1

Polio Vaccines, Weaponized Cancer & Lee Harvey Oswald, Oh My!

Unattributed | * Aircrap

Lee Harvey Oswald - Patsy

Compelling story on cover ups and Government fraud.  1963 – History of Polio vaccine corruption –  drug companies pushed by Government to create a Polio vaccine, discovered vaccines were contaminated cancer viruses (SMV-40) and vaccinated 100 million children any way to meet the Government deadline. Big Pharma’s rational was they would come up with a ‘cancer’ cure later. Polio vaccines = 15 cases of cancer for every 1 polio case.

Brilliant Judyth Vary Baker (who dreamed of finding a cure for cancer) was recruited into a covert bio-weapon lab in New Orleans to create vaccine to kill Fidel Castro. Judyth  as a student was able to make cancer grow faster than the government labs.  As a covert operative, she was assigned protection by government agent  Lee Harvey Oswald.

Monkey’s tortured, killed, crippled, prisoners on death inmates row used for test subjects – Judyth left this insanity.  Polio vaccines = 15 cases of cancer for every 1 polio case. Good for Pharma business, radiation enhances tumor growth for the 100 million children vaccinated in the 1960’s now adults – Cancer epidemic we are seeing now.  Airport X-Rays…..This is why we have a soft tissue cancer epidemic now.

Vetted by James Fetzer, PhD, JFK Researcher: https://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14-reasons-to-believe-in-judyth-vary.html

Judyth Vary Baker | The Lee Harvey Oswald Love Affair & Weaponized Cancer Connection

TheHighersideChats direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM_VXXrcLVQ

We recently had Ed Haslam on the show, and he talked about his knowledge of events leading up to Lee Harvey Oswald being framed for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Today, we get into the deeper story from none other than Lee’s lover, Judyth Vary Baker. Judy’s involvement in the Lee Harvey Oswald saga began when she was a teenager with an intense interest in cancer and medicine. As the years went on, she found herself in the midst of interactions and involvements that television dramas are made of, but in this case, it was a real-life drama.

Judy has a special insight due to her relationship with Lee, as well as her involvement with a project focusing on weaponizing cancer. She understands the medical industry, the prevention and treatment of cancer, the dangers of the vaccination schedules, and how and why Lee was blamed for the JFK assassination.

Some of the topics you’ll hear discussed today include:

4:30: How Judy got involved with weaponizing cancer with Dr. Mary Sherman.

12:20: How Judy met Lee Harvey Oswald — She thought it was a coincidence, but found out later that the meeting had been planned.

19:00: Details about Lee, such as why he dropped out of high school, and why and how Wikipedia and other media have villainized and trivialized him.

22:00: How Fidel Castro’s health care policies in Cuba led to his doctors unwittingly participating in the implementation of cancer being used as a biological weapon.

37:30: Judy’s belief that bacteriaphage can kill cancer, and how we could have had a cure by now, but since it can’t be patented and is inexpensive, Big Pharma won’t allow it.

[Read more here]

*Originally entitled: “Polio Vaccines – Weaponized Cancer – Lee Harvey Oswald”

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.com.

 




Police Raid Interrupts Native Prayer Against Dakota Pipeline

By Alexa Erickson | Collective Evolution

"The senators who voted in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline know they don't have the votes to override President Obama's veto, so ultimately this was a symbolic vote for them—a testament to their loyalty to dirty money over rational public policy," said Kyle Ash of Greenpeace. (Photo: Chesapeakeclimate/flickr/cc)

The ongoing battle over the North Dakota pipeline has lead to an increased hostile environment. In recent news, North Dakota police have surrounded Native Americans with military-style equipment as they gathered in prayer in opposition of the construction this past Wednesday.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, among many other supporting tribes from across the U.S., Canada, and Latin America, as well as supporting communities at large, have been gathered at the construction site in resistance for months. They view the pipeline as a destruction of sacred and treaty-protected land, ultimately harming their livelihood.

The protest has halted what could have been a swift plan to implement a 1,170 mile oil pipeline, and instead, caused a national uproar over environmental and moral concerns that a leak or spill could be ruinous, while exposing the arrogance and greed of those behind the Dakota Access pipeline.

“ND authorities deploy armed personnel with shotguns and assault rifles, military vehicles, and aerial spray on peaceful Water Protectors gathered in prayer,” explained the Sacred Stone Camp.

The protestors have been met with intense threats in the form of military-style armored vehicles and shotguns for defending the Missouri River. At least 21 were arrested as a result.

A Sicangu Lakota grandmother opened up about the unfortunate event on Wednesday, saying:

“We had a really nice ceremony. And then we looked, and over that way, and the police—there was a few police. And the next thing I knew, there were like 40 police, and they were all dressed in riot gear. We did exactly what we were told to do, except the ones who were in the road, just to tell everybody, ‘Keep moving. Keep moving. Keep moving.’ And I’ve never in my life seen a gun in real life. And I’ve never had a gun pointed at me. And we all went—I went into shock.”

And one participant, Thomas H. Joseph II, posted a disturbing video exposing the happenings. Narrating the situation, he explains that helicopters have dropped tear gas, while an officer is seen loading his gun amongst protestors chanting, “We have no guns.”

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150

 




Selling Perception of Terror Attacks (and Everything Else) on the Mind-control Superhighway—and Immortal You

By Jon Rappaport | No More Fake News

America attacking terrorists it fostered

I’ve written several introductions and postscripts to my collection, Exit From The Matrix. Here is the latest postscript:

Public relations adepts understand that you can take a genuine positive sentiment and make a cartoon out of it.

And then you can make a cartoon out of THAT, and you can go on with this multiplying process for many years. And people will totally lose track of where and when the genuine was replaced by the fake.

Worse yet, people will sculpt their own personalities to fit some sixth-generation “positive” cartoon, believing all the while they’re embracing the highest Good in the cosmos.

This article is about selling perception, not fact.

When enough images, cues, and symbols are placed in the mind, the owner of that mind will basically have an excuse to sacrifice his independence, surrender, and adopt a “peaceful” role in the stage play of his life.

He will even go so far as to embrace a wholly fake messianic agenda for a “better world”—because it looks like it fits his new role.

Now he’s inside a cartoon bubble.

Social propaganda operatives understand these factors. On this basis, they pick up their paychecks. One such retired operative once told me, “I made my living from the idea of unity. That’s it. I sold it for years like Big Macs.”

—The bomb in NY, the bombs in New Jersey, the stabbing attack in Minnesota…no matter what major media call them or don’t call them, the American people call them terrorist acts.

And that seems to play into the hands of Donald Trump.

But you can be sure Hillary Clinton’s inner circle are telling her a different story. A familiar story, because they’ve been operating on this basis for a long time: “You, Hillary, are the moderate candidate. You’re in the center. You’re for unity. That’s how the majority of the voters see you. So these attacks benefit you, not Trump, because America wants peace and unity and caring at any cost. And they see you as the President who can give those things to them. Trump is the wild cowboy. He stands for retribution and violence and revenge. That’s not what the people want, because they’re afraid his actions would bring down more terror attacks. Don’t worry, be happy, Hillary. You’re going to win the White House…”

For decades now, the mood in America has been shifted over into endless compromise and political correctness and counterfeit love and caring—as a result of a purposeful multi-front propaganda operation:

“Everybody is good, respect diversity, automatically love everyone who is different, be nice, think positive, embrace hope, don’t make waves, and peace will come.”

I hope you understand that all the key words in the preceding sentence are crafted as fake versions of the real thing. I can’t say it more plainly than that.

“No one is evil. When met with love, all differences and enmities dissolve.” This is another crafted propaganda cartoon. Its purpose is to convince people to surrender.

This is how defeat is sold on the superhighway of PR.

Then, another step is taken. Cues are installed in people’s minds that trigger surrender as if it is “love.” Cues such as: waves of migrants (among whom are un-vetted terrorists); inner cities devastated by a combination of Globalism and gangs; violent riots in the streets—these and other cues bring about a response of “share and care” surrender.

—Love them, care for them, give them everything they want, and all will be well. (And even if it isn’t, you’ve donned the visible and admirable cloak of a “good person,” and what else matters?)

To the degree that this massive society-transforming mind-control op works, political candidates who present themselves as cartoons of faith, hope, charity, love, peace, and equality gather much, much support.

Facts don’t matter. Perception matters.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150




Inspector General Says FBI Agents Can Pose as Journalists During Investigation

By Arjun Walia | Conscious Evolution

The FBI was condemned by media outlets for violating the public's trust. (Images courtesy of AP and FBI)

It can be troublesome to acknowledge the fact that popular mainstream media outlets, and perhaps in some cases, popular alternative media outlets, are subject to large amounts of infiltration by intelligence agencies, but it’s true.

This isn’t a matter of conjecture. It’s happened before with the CIA’s “Operation Mockingbird, a CIA-based initiative to control mainstream media, and it’s happening now, recently brought to the attention of the public by a statement made by the Inspector General regarding FBI infiltration into journalism.

The report, released last Thursday, stated that FBI agents may impersonate journalists while conducting undercover investigations.  You can read the full report here.

The review stemmed from a June 2007 investigation into a series of bomb threats sent by an email to Timberline High School outside Seattle. The emails caused multiple evacuations, and the FBI was called in to help.

Undercover, they posed as an editor for the Associated Press and contacted the suspect by email, using fake news articles and photographs to reveal his location. These methods used by the FBI did not come to light for several years,  when a former  technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, tweeted a link in October 2014 to internal documents posted to the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation  (pages 61 and 62).

Top mainstream media journalists themselves have been coming forward for a long time trying to make the public aware of such information.

For example,  Dr. Udo Ulfkottea top German journalist and editor for more than two decades, went on television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name. He also aded that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job.

Below are a few words taken from an appearance he made on RT News

I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe. (source)

Investigative journalist and former CBC News reporter Sharyl Attkisson is another example. She delivered a hard-hitting TEDx talk showing how fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist,  said that they are routinely paid by the U.S. government and foreign governments to selectively report and even distort information on certain events. She has also indicated that the government has editorial control over content.

When we are talking about infiltration, there are so many topics where our perception of what’s happening has been completely controlled. The ‘War on Terror’ is a great example, more specially,false flag terrorism. We are brainwashed with the idea that Islamic terrorists are responsible for these events, and 9/11  is one of the best examples (regarding false flag terrorism). It was an event that was created by the same group of people who used it to justify the invasion of the middle east for ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ It was a complete fraud.

Other examples include shaping our perception regarding genetically modified foods, medical drugs, academia and more. Large scale manipulation of the human mind has occurred, and does occur on multiple levels.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150




Finally, The CIA Admits Covering Up JFK Assassination

Sophie McAdam | True Activist

Even if you have to wait over 50 years, eventually the truth will out…

lho2Suspicions that the CIA covered up JFK‘s murder have finally been confirmed, according to an explosive Politico report out this week.  Fifty-two years after the President’s death, declassified documents show that the CIA were in communication with alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s murder in 1963, and they were monitoring his mail since 1959.

Not only that but John McCone, who was Chief of the CIA at the time, allegedly hid evidence from the Warren commission, set up by Lyndon Johnson to investigate JFK’s assassination. The spymaster and other senior CIA officials are accused of withholding ‘incendiary’ information from the commission and therefore perverting the course of justice. The CIA has admitted this.

The Politico report is based on evidence given by CIA historian David Robarge. He has claimed the cover-up was intended to keep the commission focused on “what the agency believed at the time was the best truth- that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” McCone directed the CIA to provide only “passive, reactive and selective” assistance to the Warren commission, meaning the investigation was severely compromised and did not follow up any other leads which may have been crucial in the search for truth.

Robarge also believes that John McCone, who died in 1991, withheld vital information relating to various CIA plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. The historian points out that these plots may well be linked to JFK‘s assassination – there’s a strong chance his murder was a revenge attack for CIA operations in Cuba-  but McCone’s unwillingness to explore other potentialities outside of prime suspect Lee Harvey Oswald could have resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

JFK was America’s youngest ever and most charismatic President, and his death shocked the nation. Alternative murder theories are popular across the States: A 2013 poll found that only 30% of Americans believe Oswald shot JFK, and that he acted alone. 61% believed that others were involved in a conspiracy (see the embedded video to find out why).

David Robarge first published these exclusive claims in a secret internal CIA magazine in 2013. His claims have now been declassified and can be publicly accessed here on the George Washington University’s National Security Archive. Robarge has also written a biography of John McCone, but his book continues to be classified. What else might the historian have uncovered? Here’s hoping that the full truth of what happened in Dealy Plaza on that fateful day will very soon be common knowledge.

This article (Finally, The CIA Admits Covering Up JFK Assassination) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com.




Censorship Alert: Orwellian CA Bill Means Reporters Can’t Post Undercover Videos

By Jon Rappoport | * No More Fake News

Planned Parenthood

Editor’s Note: The story around this California bill seems to me like it came out of a movie. Planned Parenthood had some much publicized videos reveal some private conversations and it affected their funding and reputation. It is understandable to be upset at this violation of their privacy and how it stood to topple their institution; I get it. Yet, for them to urge and sponsor this bill, in order to vent their frustration and anger, is really quite megalomaniacal. They have made themselves the villains of this tale (cue the “bwaahahaaaa, I will have my revenge moment”), by threatening to effectively chip away a substantial piece of the foundation of Free Speech. Future illegalities, immoralities, and matters of public concern, such as instances of police brutality, for example, will go unpublicized. Who will this bill serve? Those in power who will stay in power at any cost. Whether you favor Planned Parenthood or not, this bill is bad for everyone.

Planned Parenthood wielding new hammer against free speech

This one is big. It adds to California’s growing reputation as Police State Central.

First we had SB 277, which forced vaccinations on school children. Now we have Assembly Bill 1671, which would make it a crime for journalists to post and report on certain undercover videos, even though they didn’t make the videos.

That’s right. In California, such videos are already illegal, because they don’t have permission of all parties to be recorded. But if Bill 1671 passes, reporters who are sent those videos, or find them, couldn’t post them and write stories about them. Mainstream, alternative, freelance reporters—it wouldn’t matter.

Even more bizarre, Bill 1671 specifies undercover videos that secretly record “healthcare providers.” These are the videos targeted by the Bill.

Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, has the story (“Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle”, Thursday, August 11, 2016). Here are key quotes. Buckle up:

“Controversy surrounding secretly recorded videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing fetal tissue sales has morphed into a California proposal that would punish media companies for reporting on certain undercover videos. But media groups say the bill, which is on the verge of clearing the Legislature, could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and set the state up for First Amendment court battles.”

“Born from the 2015 hidden-camera footage released by the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood is pushing Assembly Bill 1671 which it claims will protect abortion clinics and other health care providers from similar malicious sting operations.”

“The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of ‘health care providers’ and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.” [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters.]

“Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.”

“The opponents take issue with how the bill specifically criminalizes the distribution of communication with a health care provider. Targeting a specific area of speech amounts to content-based regulation of speech and is unconstitutional, the ACLU claims.”

“’The same rationale for punishing communications of some preferred professions or industries could as easily be applied to other communications [such as] law enforcement, animal testing labs, gun makers, lethal injection drug producers, the petroleum industry and religious sects,’ ACLU legislative director Kevin Baker wrote in an opposition letter…”

If you feel you’ve just entered the Twilight Zone, gone down the rabbit hole, you have.

How about this? Some enterprising citizen-reporter in California secretly records a conversation with a doctor, in which the doctor admits that he vaccinates all children-patients, but would never vaccinate his own kids.

The video link is sent to a journalist in Los Angeles, who then posts it on his website. Suddenly, that LA journalist is hauled into court and the video is taken down.

What about this? Somebody makes a secret recording of a conversation between a well-known oncologist and his colleague about the massive dangers of chemotherapy—including remarks about several of the doctors’ cancer patients who actually died from chemo. A freelance reporter, who obtains the video, posts it on his site. The video is taken down, the reporter is arrested, prosecuted—and sued.

And couldn’t a California-based pharmaceutical company claim status as a “health provider?” Supposed an employee secretly recorded a conversation between two executives, during which they admitted the company buried studies of a new drug because “too many volunteers died” during testing. The employee sends the recording to a reporter at the LA Times. The reporter shows it to his editor. Is that in itself a crime?

Yes.

[Read more here]

* Originally entitled: “Orwellian CA bill: reporters can’t post undercover videos”

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Wikileaks Founder Reveals More Reasons Why the TPP Should Never Become Law

By Unattributed | * Aircrap

Julian Assange

“Once We’re In, We’re Stuck Forever” Julian Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange knows more about the contents of the TPP than most members of Congress and is doing much more to inform the American public than any of our so-called representatives with the lone exception of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). He has no restrictions other than his politically-motivated confinement to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on his freedom to disclose the truth to the world and he is sounding the alarm.

Assange described it in a “Democracy Now” interview as being “not formally classified but being treated as if it is classified in terms of how the information is being managed.” He says, “It is very well-guarded from the press and the majority of people and even from Congressman, but 600 U.S. companies are part of the process and have been given access to various parts of the TPP.”

He continues, “It’s the largest ever international economic treaty that has ever been negotiated. Very, considerably larger than NAFTA, it is mostly not about trade. Only five of the twenty-nine chapters are about traditional trade. The others are about regulating the Internet. Internet service providers have to collect information; they have to hand it over to companies under certain circumstances. It’s about regulating labor, what labor conditions can be applied, regulating whether you can favor a local industry, regulating the hospital health care system, privatization of hospitals.”

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “WikiLeaks’ Assange – TPP Not Only Trade 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives”

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Obama Expands the ISIS Bombing Campaign to a 4th Country, the Media Barely Notice

By Adam H. Johnson | The Nation

 DroneBan-680x380

What began two years ago as “limited” air strikes in Iraq now includes Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya—all with little public debate.

You’d hardly notice, however, if you followed US media. While the air strikes themselves were reported by most major outlets, they were done so in a matter-of-fact way, and only graced the front pages of major American newspapers for one day. The New York Times didn’t even find the news important enough to give it a front-page headline, instead relegating it to a quick blurb at the far-bottom corner of the page, next to a teaser about the G train “having a moment.”Even many center-left outlets barely touched on the massive mission creep. To give some perspective, Slate, Mother Jones, and Buzzfeed News all ran more stories about Trump’s dust-up with an infant than they did on what was effectively the start of a new war. ABC World News Tonight mentioned the Libyan air strikes for only 20 seconds, 13 minutes into the show, and NBC Nightly News didn’t mention the air strikes at all. The president’s announcement that the United States is bombing a new country has become entirely banal.This is by design. Obama’s “frog in boiling water” approach to war removes a clear deadline, thus stripping his use of military force of the urgency of, say, Bush’s “48 hours to get out of Baghdad” Gary Cooper approach.Meanwhile, an anti-ISIS bombing campaign that began as “limited,” “targeted” air strikes in Iraq two years ago expanded to Syria six weeks later, to Afghanistan in January of this year, and to Libya this week. Combat troops and special forces have also crept into play, with US military personnel first appearing in Iraq and Syria in 2014, 2015, or 2016, depending on how one defines “boots” and “ground.”

All of this has unfolded with US media that almost never put these developments in a broader context. Instead, news outlets report each expansion as if it were obvious and inevitable. The war just is, and because it’s done piecemeal, there doesn’t seem much to get outraged over.

The question pundits should be asking themselves is this: Had Obama announced on August 7, 2014, that he planned on bombing four countries and deploying troops to two of them to fight a war with “no end point,” would the American public have gone along with it? Probably not.

To authorize his perma-campaign, Obama’s administration has dubiously invoked the 15-year-old, one-page Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed three days after 9/11. The president has to do this, the White House and friendly media claim, because Congress “refuses” to act  to authorize the war (notice that’s a rubber-stamp question of when, not if). But such apologism largely rests on a tautology: Congress doesn’t have a sense of urgency to authorize the war because the public doesn’t, and the public doesn’t because the media have yawned with each new iteration.

What’s lacking is what screenwriters call “an inciting incident.” There’s no clear-cut moment the war is launched, it just gradually expands, and because media are driven by Hollywood narratives, they are victims to the absence of a clear first act. This was, to a lesser extent, the problem with the last bombing of Libya, in 2011. What was pitched to the American public then was a limited, UN-mandated no-fly zone to protect civilians (that even the likes of Noam Chomsky backed), which quickly morphed, unceremoniously, into all-out, NATO-led regime change three weeks later.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




8 Revelations From 2016 That Completely Vindicate Conspiracy Theorists




Hitler Was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Ian Greenhalgh | Veterans Today
  AdolfHitler-680x380
The recent resolution of the parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE fully equalizes the role of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at the outbreak of the Second World War, except that it had the purely pragmatic purpose of extorting money from Russia on the contents of some of the bankrupt economies, intended to demonize Russia as the successor state to the USSR, and to prepare the legal ground for the deprivation of her right to speak out against revision of results of war.
But if we approach the problem of responsibility for the war, then you first need to answer the key question: who helped the Nazis come to power? Who sent them on their way to world catastrophe? The entire pre-war history of Germany shows that the provision of the “necessary” policies were managed by the financial turmoil, in which, by the way, the world was plunged into.
The key structures that defined the post-war development strategy of the West were the Central financial institutions of Great Britain and the United States — the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve System (FRS) — and the associated financial and industrial organizations set out a target to establish absolute control over the financial system of Germany to control political processes in Central Europe. To implement this strategy it is possible to allocate the following stages:
1st: from 1919 to 1924 — to prepare the ground for massive American financial investment in the German economy;
2nd: from 1924 to 1929 — the establishment of control over the financial system of Germany and financial support for national socialism;
3rd: from 1929 to 1933 — provoking and unleashing a deep financial and economic crisis and ensuring the Nazis come to power;
4th: from 1933 to 1939 — financial cooperation with the Nazi government and support for its expansionist foreign policy, aimed at preparing and unleashing a new World War.
In the first stage, the main levers to ensure the penetration of American capital into Europe began with war debts and the closely related problem of German reparations. After the US’ formal entry into the first World War, they gave the allies (primarily England and France) loans to the amount of $8.8 billion. The total sum of war debts, including loans granted to the United States in 1919-1921, was more than $11 billion.
To solve this problem, debtor countries tried to impose a huge amount of extremely difficult conditions for the payment of reparations at the expense of Germany. This was caused by the flight of German capital abroad, and the refusal to pay taxes led to a state budget deficit that could be covered only through mass production of unsecured Marks. The result was the collapse of the German currency — the “great inflation” of 1923, which amounted to 578 (512%), when the dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Marks. German Industrialists began to openly sabotage all activities in the payment of reparation obligations, which eventually caused the famous “Ruhr crisis” — Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923.
The Anglo-American ruling circles, in order to take the initiative in their  own hands, waited for France to get caught up in a venturing adventure and to prove its inability to solve the problem. US Secretary of State Hughes pointed out: “It is necessary to wait for Europe to mature in order to accept the American proposal.”
The new project was developed in the depths of “JP Morgan & Co.” under the instruction of the head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman. At the core of his ideas was representative of the “Dresdner Bank” Hjalmar Schacht, who formulated it in March 1922 at the suggestion of John Foster Dulles (future Secretary of state in the Cabinet of President Eisenhower) and legal adviser to President W. Wilson at the Paris peace conference. Dulles gave this note to the chief Trustee “JP Morgan & Co.”, and then JP Morgan recommended that H. Schacht, M. Norman, and the last of the Weimar rulers. In December, 1923, H. Schacht would become Manager of the Reichsbank and was instrumental in bringing together the Anglo-American and German financial circles.
In the summer of 1924, the project known as the “Dawes plan” (named after the Chairman of the Committee of experts who created it – American banker and Director of one of the banks of the Morgan group), was adopted at the London conference. He called for halving the reparations and solved the question about the sources of their coverage. However, the main task was to ensure favorable conditions for US investment, which was only possible with stabilization of the German Mark.
To this end, the plan gave Germany a large loan of $200 million, half of which was accounted for by JP Morgan. While the Anglo-American banks gained control not only over the transfer of German payments, but also for the budget, the system of monetary circulation and to a large extent the credit system of the country. By August 1924, the old German Mark was replaced by a new, stabilized financial situation in Germany, and, as the researcher G.D Preparta wrote, the Weimar Republic was prepared for “the most picturesque economic aid in history, followed by the most bitter harvest in world history” — “an unstoppable flood of American blood poured into the financial veins of Germany.”
The consequences of this were not slow to appear.
This was primarily due to the fact that the annual reparations were to cover the amount of debt paid by the allies, formed by the so-called “absurd Weimar circle”. The gold that Germany paid in the form of war reparations, was sold, pawned, and disappeared in the US, where it was returned to Germany in the form of an “aid” plan, who gave it to England and France, and they in turn were to pay the war debt of the United States. It was then overlayed with interest, and again sent  to Germany. In the end, all in Germany lived in debt, and it was clear that should Wall Street withdraw their loans, the country will suffer complete bankruptcy.
Secondly, although formal credit was issued to secure payment, it was actually the restoration of the military-industrial potential of the country. The fact is that the Germans were paid in shares of companies for the loans so that American capital began to actively integrate into the German economy.
The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks. 70% of revenues were provided by bankers from the United States, and most of the banks were from JP Morgan. As a result, in 1929, German industry was in second place in the world, but it was largely in the hands of America’s leading financial-industrial groups.
“Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie”, the main supplier of the German war machine, financed 45% of the election campaign of Hitler in 1930, and was under the control of Rockefeller “Standard oil”. Morgan, through “General Electric”, controlled the German radio and electrical industry via AEG and Siemens (up to 1933, 30% of the shares of AEG owned “General Electric”) through the Telecom company ITT — 40% of the telephone network in Germany.
In addition, they owned a 30% stake in the aircraft manufacturing company “Focke-Wulf”. “General Motors”, belonging to the DuPont family, established control over “Opel”. Henry Ford controlled 100% of the shares of  “Volkswagen”. In 1926, with the participation of the Rockefeller Bank “Dillon, Reed & Co.” the second largest  industrial monopoly in Germany after “I.G Farben” emerged — metallurgical concern “Vereinigte Stahlwerke” (Steel trust) Thyssen, Flick, Wolff, Feglera etc.
American cooperation with the German military-industrial complex was so intense and pervasive that by 1933 the key sectors of German industry and large banks such as Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank etc were under the control of American financial capital.
The political force that was intended to play a crucial role in the Anglo-American plans was being simultaneously prepared. We are talking about the funding of the Nazi party and A. Hitler personally.
[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.




Disposable People: Obama, the TPP & Human Rights Betrayal

By Jim Miller | San Diego Free Press

During the lead-up to the vote on the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP) that the President narrowly won, Obama and his surrogates consistently suggested that those in labor and other allied groups opposing the deal were “fighting the last war” and were against “the most progressive trade agreement the world has ever seen.” Indeed, he even went so far as to accuse critics like Senator Elizabeth Warren of “making stuff up”.

As we know, Obama defeated labor and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and, in concert with Republicans and just enough New Democrats like San Diego’s own Scott Peters and Susan Davis, he succeeded in forwarding the multinational corporate agenda.

Since that time the gaze of the national media has turned elsewhere and, as negotiations have encountered difficulties, the administration has sunk to new lows in its zeal to finish the deal on the TPP.

Indeed, after scolding critics and pooh-poohing concerns about human rights, it appears that the proponents of “the most progressive trade deal in history” aren’t so politically correct that they would stand in the way of slavery in the name of ideological purity if it might sink the TPP.

As Reuters reported in a piece that will surely make Project Censored’s list of the most under-reported stories of 2015:

[An] examination, based on interviews with more than a dozen sources in Washington and foreign capitals, shows that the government office set up to independently grade global efforts to fight human trafficking was repeatedly overruled by senior American diplomats and pressured into inflating assessments of 14 strategically important countries in this year’s Trafficking in Persons report.

In all, analysts in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons – or J/TIP, as it’s known within the U.S. government — disagreed with U.S. diplomatic bureaus on ratings for 17 countries, the sources said.

The analysts, who are specialists in assessing efforts to combat modern slavery – such as the illegal trade in humans for forced labor or prostitution – won only three of those disputes, the worst ratio in the 15-year history of the unit, according to the sources.

As a result, not only Malaysia, Cuba and China, but countries such as India, Uzbekistan and Mexico, wound up with better grades than the State Department’s human-rights experts wanted to give them, the sources said.

Why does this matter? As The Fiscal Times notes, it has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the politics of the TPP:

Last year, the State Department listed Malaysia among the world’s worst human trafficking nations because of “limited efforts to improve its flawed victim protection regime.” The report described a horrendous life for Malaysia’s foreign workers, threatened by large smuggling debts and confiscated passports that put them at the mercy of recruiting companies. Women in particular, recruited for hotel or beauty salon work, are routinely coerced into the commercial sex trade.

The conviction rate for smugglers has actually fallen in Malaysia since last year’s report, suggesting no improvement on fighting human trafficking. One house of Malaysia’s parliament did pass legislation giving more protections to slavery victims, but it further criminalizes something that’s already illegal. The problem has always been sustained enforcement. The U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia, Joseph Yun, criticized the lack of will to defend trafficking victims as recently as this April. Yet an unnamed administration official told Reuters that the U.S. had been working closely with Malaysian leaders to remedy the problem.

The political implications of reclassifying Malaysia suggest another rationale for the upgrade. During the markup of trade promotion authority (aka “fast track”), signed into law by the president last month, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) passed a provision denying access to fast-track procedures for any trade partner in Tier 3 on the human trafficking report.

As Zach Carter’s reporting in “Obama Shrugs Off Global Slavery to Protect Trade Deal” in the Huffington Post suggests, this move was about as craven as you can get:

The Obama administration outraged human rights advocates on Monday by removing Malaysia from its list of the world’s worst human trafficking offenders — a move that the activists said damages U.S. credibility — simply to boost the president’s trade agenda.

“The Administration has turned its back on the victims of trafficking,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a written statement. “They have elevated politics over the most basic principles of human rights.”

Hundreds of Democrats and a handful of Republicans had previously urged the State Department to maintain Malaysia’s ranking as a “Tier 3” human trafficking violator. For years, the Malaysian government has largely turned a blind eye to sex slavery involving men, women and children. Forced labor is rampant in several sectors of the country’s economy, particularly the electronics industry. In April, mass graves holding more than 130 human trafficking victims were discovered near the country’s northern border with Thailand. That same month, the U.S. ambassador to Malaysia said the government needed to take human trafficking prosecution more seriously. Nevertheless, the State Department officially upgraded Malaysia’s status to Tier 2.

By ignoring modern day slavery to advance the TPP, Obama has given the lie to the rhetoric of TPP advocates with all their bluster about how this trade deal was somehow about a more progressive world order with regard to labor and human rights. As the Citizens Trade Campaign noted in their statement on the matter, “The administration’s alleged willingness to turn a blind eye to trafficking abuses in Malaysia in order to get the TPP done also does not bode well for the hope of any enforcement of labor and environmental provisions were the TPP actually enacted.  If the administration were serious about using the TPP to enforce basic rights, they would make such enforcement a prerequisite to joining.”

In many ways, the Obama administration’s complicity with global slavery in the name of furthering the neoliberal economic agenda is not surprising. As Kevin Bales documents in his seminal work, Disposable People: The New Slavery in the Global Economy, today’s bondage is no longer about race but rather economics.

More specifically, modernization and rapid economic globalization in concert with an exploding population has created a situation where labor markets have been flooded with desperately poor people, 27 million of whom have ended up in some form of slavery. According to Bales, “Modern slaveholders are predators keenly aware of weakness; they are rapidly adapting an ancient practice to the new global economy.”

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “Disposable People: Obama, the TPP, and the Betrayal of Human Rights”

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website, www.romayasoundhealthandbeauty.com. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealth andbeauty@gmail.com.



Ex-CIA Spy Admits Tip Led to Nelson Mandela’s Long Imprisonment

By Unattributed | The Guardian

Nelson Mandela in prisonFormer operative says Americans believed the leader was ‘completely under the control of the Soviet Union’, report reveals

A tip from a CIA spy to authorities in apartheid-era South Africa led to Nelson Mandela’s arrest, beginning the leader’s 27 years behind bars, a report said on Sunday.

Donald Rickard, a former US vice-consul in Durban and CIA operative, told British film director John Irvin that he had been involved in Mandela’s arrest in 1962, which was seen as necessary because the Americans believed he was “completely under the control of the Soviet Union”, according to a report in the Sunday Times newspaper.

“He could have incited a war in South Africa, the United States would have to get involved, grudgingly, and things could have gone to hell,” Rickard said.

“We were teetering on the brink here and it had to be stopped, which meant Mandela had to be stopped. And I put a stop to it.”

Mandela was eventually freed from prison in 1990 and went on to become South Africa’s president between 1994 and 1999 before dying in 2013 aged 95.

Zizi Kodwa, national spokesman of Mandela’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) party, called the revelation “a serious indictment”.

“We always knew there was always collaboration between some western countries and the apartheid regime,” he said.

He claimed that though the incident happened decades ago, the CIA was still interfering in South African politics.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150

Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Legalize it All: How to Win the War on Drugs

By Dan Baum | Harper’s Magazine

WaronDrugs-BalanceofJustice-680x380

Editor’s Note: With the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination having happened forty-eight (48) years ago this April 4th, this particular story takes on more gravity for me. After all of the efforts of King and those who came before and after him, we are finding now that the War on Drugs was a targeted attack to harm African Americans as well as those in the counterculture (so-called “hippies”)  in new and sadistic ways, just to help a president that would be history six (6) years later. One wonders if these revelations, revealing a policy that fell so heavily on African Americans and hippies, should not be taken into considerations during reviews of any drug-related convictions of individuals in these demographic groups. Were they effectively “political prisoners,” or victims of “unlawful entrapment”? Were lies told and studies falsified in support of these policies to distort the true impact of illegal drugs? Were other drugs, such as crack cocaine, a part of this campaign?  And lastly, should we change our current drug policies? What do you think?

 In 1994, John Ehrlichman, the Watergate co-conspirator, unlocked for me one of the great mysteries of modern American history: How did the United States entangle itself in a policy of drug prohibition that has yielded so much misery and so few good results? Americans have been criminalizing psychoactive substances since San Francisco’s anti-opium law of 1875, but it was Ehrlichman’s boss, Richard Nixon, who declared the first “war on drugs” and set the country on the wildly punitive and counterproductive path it still pursues. I’d tracked Ehrlichman, who had been Nixon’s domestic-policy adviser, to an engineering firm in Atlanta, where he was working on minority recruitment. I barely recognized him. He was much heavier than he’d been at the time of the Watergate scandal two decades earlier, and he wore a mountain-man beard that extended to the middle of his chest.

At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged. Then he looked at his watch, handed me a signed copy of his steamy spy novel, The Company, and led me to the door.

Nixon’s invention of the war on drugs as a political tool was cynical, but every president since — Democrat and Republican alike — has found it equally useful for one reason or another. Meanwhile, the growing cost of the drug war is now impossible to ignore: billions of dollars wasted, bloodshed in Latin America and on the streets of our own cities, and millions of lives destroyed by draconian punishment that doesn’t end at the prison gate; one of every eight black men has been disenfranchised because of a felony conviction.

As long ago as 1949, H. L. Mencken identified in Americans “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy,” an astute articulation of our weirdly Puritan need to criminalize people’s inclination to adjust how they feel. The desire for altered states of consciousness creates a market, and in suppressing that market we have created a class of genuine bad guys — pushers, gangbangers, smugglers, killers. Addiction is a hideous condition, but it’s rare. Most of what we hate and fear about drugs — the violence, the overdoses, the criminality — derives from prohibition, not drugs. And there will be no victory in this war either; even the Drug Enforcement Administration concedes that the drugs it fights are becoming cheaper and more easily available.

Now, for the first time, we have an opportunity to change course. Experiments in alternatives to harsh prohibition are already under way both in this country and abroad. Twenty-three states, as well as the District of Columbia, allow medical marijuana, and four — Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska — along with D.C., have legalized pot altogether. Several more states, including Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada, will likely vote in November whether to follow suit. Portugal has decriminalized not only marijuana but cocaine and heroin, as well as all other drugs. In Vermont, heroin addicts can avoid jail by committing to state-funded treatment. Canada began a pilot program in Vancouver in 2014 to allow doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical-quality heroin to addicts, Switzerland has a similar program, and the Home Affairs Committee of Britain’s House of Commons has recommended that the United Kingdom do likewise. Last July, Chile began a legislative process to legalize both medicinal and recreational marijuana use and allow households to grow as many as six plants. After telling the BBC in December that “if you fight a war for forty years and don’t win, you have to sit down and think about other things to do that might be more effective,” Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos legalized medical marijuana by decree. In November, the Mexican Supreme Court elevated the debate to a new plane by ruling that the prohibition of marijuana consumption violated the Mexican Constitution by interfering with “the personal sphere,” the “right to dignity,” and the right to “personal autonomy.” The Supreme Court of Brazil is considering a similar argument.

Depending on how the issue is framed, legalization of all drugs can appeal to conservatives, who are instinctively suspicious of bloated budgets, excess government authority, and intrusions on individual liberty, as well as to liberals, who are horrified at police overreach, the brutalization of Latin America, and the criminalization of entire generations of black men. It will take some courage to move the conversation beyond marijuana to ending all drug prohibitions, but it will take less, I suspect, than most politicians believe. It’s already politically permissible to criticize mandatory minimums, mass marijuana-possession arrests, police militarization, and other excesses of the drug war; even former attorney general Eric Holder and Michael Botticelli, the new drug czar — a recovering alcoholic — do so. Few in public life appear eager to defend the status quo.

This month, the General Assembly of the United Nations will be gathering for its first drug conference since 1998. The motto of the 1998 meeting was “A Drug-Free World — We Can Do It!” With all due respect, U.N., how’d that work out for you? Today the U.N. confronts a world in which those who have suffered the most have lost faith in the old strong-arm ideology. That the tide was beginning to turn was evident at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when Latin American leaders for the first time openly discussed — much to the public discomfort of President Obama — whether legalizing and regulating drugs should be the hemisphere’s new approach.

When the General Assembly convenes, it also will have to contend with the startling fact that four states and the capital city of the world’s most zealous drug enforcer have fully legalized marijuana. “We’re confronted now with the fact that the U.S. cannot enforce domestically what it promotes elsewhere,” a member of the U.N.’s International Narcotics Control Board, which monitors international compliance with the conference’s directives, told me. Shortly before Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia added themselves to the legal-marijuana list, the State Department’s chief drug-control official, William Brownfield, abruptly reversed his stance. Whereas before he had said that the “drug control conventions cannot be changed,” in 2014 he admitted that things had changed: “How could I, a representative of the government of the United States of America, be intolerant of a government that permits any experimentation with legalization of marijuana if two of the fifty states of the United States of America have chosen to walk down that road?” Throughout the drug-reform community, jaws dropped.

As the once-unimaginable step of ending the war on drugs shimmers into view, it’s time to shift the conversation from why to how. To realize benefits from ending drug prohibition will take more than simply declaring that drugs are legal. The risks are tremendous. Deaths from heroin overdose in the United States rose 500 percent from 2001 to 2014, a staggering increase, and deaths from prescription drugs — which are already legal and regulated — shot up almost 300 percent, proving that where opioids are concerned, we seem to be inept not only when we prohibit but also when we regulate. A sharp increase in drug dependence or overdoses that followed the legalization of drugs would be a public-health disaster, and it could very well knock the world back into the same counterproductive prohibitionist mind-set from which we appear finally to be emerging. To minimize harm and maximize order, we’ll have to design better systems than we have now for licensing, standardizing, inspecting, distributing, and taxing dangerous drugs. A million choices will arise, and we probably won’t make any good decisions on the first try. Some things will get better; some things will get worse. But we do have experience on which to draw — from the end of Prohibition, in the 1930s, and from our recent history. Ending drug prohibition is a matter of imagination and management, two things on which Americans justifiably pride themselves. We can do this.

[Read more here]

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.

 




Mother, Should I Trust The Government?

FBI Orders Teachers to Report Students Who Question the Government

M. David | CounterCurrentNews.com

Image ©inthesetimes.com

New federal guidelines have just been introduced across the country, and what they mandate is quite disturbing to civil libertarians. The FBI has now instructed high schools across the nation to report students who in any way criticize government policies and what the report phrases as “western corruption.”

The FBI is interested in determining – as part of some warped “pre-crime” program – who might become potential future terrorists.

The FBI warns in the report that that “anarchist extremists” are no different that ISIS terrorists.

They further caution teachers against young people who are poor, as well as immigrants and others who travel to “suspicious” countries. These, they explain, are teens who are more likely to commit terrorism.

Sarah Lazare, writing for AlterNet, notes that “based on the widely unpopular British ‘anti-terror’ mass surveillance program, the FBI’s ‘Preventing Violent Extremism in Schools’ guidelines, released in January, are almost certainly designed to single out and target Muslim-American communities.”

Lazare notes that the FBI cautions teachers to “avoid the appearance of discrimination,” in carrying out the order to spy on students and report them to the Bureau.

“The agency identifies risk factors that are so broad and vague that virtually any young person could be deemed dangerous and worthy ofsurveillance, especially if she is socio-economically marginalized or politically outspoken,” she notes.

This overwhelming threat is then used to justify a massive surveillance apparatus, wherein educators and pupils function as extensions of the FBI by watching and informing on each other.

The FBI’s justification for such surveillance is based on McCarthy-era theories of radicalization, in which authorities monitor thoughts and behaviors that they claim to lead to acts of violent subversion, even if those people being watched have not committed any wrongdoing. This model has been widely discredited as a violence prevention method, including by the US government, but it is now being imported to schools nationwide as official federal policy.

The new guidelines suggest that “high school students are ideal targets for recruitment by violent extremists seeking support for their radical ideologies, foreign fighter networks, or conducting acts of violence within our borders.”

The paranoid of the document warns that the youth “possess inherent risk factors” that predispose them to being terrorists.

The FBI suggests that all teachers “incorporate a two-hour block of violent extremism awareness training” into their core curriculum for all high school students in the United States.

According to the FBI’s educational materials for teenagers, circulated as a visual aide to their new guidelines, the following offenses constitute signs that “could mean that someone plans to commit violence” and therefore should be reported: “Talking about traveling to places that sound suspicious”; “Using code words or unusual language”; “Using several different cell phones and private messaging apps”; and “Studying or taking pictures of potential targets (like a government building).”

Under the category of domestic terrorists, the educational materials warn of the threat posed by “anarchist extremists.” The FBI states, “Anarchist extremists believe that society should have no government, laws, or police, and they are loosely organized, with no central leadership… Violent anarchist extremists usually target symbols of capitalism they believe to be the cause of all problems in society – such as large corporations, government organizations, and police agencies.”

Read the rest of the article here.

 




Half of Global Wealth Owned By the 1 Percent (Project Censored #1)

By  Izzy Michaelson, Inna Tounkel & Andy Lee Roth | Project Censored

The 1 Percent-680x380

In January 2015, Oxfam, an international nonprofit organization that aims to eliminate poverty, published a report stating that 1 percent of the global population will own more wealth than the rest of the 99 percent combined by 2016. The Oxfam report provided evidence that extreme inequality is not inevitable, but is, in fact, the result of political choices and economic policies established and maintained by the power elite, wealthy individuals whose strong influence keeps the status quo rigged in their own favor. In addition to reporting the latest figures on global economic inequality and its consequences, the Oxfam study outlined a nine-point plan that governments could adopt in creating new policies to address poverty and economic inequality.

According to the Oxfam report, the proportion of global wealth owned by the 1 percent has increased from 44 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2014 and is projected to reach 50 percent in 2016. In October 2014, a prior Oxfam report, “Even It Up: Time to End Extreme Poverty,” revealed that the number of billionaires worldwide had more than doubled since the 2009 financial crisis, showing that, although those at the top have recovered quickly, the vast majority of the world’s population are far from reaping the benefits of any recent economic recovery. Even more staggering, the world’s richest eighty-five people now hold the same amount of wealth as half the world’s poorest population. “Failure to tackle inequality will leave hundreds of millions trapped in poverty unnecessarily,” the report’s authors warned.

Through its reports and the “Even It Up” campaign, Oxfam described how to address economic inequality, identifying nine specific actions:

1. Make governments work for citizens and tackle extreme inequality.

2. Promote women’s economic equality and women’s rights.

3. Pay workers a living wage and close the gap created by skyrocketing executive rewards.

4. Share the tax burden fairly to level the playing field.

5. Close international tax loopholes and fill holes in tax governance.

6. Achieve universal free public services by 2020.

7. Change the global system for research and development and pricing of medicines so everyone has access to appropriate and affordable medicines.

8. Implement a universal social protection floor.

9. Target development finance at reducing inequality and poverty, and strengthening the compact between citizens and their government.

Oxfam calculated that taxing billionaires just 1.5 percent of their wealth “could raise $74 billion a year, enough to fill the annual gaps in funding needed to get every child into school and to deliver health services in the world’s poorest countries.”

Corporate coverage of the two Oxfam reports has been minimal in quantity and problematic in quality. A few corporate television networks, including CNN, CBS, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, and C-SPAN covered Oxfam’s January report, according to the TV News Archive. CNN had the most coverage with approximately seven broadcast segments from January 19 to 25, 2015. However, these stories aired between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m., far from primetime. Other coverage focused on Obama’s push for tax reform. CBS and MSNBC ran segments with this focus four times between 1:00 and 4:00 a.m., January 20–21, 2015, with the exception of one MSNBC story, broadcast on February 2, 2015, at 12:00 p.m. ABC covered the story once on January 19, 2015. FOX also covered the story once on January 19, 2015, questioning Oxfam’s motives for releasing the report just before the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

[Read more here]

Originally entitled: “#1 Half of Global Wealth Owned by the 1 Percent”

Sources:

Larry Elliott and Ed Pilkington, “New Oxfam Report Says Half of Global Wealth Held by the 1%,” Guardian, January 19, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/19/global-wealth-oxfam-inequality-davos-economic-summit-switzerland.

Sarah Dransfield, “Number of Billionaires Doubled Since Financial Crisis as Inequality Spirals Out of Control–Oxfam,” Oxfam, October 29, 2014, https://www.oxfam.org.uk/blogs/2014/10/number-of-billionaires-doubled-since-financial-crisis-as-inequality-spirals-out-of-control.

Samantha Cowan, “Every Kid on Earth Could Go to School If the World’s 1,646 Richest People Gave 1.5 Percent,” TakePart, November 3, 2014, https://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11/03/worlds-wealthiest.

Robert O'Leary 150x150Robert O’Leary, JD BARA, has had an abiding interest in alternative health products & modalities since the early 1970’s & he has seen how they have made people go from lacking health to vibrant health. He became an attorney, singer-songwriter, martial artist & father along the way and brings that experience to his practice as a BioAcoustic Soundhealth Practitioner, under the tutelage of the award-winning founder of BioAcoustic Biology, Sharry Edwards, whose Institute of BioAcoustic Biology has now been serving clients for 30 years with a non-invasive & safe integrative modality that supports the body’s ability to self-heal using the power of the human voice. Robert brings this modality to serve clients in Greater Springfield (MA), New England & “virtually” the world, with his website. He can also be reached at romayasoundhealthandbeauty@gmail.