting of additional soldiers.

The militarization of the Olympics was conveyed inadvertently by a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence when he said: “Many of the people whom the public will meet at the point of entry to any Olympic event will now be a serving member of the armed forces.”

Boris Johnson, the maverick Mayor of London, said in a statement: “The mayor takes the issue of Olympics security extremely seriously, and having the finest and bravest service men and woman in the world at our disposal during the Games should be a source of great comfort.”

The Royal Navy’s largest battleship, HMS Ocean, will be moored on the Thames at Greenwich, providing a logistical command centre during the event. It will also provide a base for Lynx helicopters manned with snipers to make round-the-clock sorties over the capital.

NOTE: Read the rest of the article by clicking on the Title, it includes some incredibly chilling photos.

Gates Depopulation Foundation

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are focusing on population control through their Global Health Development Programs. By using citizens in under-developed nations, like Africa and India, was Guinea pigs for their research and development for “new interventions such as vaccines, drugs and diagnostics”, these globalists hope to ensure their family planning schemes are effective.

Melinda Gates has made family planning and the population control agenda her personal mission . She justifies her cause by claiming that 100,000 women die in child birth from unintended pregnancies. Although this statistic has no scientific basis, since it sounds good and mainstream media do not check facts, it has helped the BMGF team up with the British government to raise more than $4 billion to fun depopulation programs under the guise of bringing contraceptives to under-developed nations.

The BMGF assert that by 2050 “the global population is expected to grow to over 9 billion people” and this is unacceptable to them. By applying pressure to social programs and resources, the BMGF want to use family planning as an investment for all national governments globally.

Strategies to accomplish their goals include:

Using financial influence to force governments and policymakers to implement their family planning schemes
Empower NGOs who promote family planning propaganda
Coerce the integration of family planning into all “humanitarian” efforts by using funds from the UN Global Fund
Pour money into efforts that further family planning through national policy controls that adhere to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals

BMGF has partnered with drug corporations like Shanghai Dahua Pharmaceuticals in China to develop implantable fertility controls that will be used in over 20 developing countries to curb population growth.

The injectable Depo-Provera is being sold to under-developed nations and being administered by healthcare workers and nonmedical providers, or by the women themselves. Policy and training systems are underway to ensure these drugs are utilized in areas like the sub-Saharan Africa. By using these areas as testing grounds for new fertility drugs, as well as forcible sterilization schemes, the BMGF are focusing on preventative situations over dealing with abortable pregnancies which become complicated.

On July 11th, the BMGF will attend the UK’s Department for International Development Family Planning Summit (FPS). Ministers of State and leaders from over 60 countries will join with major non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector to make firm commitments to addressing the global short-fall in family planning provision to be agreed upon so that population growth issues can be dealt with by the global Elite.

Prior to this summit, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the modern version of the eugenic program founded by Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates’ father in the 1950s, will focus their efforts on coercing young people into supporting their family planning scheme by debating teenage pregnancy, unwanted births and maternal morality as defined by the eugenics ideal.

According to the FPS agenda “young people have to be at the heart of driving forward the ambitious developments in family planning provision which the Summit sets out to stimulate.”

Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of the UN Population Fund, described the proposals at the FPS as the agenda to “transform” family planning into a global movement. Population control, with the assistance of the BMGF and their funders will build an army of coercive tactics that aim to reinvent the movement to ensure its success.

Osotimehin claims that family planning “enables women to take charge of their lives and for young people to plan their lives. It empowers a woman to do what they want to do in terms of the number of children they want to have and can afford.”

While an estimated 40% of pregnancies in the developing world are classified by BMGF as “unwanted” they are focusing on eventually eliminating this number to reduce the world’s population. Africa, a big focus for the BMGF is being targeted along with Muslim nations.

The BMGF are admonishing the global community to support their efforts with the backing of the UN. They want full commitments by which they can hold countries accountable if their guidelines are not fully carried out. While claiming to provide “voluntary” family planning, they assert that with fewer children to care for, the poverty rates in under-developed nations will lower.

However, they are simply advocating less people be available to use natural resources, which is a qualm of the global Elite.

Having hijacked a movement, the BMGF and the UN are successfully beginning the process of controlling population growth in under-developed nations. As their popularity grows and their agendas are met, those same measures will make their way to developing nations like the US. Right now, women in the US have control over their ability to procreate. And while organizations like Planned Parenthood are working to trick women in believing that the mark of a woman is to have the opportunity to abort an unborn child, the choice is still up to the individual woman.

If the BMGF have their way, that ability to choose will soon be revoked.

Are The Psychopaths, Sociopaths, Morons & Puppets In Washington Leading The World To Destruction

When President Reagan nominated me as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, he told me that we had to restore the US economy, to rescue it from stagflation, in order to bring the full weight of a powerful economy to bear on the Soviet leadership, in order to convince them to negotiate the end of the cold war. Reagan said that there was no reason to live any longer under the threat of nuclear war.

The Reagan administration achieved both goals, only to see these accomplishments discarded by successor administrations. It was Reagan’s own vice president and successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, who first violated the Reagan-Gorbachev understandings by incorporating former constituent parts of the Soviet Empire into NATO and taking Western military bases to the Russian frontier.

The process of surrounding Russia with military bases continued unabated through successor US administrations with various “color revolutions” financed by the US National Endowment for Democracy, regarded by many as a front for the CIA. Washington even attempted to install a Washington-controlled government in Ukraine and did succeed in this effort in former Soviet Georgia, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin.

The President of Georgia, a country located between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, is a Washington puppet. Recently, he announced that former Soviet Georgia is on schedule to become a NATO member in 2014.

Those old enough to remember know that NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was an alliance between Western Europe and the US against the threat of the Red Army overrunning Western Europe. The North Atlantic is a long, long ways from the Black and Caspian Seas. What is the purpose of Georgia being a NATO member except to give Washington a military base on the Russian underbelly?

The evidence is simply overwhelming that Washington–both parties–have Russia and China targeted. Whether the purpose is to destroy both countries or merely to render them unable to oppose Washington’s world hegemony is unclear at this time. Regardless of the purpose, nuclear war is the likely outcome.

The presstitute American press pretends that an evil Syrian government is murdering innocent citizens who only want democracy and that if the UN won’t intervene militarily, the US must in order to save human rights. Russia and China are vilified by US functionaries for opposing any pretext for a NATO invasion of Syria.

The facts, of course, are different from those presented by the presstitute American media and members of the US government. The Syrian “rebels” are well armed with military weapons. The “rebels” are battling the Syrian army. The rebels massacre civilians and report to their media whores in the West that the deed was done by the Syrian government, and the Western presstitutes spread the propaganda.

Someone is arming the “rebels” as obviously the weapons can’t be purchased in local Syrian markets. Most intelligent people believe the weapons are coming from the US or from US surrogates.

So, Washington has started a civil war in Syria, as it did in Libya, but this time the gullible Russians and Chinese have caught on and have refused to permit a UN resolution like the one the West exploited against Gaddafi.

To get around this roadblock, fish out an ancient Phantom fighter jet from the 1960s Vietnam war era and have Turkey fly it into Syria. The Syrians will shoot it down, and then Turkey can appeal to its NATO allies to come to its aid against Syria. Denied the UN option, Washington can invoke its obligation under the NATO treaty, and go to war in defense of a NATO member against a demonized Syria.

The neoconservative lie behind Washington’s wars of hegemony is that the US is bringing democracy to the invaded and bombed countries. To paraphrase Mao, “democracy comes out of the barrel of a gun.” However, the Arab Spring has come up short on democracy, as have Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries “liberated” by US democratic invasions.

What the US is bringing is civil wars and the breakup of countries, as President Bill Clinton’s regime achieved in former Yugoslavia. The more countries can be torn into pieces and dissolved into rival factions, the more powerful is Washington.

Russia’s Putin understands that Russia itself is threatened not only by Washington’s funding of the “Russian opposition,” but also by the strife among Muslims unleashed by Washington’s wars against secular Muslim states, such as Iraq and Syria. This discord spreads into Russia itself and presents Russia with problems such as Chechen terrorism.

When a secular state is overthrown, the Islamist factions become free to be at one another’s throats. The internal strife renders the countries impotent. As I wrote previously, the West always prevails in the Middle East because the Islamist factions hate one another more than they hate their Western conquerers. Thus, when Washington destroys secular, non-Islamist governments as in Iraq and now targeted in Syria, the Islamists emerge and battle one another for supremacy. This suits Washington and Israel as these states cease to be coherent opponents.

Russia is vulnerable, because Putin is demonized by Washington and the US media and because Putin’s Russian opposition is financed by Washington and serves US, not Russian, interests. The turmoil that Washington is unleashing in Muslim states leaks back to Russia’s Muslim populations.

It has proved to be more difficult for Washington to interfere in China’s internal affairs, although discord has been sowed in some provinces. Several years from now, the Chinese economy is expected to exceed in size the US economy, with an Asian power displacing a Western one as the world’s most powerful economy.

Washington is deeply disturbed by this prospect. In the thrall and under the control of Wall Street and other special interest business groups, Washington is unable to rescue the US economy from its decline. The short-run gambling profits of Wall Street, the war profits of the military/security complex, and the profits from offshoring the production of goods and services for US markets have far more representation in Washington than the wellbeing of US citizens. As the US economy sinks, the Chinese economy rises.

Washington’s response is to militarize the Pacific. The US Secretary of State has declared the South China Sea to be an area of American national interest. The US is wooing the Philippine government, playing the China threat card, and working on getting the US Navy invited back to its former base at Subic Bay. Recently there were joint US/Philippines military/naval exercises against the “China threat.”

The US Navy is reallocating fleets to the Pacific Ocean and constructing a new naval base on a South Korean island. US Marines are now based in Australia and are being reallocated from Japan to other Asian countries. The Chinese are not stupid. They understand that Washington is attempting to corral China.

For a country incapable of occupying Iraq after 8 years and incapable of occupying Afghanistan after 11 years, to simultaneously take on two nuclear powers is an act of insanity. The hubris in Washington, fed daily by the crazed neocons, despite extraordinary failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, has now targeted formidable powers–Russia and China. The world has never in its entire history witnessed such idiocy.

The psychopaths, sociopaths, and morons who prevail in Washington are leading the world to destruction.

The criminally insane government in Washington, regardless whether Democrat or Republican, regardless of the outcome of the next election, is the greatest threat to life on earth that has ever existed.

Moreover, the only financing the Washington criminals have is the printing press. In a subsequent column I will examine whether the US economy will complete its collapse before the war criminals in Washington can destroy the world.



Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.

How To Gum Up Any Institution`~ Follow The Rules EXACTLY

Four words: "Follow the rules exactly."

That's it? That's it.

Any system? Any system.

There are reasons for this. These reasons are universal.

First, every institution assumes voluntary compliance in at least 95% of all cases. This may be a low-ball estimate. Most people comply, either out of fear or lack of concern or strong belief in the system and its goals.

Second, every institution has more rules than it can follow, let alone enforce. Some of these rules are self-contradictory. The more rules, the larger the number of contradictions. (There is probably a statistical pattern here – some variant of Parkinson's law.)

Third, every institution is built on this assumption: partial compliance. Not everyone will comply with any given procedural rule. There are negative sanctions to enforce compliance on the few who resist. They serve as examples to force compliance. Conversely, very few people under the institution's jurisdiction will attempt to force the institution to comply exactly with any procedural rule.

These three laws of institutions – and they really are laws – offer any resistance movement an opportunity to shut down any system.

JAMMING THE GULAG

When we think of institutional tyrannies, few come close to matching the system of concentration camps in the Soviet Union: the Gulag. They operated from 1918 until after the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991. It took time to close them in 1992.

In his book, To Build a Castle, Vladimir Bukovsky provides one of the finest descriptions of institution-jamming ever recorded. He organized it.

What you are about to read is like nothing you have ever read. I have spent over 45 years studying bureaucracies in theory and practice. I have seen nothing to match it.

Bukovsky spent well over a decade in the Soviet gulag concentration camp system in the 1960s and 1970s. He was arrested and sentenced in spite of specific civil rights protections provided by the Soviet Constitution – a document which was never respected by the Soviet bureaucracy. But once in prison, he learned to make life miserable for the director of his camp.

He learned that written complaints had to be responded to officially within a month. This administrative rule governing the camps was for "Western consumption," but it was nevertheless a rule. Any camp administrator who failed to honor it risked the possibility of punishment, should a superior (or ambitious subordinate) decide to pressure him for any reason. In short, any failure to "do it by the book" could be used against him later on.

Bukovsky became an assembly-line producer of official protests. By the end of his career as a "zek," he had taught hundreds of other inmates to follow his lead. By following certain procedures that were specified by the complaint system, Bukovsky's protesting army began to disrupt the whole Soviet bureaucracy. His camp clogged the entire system with protests – hundreds of them per day.

He estimates that eventually the number of formal complaints exceeded 75,000. To achieve such a phenomenal output, the protestors had to adopt the division of labor. Bukovsky describes the process: "At the height of our war, each of us wrote from ten to thirty complaints a day. Composing thirty complaints in one day is not easy, so we usually divided up the subjects among ourselves and each man wrote on his own subject before handing it around for copying by all the others. If there are five men in a cell and each man takes six subjects, each of them has the chance to write thirty complaints while composing only six himself."

The complaints were addressed to prominent individuals and organizations: the deputies of the Supreme Soviet, the regional directors, astronauts, actors, generals, admirals, the secretaries of the Central Committee, shepherds, sportsmen, and so forth. "In the Soviet Union, all well-known individuals are state functionaries."

Each complaint had to be responded to. The camp administrators grew frantic. They threatened punishments, and often imposed them, but it did no good; the ocean of protests grew. Bukovsky's description is incomparable.

The next thing that happens is that the prison office, inundated with complaints, is unable to dispatch them within the three-day deadline. For overrunning the deadline they are bound to be reprimanded and to lose any bonuses they might have won. When our war was at its hottest the prison governor summoned every last employee to help out at the office with this work-librarians, bookkeepers, censors, political instructors, security officers. It went even further. All the students at the next-door Ministry of the Interior training college were pressed into helping out as well.

All answers to and dispatches of complaints have. to be registered in a special book, and strict attention has to be paid to observing the correct deadlines. Since complaints follow a complex route and have to be registered every step of the way, they spawn dossiers and records of their own. In the end they all land in one of two places: the local prosecutor's office or the local department of the Interior Ministry.

These offices can't keep up with the flood either and also break their deadlines, for which they too are reprimanded and lose their bonuses. The bureaucratic machine is thus obliged to work at full stretch, and you transfer the paper avalanche from one office to another, sowing panic in the ranks of the enemy. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats, always at loggerheads with one another, and often enough your complaints become weapons in internecine wars between bureaucrat and bureaucrat, department and department. This goes on for months and months, until, at last, the most powerful factor of all in Soviet life enters the fray – statistics.

As the 75,000 complaints became part of the statistical record, the statistical record of the prison camp and the regional camps was spoiled. All bureaucrats suffered. There went the prizes, pennants, and other benefits. "The workers start seething with discontent, there is panic in the regional Party headquarters, and a senior commission of inquiry is dispatched to the prison."

The commission then discovered a mass of shortcomings with the work of the prison's administration, although the commission would seldom aid specific prisoners. The prisoners knew this in advance. But the flood of protests continued for two years.

The entire bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union found itself drawn into this war. There was virtually no government department or institution, no region or republic, from which we weren't getting answers. Eventually we had even drawn the criminal cons into our game, and the complaints disease began to spread throughout the prison – in which there were twelve hundred men altogether. I think that if the business had continued a little longer and involved everyone in the prison, the Soviet bureaucratic machine would have simply ground to a halt: all Soviet institutions would have had to stop work and busy themselves with writing replies to US.

Finally, in 1977, they capitulated to several specific demands of the prisoners to improve the conditions of the camps. The governor of the prison was removed and pensioned off. Their ability to inflict death-producing punishments did them little good, once the prisoners learned of the Achilles' heel of the bureaucracy: paperwork.. The leaders of the Soviet Union could bear it no longer: they deported Bukovsky.

FROM GANDHI TO ALINSKY

You may have heard of Saul Alinsky. He died in 1972. He gets more publicity these days than he ever got in his lifetime. That is because he was the model for ACORN, the now-defunct community organizing organization. At one stage in his career as a comminity organizer, Barack Obama worked with ACORN.

Alinsky was a follower of Gandhi. That means he refused to use violence in his protests. He was a radical. He was a revolutionary. But he was an opponent of violence. There was a crucial difference between Gandhi's tactics and Alinsky's. Gandhi had a genius for analyzing the British system of controls. He then broke a specific law. That forced the British to arrest him. That gave him a public platform. He spent years in various prisons. This was a high-cost system of resistance. It made him a celebrity. He gained followers. He was world famous.

Alinksy realized early that very few people will pay the price that Gandhi paid. So, he devised a system of resistance that lowered the risk, thereby lowering the cost. He understood the economists' law: "When the cost of producing anything falls, more will be supplied." More of what? Resistance.

His system involved at least one of two tactics: (1) violating a rule to which only a minimal negative sanction was attached, (2) follow the organization's procedural rules to the letter in a Bukovsky-like manner.

He tested his non-violent strategy and tactics in the 1960s in Chicago. He wrote a book on his system, Rules For Radicals (1972). He wrote this.

Let us in the name of radical pragmatism not forget that in our system with all its repressions we can still speak out and denounce the administration, attack its policies, work to build an opposition political base. True, there is still government harassment, but there still is that relative freedom to fight. I can attack my government, try to organize to change it. That's more than I can do in Moscow, Peking, or Havana. Remember the reaction of the Red Guard to the "cultural revolution" and the fate of the Chinese college students. Just a few of the violent episodes of bombings or a courtroom shootout that we have experienced here would have resulted in a sweeping purge and mass executions in Russia, China, or Cuba. Let us keep some perspective.

We will start with the system because there is no other place to start from except political lunacy. It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without a supporting base of popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics.

Men don't like to step abruptly out of the security of familiar experience; they need a bridge to cross from their own experience to a new way. A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of their lives – agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values, to produce, if not a passion for change, at least a passive, affirmative, non-challenging climate. "The revolution was effected before the war commenced; John Adams wrote. "The Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people. . . .

This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution." A revolution without a prior reformation would collapse or become a totalitarian tyranny.

SHUTTING DOWN ACORN

If a radical like Alinsky understood this about the nature of man and social change, conservatives should at least give heed to his conclusions concerning tactics. Not bombs but protests and petitions. Not guns but getting people involved in dragging their feet.

ACORN is no more. Why not? Because a conservative activist had read Alinky's book. He learned early how to use guerilla theater. He pretended to be a pimp. He and a young woman worked out a routine. He presented her to an ACORN worker and asked if she could get help with her profession: a prostitute. They said she wanted to bring in girls from Latin America who were under age 18 to work doing tricks. The representative offered suggestions. They visited three ACORN centers. They got helpful advice at all three.

They had a hidden camcorder.

He then went home, dressed up like a stereotypical black pimp – he and the young woman were white – and had an associate shoot videos of himself and the woman on the street. Then he edited the videos and gave them to Andrew Breitbart, who posted them. They went viral. You can see them here.

ACORN had always had financial support from the U.S. government. That video killed the support. ACORN shut down.

A specter is haunting liberalism: the specter of Saul Alinsky.

We need a positive program of changing people's minds. We also need a negative program of successful resistance techniques that will get the State off our backs long enough for us to go about the work of positive reformation. Meanwhile, we can gum up the works.

That literally happened under Alinsky. Some Christian college was foolish enough to allow students to invite him to speak on campus. A group of disgruntled students met with him after his speech. "How can we change this place? We can't do anything. We can't smoke, dance, go to movies, or drink beer. About all we can do is chew gum." Alinsky told them, "Then gum is your answer."

He told them to get 200 or 300 students to buy two packs of gum each. Chew both packs simultaneously every day, and then spit out the wads on campus walks. As he said, 'Why, with five hundred wads of gum I could paralyze Chicago, stop all the traffic in the Loop." He told them to keep it up until the rules were loosened or abolished. The tactic worked. Two weeks later all the rules were lifted. One new rule was substituted: no gum on campus.

That college administration was weak. Its leaders really did not believe in their own standards. They could have immediately banned gum from the campus the second day, with immediate expulsion as the penalty for anyone caught chewing it. But this would have made them look ridiculous to people on the outside. Expelling kids for chewing gum, when other campuses are being bombed by student radicals? The outsiders would never have seen the hundreds of wads of dried gum on the walkways every morning. Bureaucrats never ever want to look ridiculous. They capitulated. They were, in short, fearful bureaucrats. So are most of the people who will give Christians trouble over the next two decades.

We can learn from Alinsky. We must learn how to gum up the works. We must create a new, hypothetical society, "Gummit," which sounds a lot like "Guvmint."

Here are Alinsky's 13 tactical rules:

Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Never go outside the experience of your people.
Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.
Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
Keep the pressure on.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter side.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize and polarize it.

CONCLUSION

Every system can be brought down. Every system is vulnerable. If you can spot the weak point in the system, you can exploit it.