America’s Weaponization of Ebola

Strategic Culture
by Wayne MADSEN

President Barack Obama has received a torrent of criticism for dispatching U.S. troops and National Guardsmen to the Ebola-ravaged West African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea to help control the spread of the highly-lethal Ebola-Zaire hemorrhagic virus. While Cuba has sent qualified doctors to the stricken region, Obama has responded with troops answering to the U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany. 

Evidence has recently surfaced in a 2009 U.S. embassy Berlin cable to the U.S. State and Defense Departments that German authorities hesitated to send hemorrhagic fever cultures to the suspected biological warfare laboratory at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland because the Germans feared the Army might «weaponize» the cultures.

The cable, classified as «Sensitive», is dated December 15, 2009 and states:

«German MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] Deputy Head of Division for Export Control Markus Klinger provided the following non-paper to Econoff [Embassy Economics Officer], seeking additional assurances related to a proposed export of extremely dangerous pathogens to the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases. The Army’s end use certificate provided to Germany is lacking an official seal. Klinger’s deputy, Nancy Reck, noted that Germany had made two follow-up requests to the Army seeking assurances and clarifications related to this proposed export. The GOG [Government of Germany] seeks assurances from the USG [US Government] or US Army that the end use certificate and the information contained therein are legitimate and accurate».

The «non-paper» reference is to an «aide-memoire», what is known in the diplomatic world as a note without an author, source, or title that is used to prepare for negotiations. The following «non-paper», which was originally written in German, was translated by the embassy and sent to Washington:

«For Official Use Only 

Against the background of our partnership in the area of non-proliferation and our excellent cooperation in the matters of export controls, we would like to bring the following issue to the attention of your government. 

A German firm has applied for the approval of the export of 184 genetic elements with nucleic acid sequences of viruses for the production of recombinant viruses. The viruses will be used in optical imaging to identify host factors required for viral replication. The recipient in the USA is, according to the enclosed end use certificate, the Department of the Army ‘US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)’ Fort Detrick, Maryland. 

Specifications in English about the goods, the recipient and end use can be seen from the end use certificate. The goods are controlled by the Australia Group and are subject to compulsory export approval (List position C1C353A). This matter concerns the complete genome of viruses such as the Zaire Ebola virus, the Lake Victoria Marburg virus, the Machupo virus and the Lassa virus, which are absolutely among the most dangerous pathogens in the world. The delivery would place the recipient in the position of being able to create replicating recombinant infectious species of these viruses. 

Because of the particular criticality of these goods, the German federal government practices an exceptionally restrictive approval policy for such exports. An approval here can only be issued if an improper end use in association with the development or production of biologic weapons approaches can be foreclosed with a probability approaching certainty. The enclosed end use certificate is on the letterhead of the U.S. Army. The required official seal is missing, however. A decision about the export has not yet been made. Given the foregoing, we would appreciate confirmation that the end use certificate really is from the Department of the Army and of the accuracy of the data contained therein. We look forward to the continuation of our excellent cooperation in matters of non-proliferation and export controls.»

The German government specifically stated that the ability of Fort Detrick to «create replicating recombinant infectious species» of dangerous hemorrhagic viruses could violate international controls on the export of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are enforced by the Australia Group of signatories to biological, chemical, and nuclear export treaties.

The Germans are in a position to be well aware of past U.S. involvement in biological warfare operations, especially in Zaire, where, in 1976, the first major outbreak of the Zaire Ebola virus, referenced by the Germans in their aide-memoire, occurred near the Ebola River in northern Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo).

In 1976, while the CIA was experimenting with Ebola and HIV in Zaire as part of its illegal covert war against the Marxist government of Angola, Orbital Transport und Raketen AG (OTRAG), or Orbital Transport and Rockets, Inc., a Stuttgart-based West German corporation closely linked to West Germany’s Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) intelligence service and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), helped establish a huge 100,000-square mile rocket base in the Shaba (Katanga) province of Zaire. 

The base was not only involved in launching rockets but also in providing the CIA with a base of operations against the Marxist government of neighboring Angola. The authorization for the CIA to use the OTRAG zone as a base of operations for its illegal support for right-wing guerrillas in Angola came from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the operations were carried out by CIA director George Bush.

OTRAG’s Zaire base was shut down in 1979 and it was relocated, courtesy of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, to the Libyan Desert in 1981. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was so concerned about the OTRAG base’s offensive capabilities he pressured French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing to weigh in with Mobutu to force the base’s ouster from Zaire. The German government’s present concern about the American weaponization of hemorrhagic fevers that have plagued Zaire/Congo indicates that Brezhnev was correct in suspecting the actual purpose of the OTRAG base. The first Ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1976 coincides with the start of operations at the OTRAG base.

The CIA’s longtime Technical Services Director, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, who came up with various ways to infect CIA targets like Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and Iraqi leader General Abdel Karim Kassem with lethal toxins, admitted to a congressional hearing that as early as 1960 he disposed in the Congo River a large quantity of viruses to contaminate anyone who used the river for drinking water.

The U.S. embassy in Lusaka, Zambia was quick to report in an October 3, 2008 cable to Washington the outbreak of an unknown virus among six South African members of a safari group on the Lower Zambezi River that was caused by «person-to-person transmission may be via bodily fluids — vomit, saliva, blood, etc.» However, with only preliminary evidence from the CDC, the embassy was quick to rule out «Ebola, Marburg, and Crimean-Congo» as the cause of the illness of the South Africans. 

The Walter Reed Johns Hopkins Cameroon Program (WRJHCP), based in Yaoundé, Cameroon, and involving both the CIA-connected U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Military HIV Research Program (USMHRP), has been closely «monitoring» Cameroon’s border with the Republic of Congo for Ebola and other hemorrhagic fever outbreaks.

It is not only in Africa that the United States is suspected of violating the 1972 Biological Warfare Convention by engaging in bio-weapons research. In addition to the United States, an October 4, 2008 cable from the U.S. Mission in Geneva to Washington stated that Ukraine, then under the rule of pro-NATO President Viktor Yushchenko, was insisting that compliance with the Biological Warfare Convention was the responsibility of «individual scientists’» adhering to unenforceable «codes of conduct.» 

Another 2008 cable from the U.S. embassy in Manila describes how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control assisted the Philippines in examining the outbreak of the milder form of Reston Ebola in the Philippines swine stock. The Reston strain gets its name from a 1989 outbreak of Ebola at the Reston Primate Quarantine Unit in Virginia, near Washington, DC that killed a number of primates. The facility was linked to Ebola and Marburg virus research at Fort Detrick. Viral outbreaks in Southeast Asia, such as that Ebola Reston swine outbreak in the Philippines, also involved researchers from the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit (NAMRU-2) in Jakarta, Indonesia. Several Indonesian health officials and politicians have charged that the U.S. Navy facility is not only involved in bio-warfare research but also directly assisting U.S. Big Pharma companies in research of airborne influenza, such as H5N1 avian flu, as well as anthrax, infectious bursal disease, and other pathogens. 

Indonesian Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari charged that NAMRU-2 was illegally sending biological specimens out of the country. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hasan Warijuda demanded to know why NAMRU-2 personnel enjoyed diplomatic immunity. Soeripto, the Deputy Chair of Parliamentary Commission III on Law and Human Rights, claimed that NAMRUs were a front for intelligence activities and called for NAMRU-2’s immediate closure. In 2010, the Indonesian government ordered NAMRU-2 to close and it was relocated to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. NAMRU-2 maintains a detachment in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. 

The Navy continues to maintain NAMRU-3 in Cairo, NAMRU-K in Nairobi, NSAMRU-6 in Lima, and a special detachment in Bangkok. These facilities are engaged in the same type of «research,» including of hemorrhagic fever and influenza outbreaks, which resulted in NAMRU-2’s «walking orders» from Jakarta. All these Navy units have relationships with the perennially suspect USAID, which maintains its own «Public Health Team.» Personnel from NAMRU-3 and the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine in Landstuhl, Germany were sent to Kuwait in August 2009 to investigate the sudden outbreak of H1N1 swine flu among U.S. troops stationed at Camp Arifjan. 

U.S. activities at Landstuhl, Stuttgart, Germany’s OTRAG base in Zaire, and a research institute seeking to export Ebola and other deadly pathogens to Fort Detrick have focused on Germany as a nexus for America’s quiet treaty-violating bio-warfare research. One single cable out of a tranche of 250,000 cables released to WikiLeaks has provided the «smoking test tube» for this illegal research that may be behind the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Strategic Culture

The Integration of Canada into a U.S. Dominated North American Security Perimeter

Global Research
By Dana Gabriel


In the light of the attack  in Ottawa on October 22, 2014, we republish this article from June 18, 2013. After the attack, US President Barack Obama said “it was important for Canada and the United States to be in sync when it came to dealing with terrorist activity.”

Canada’s prime minister recently addressed the CFR, a globalist think tank who have been a driving force behind the push towards deeper North American integration. The U.S. and Canada are now further advancing this agenda through the Beyond the Border agreement. Both countries are increasing bilateral border transportation and infrastructure coordination. This includes a common approach to border management, security and control. They are also integrating an information sharing system that would be used to track everyone crossing the U.S.-Canada border and entering or leaving the continent. Without much fanfare and seemingly little resistance, Canada is being assimilated into a U.S. dominated North American security perimeter.

 In May, the Conservative government highlighted the benefits of the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border action plan which was announced back in 2011. The deal, “focuses on addressing security threats at the earliest point possible and facilitating the lawful movement of people, goods, and services into Canada and the United States, and creates a long-term partnership to improve the management of our shared border.” The goal is to further increase, “security, economic competitiveness and prosperity through numerous measures, including reducing border wait times and improving infrastructure at key crossings to speed up legitimate trade and travel.” The Beyond the Border Executive Steering Committee recently met to discuss the objectives that have already been achieved and the work that still needs to be done. Another important facet of the economic and security perimeter agreement is the Regulatory Cooperation Council action plan. A stakeholder dialogue session is planned for June 20, which will review its implementation progress and will seek further input regarding the next stage of U.S.-Canada regulatory integration.

 Last month, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a joint report on the findings of Phase I of the Entry/Exit Information System. The program included collecting and exchanging biographic information at four selected land border ports of entry. In a news release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Acting Commissioner Thomas Winkowski stated that, “The results of Phase I demonstrate the capacity of the United States and Canada to increase information sharing capabilities.” He added, “This kind of cooperation epitomizes the Beyond the Border Action Plan.” The next phase of the entry/exit initiative is set to begin at the end of this month. It will involve exchanging the biographic data collected from third-country nationals and permanent residents of Canada and the U. S. at all common ports of entry. Both countries are further merging databases and are expanding surveillance and intelligence gathering operations. In 2014, they will also start sharing biometric information at the border. This will further advance the creation of a North America security perimeter where all travellers will be tracked and traced in real time.

As part of the commitment made under the Beyond the Border deal, both countries have announced the Border Infrastructure Investment Plan which was, “developed to establish a mutual understanding of recent, ongoing and potential border infrastructure investments. It outlines the approach that Canada and the United States will take to coordinate plans for physical infrastructure upgrades.” In June 2012, Canada reached an agreement with the State of Michigan to build a second bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. This was followed by a presidential permit issued in April of this year that officially paved the way for construction of the project. A U.S. State Department press release explained that, “Consistent with the bilateral Beyond the Border Initiative, this permit contributes to ensuring that our border infrastructure supports increased competitiveness, job creation, and broad-based prosperity in the United States and Canada.” It went on to say that the new bridge, “will help to meet future capacity requirements in a critical travel corridor, promote cross-border trade and commerce, and advance our vital bilateral relationship with Canada.”

In March, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and Canada’s Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews signed a memorandum of understanding which established a truck cargo pre-inspection pilot project. The joint undertaking is another component of the Beyond the Border agreement and would shift inspections and clearances away from the actual border crossing. The first phase, “will test the concept of conducting U.S. CBP primary cargo inspection in Canada, and will be implemented at the Pacific Highway crossing between Surrey, British Columbia and Blaine, Washington.” The second phase, “will further test how pre-inspection could enhance border efficiency and reduce wait times to facilitate legitimate trade and travel, and will be implemented at the Peace Bridge crossing between Fort Erie, Ontario and Buffalo, New York.” The perimeter security deal is laying the foundation for a future U.S.-Canada binational organization that would jointly manage and control the border.

The CBSA is also testing additional technology at the Morses Line, Quebec and Piney, Manitoba ports of entry. Under the remote traveller pilot project, people entering either location after regular hours of service, “will be processed by a border services officer located at a remote processing centre through a two-way audio and one-way video kiosk. Cameras will be installed to provide the officer with the ability to see the traveller and the vehicle.” The program which could later be expanded to other areas , “is part of the Small and Remote Ports of Entry Initiative, one of the deliverables under the Beyond the Border Action Plan.” NAUNEWZ pointed out that, “Although a lot of this technology is already installed and being utilized in limited ways at most of the main Canada-U.S. border crossing points, these smaller border crossings are ideal testing grounds for their ‘no borders’/NAU agenda.”

On May 16, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper participated in question and answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The conversation centered around economic growth, foreign investment and the role of the G20 with regards to global governance. Other issues focused on Canada-U.S. relations. Harper lobbied for approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline which would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas gulf coast. He dismissed environmental issues associated with the project and argued that it would be a step towards North American energy independence. The Obama administration is expected to make a final decision on the pipeline sometime this year. Harper also acknowledged the Beyond the Border and the Regulatory Cooperation Council action plans. He blamed sovereignty concerns and the continued negativity surrounding NAFTA as the main obstacles to even deeper continental integration. Prime Minister Harper used his audition in front of the CFR as an opportunity to demonstrate to the U.S. political and corporate elite that he is committed to defending the interests of big business and further pushing plans for a North American Union (NAU).

The Beyond the Border action plan is the most significant step forward in U.S.-Canada cooperation since NAFTA. It provides the framework for future North American integration. When fully implemented, the agreement can be expanded and updated. So far, the agenda has quietly slipped under the radar. By incrementally incorporating various pilot projects and excluding Mexico from the process, it has managed to avoid the controversy of past initiatives. The perimeter security deal is being sold as vital to improving the flow of trade and travel across the border. In order to appease U.S. fears, Canada has made numerous concessions with no guarantees that it will lessen border restrictions. As part of a North American security perimeter, Canada will always be at the mercy of any new U.S. security measures, regardless of the dangers they may pose to privacy and civil liberties.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact:

Global Research

The Target Date for America’s Depopulation Has Been Set

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

The Internet is filled with revelations of how the global elite want to depopulate humanity by 90%. Landmarks such as the Georgia Guidestones are at the top of the evidence list for proof of this agenda. There is an emerging body of evidence that the Georgia Guidestones are a correct representation of this idea.

Thanks to Ted Turner for making it clear what the globalists truly desire.

Thanks to Ted Turner for making it clear what the globalists truly desire.

Where ever you find a bold new initiative related to the plans of the global elite, you will find documentation arising from various think tank organizations in support of these goals. With regard to the coming forced subjugation of the American population to the “stack and pack” megacities, two important papers, the 3-D: Infrastructure for California’s Future and the National Academy of Public Administration’s Memos to National Leaders: Partnerships as Fiscal Policy, jump to the front of the line in espousing the megacities concept. On August 27, 2014, I exposed the megacities concept in revealing something called the America 2050 plan.

The enslavement of America  has taken center stage and it is indeed called “America 2050“. The plan for America 2050 is to herd Americans into 11 megacities consisting of six million people each totaling 66 million people. Under this plan, there are no provisions for any other population developments. After reporting in the August 27, 2014 article, I thought the target date for the implementation of the megacities plan would be the year 2050 as indicated in the title of the organization which is behind the planning of this concept (the article can read here).

316,000,000 million Americans will change to 66,000,000 megacity dwellers which equals

250,000,000 missing Americans!

Eleven Megacities will house 6 million Americans each in densely populated Agenda 21 settlements.

Eleven Megacities will house 6 million Americans each in densely populated Agenda 21 settlements.


It appears that the timetable for the implementation of the megacities concept and the 300 square foot stack and pack apartments is a lot closer that the year 2050.

If a front group for the CIA, Deagel, is correct, we are about a decade away from this hellish nightmare.



Just who is Deagle? The power and influence of the corporation that you never heard of, is staggering.  This is the modern day Zapata Oil, which was a CIA front corporation run by George H. W. Bush which in turn facilitated much of the Air America “drugs for guns” program in Latin America in the 1980’s.

My sources tell me that Deagel is the same exact kind of organization as Zapata Oil. Deagel ran guns through the Ambassador Chris Stevens and subsequently delivered them to  al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria at the time of Stevens death. Deagel was intimately involved in Benghazi in ways that will be revealed in a later article. Deagel is not just a gun running/drug running/child sex trafficking organization, they are also  intimately connected with the business as “Open source intelligence links”. This means that Deagel and their partner (affiliations listed below) serve as marketing companies for the CIA and sell intelligence information to the highest bidder. Stratfor and Deagel provide the CIA with a minimum of two degrees of separation from nefarious operations which could taint the U.S. government and in particular, the CIA. These activities will be the topic of a future article. The focus of the remainder of this is article is the destruction and depopulation of the United States.

Deagel is a group that gets their hands dirty and they play both sides of the fence. Please note the publicly available list of Deagel partners, listed below. They do business with the Russian Defense Procurement Agency, but they are largely an American contractor with ties into the U.S. Navy, the NSA and the CIA, through Stratfor. If anyone wanted to make the case that I have, the “Bastard Banksters from Basel” control both sides of the coming WW III for fun and profit, the data trail of Deagel exemplifies this point. From the following information, we get a strong indication of how the U.S. is going to be depopulated. To further examine this possibility, take a look at a partial list of Deagel partners. The following list clearly shows that Deagel is “locked in” when it comes to the power centers on this planet.

A Partial List of Deagel Partners 

Year:  2013

Population:  316 million

Gross Domestic Product: $17 trillion

GDP per capita: $52,838

Budget: $5.8 trillion

Military Budget: $726 billion

Forecast 2025

Population: 69 million

Gross Domestic Product: $921 billion

GDP per capita: $13,328

Military Budget:  $8.0 billion

 Please note the how the changes in U.S. population covering an 11 year period mirror what I wrote in the America 2050 article. The projected and dramatic downward shift in America’s population are nearly identical when one compares the America 2050 documents and the Deagel projections.
There is a another striking projection which should alarm every American. In 2013, the U.S. military budget was $726 billion dollars. However, the projected 2025 projected budget is only $8 billion dollars.  This clearly points to the fact that the CIA, through Deagel, is projecting that the United States is going to be militarily conquered within the next 10 years. The mere $8 billion dollar projected 2025 military budget speaks to a domestic martial law type of occupation force. With this kind of budget, the U.S. would not even be able to engage in regional conflicts.

Who Is Going to Win WW III?

 america destroyed america destroyed

The Deagel documents clearly speak to who the winners and losers of the coming global conflict will be.  In the Deagel document, Russia,China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and India maintain their respective populations or increase their populations by the year. The United States and Britain undergo severe population reductions. 

Common sense dictates that in a global conflict, with its advanced weaponry, that the U.S. would be able to devastate the populations of the aforementioned countries. However, the Deagel projections do not indicate this. Therefore, the only thing that makes any sense would be that the U.S. will fall victim to being sold out by treasonous leadership, thus precipitating its demise. Does this statement bring anyone to mind?

The Method of America’s Demise

With everything I have uncovered over the past two years, I have concluded that America will be thrust into martial law prior to fighting in WW III.  I think it is possible to read between the lines of these reports and conclude that we are speaking about the use of nuclear weapons against the American people. Pathogens such as Ebola may push the U.S. into a state of martial law, but a pandemic will not be part of the final equation, for it were, then we would see sizable increases in the  death curve of the BRICS nations and we see just the opposite. Only the United States and its close allies are going to fall victim, at least in the near-term for depopulation.

I am in the process of receiving new information and will make this public once this is available.

The Common Sense Show

Why I Will Not Submit To Medical Martial Law

by Brandon Smith

bio-warfare soldiers

One of the most dangerous philosophical contentions even amongst liberty movement activists is the conundrum of government force and prevention during times of imminent pandemic. All of us at one time or another have had this debate. If a legitimate viral threat existed and threatened to infect and kill millions of Americans, is it then acceptable for the government to step in, remove civil liberties, enforce quarantines, and stop people from spreading the disease? After all, during a viral event, the decisions of each individual can truly have a positive or negative effect on the rest of society, right? One out of control (or “lone wolf”) citizen/terrorist could reignite a biological firestorm, so, should we not turn to government and forgo certain freedoms in order to achieve the greater good for the greater number?

If the government in question was a proven and honorable institution, then I would say pro-Medical Martial Law arguments might have a leg to stand on. However, this is not the case. In my view, medical martial law is absolutely unacceptable under ANY circumstances, including Ebola, in light of the fact that our current government will be the predominant cause of viral outbreak. That is to say, you DO NOT turn to the government for help when the government is the cause of the problem.

The recent rise of global Ebola is slowly bringing the issue of medical martial law to the forefront of our culture. Charles Krauthammer at The Washington Post recently argued in favor of possible restrictions on individual and Constitutional liberties in the face of a viral pandemic threat.

The CDC now argues that in the case of people who may be potential carriers, or even in the case of people who refuse to undergo screenings, it has the legal authority to dissolve all constitutional protections and essentially imprison (quarantine) an American citizen for as long as they see fit to do so.

The Obama Administration is now using militant terminology in reference to Ebola response, including the formation of “Ebola SWAT Teams” for quick reaction to potential outbreak areas.

In typical socialist fashion, the nurses union ‘National Nurses United’ has called for Barack Obama to use “executive authority” to take control of all Ebola response protocols in hospitals across the country. Yet another perpetuation of the myth that more government power is the solution.

And finally, the Department of Defense has been tasked to create a military controlled “quick-strike team” to deal with Ebola within U.S. borders. This team will be under the command of none other than Northcom, apparently trampling the Posse Comitatus Act and setting the stage for the rationalized use of military personnel against U.S. citizens under the guise of pandemic prevention.

It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that medical martial law is being quietly prepared, and that the threat of such measures is not a paranoid conspiracy, but a very real possibility. It should also be noted that such provisions are not only the products of the Obama Administration. It was George W. Bush who first created laws intersecting with the World Health Organization’s pandemic preparedness planning. These laws include the “overrule of existing legislation or (individual) human rights” in order to quell a viral outbreak, and were originally drafted around the potential of an influenza crisis.

It is this kind of executive overreach that has set precedence for states such as Connecticut to announce a tentative state of emergency with medical martial law restrictions.

I discussed in great detail why Ebola works in favor of establishment elites in my article ‘An Ebola Outbreak Would Be Advantageous For Globalists’.

Understand that bureaucrats will come to you with promises of offering a helping hand, hoping that you are afraid enough to accept, but their intentions will not be compassionate. Rather, their intent will be to assert as much dominance over the public as possible during the chaos, and to erase any conception the people may have had in the past that they have inalienable rights.

But going beyond the hidden motives of tyrants, I think it is important to point out that the Center for Disease Control and the federal government in general has already lost all credibility in dealing with Ebola, and therefore, it has lost any authority it may have had in administrating a future response.

Ebola has been officially known to the CDC for over thirty years. Why has the CDC refused for three decades to produce proper care guidelines for hospitals? Medical staff in the U.S. didn’t even receive guidelines when the outbreak in Western Africa was obviously progressing out of control.

Why did the CDC leave Thomas Duncan, the very first U.S. Ebola case, in the hands of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, without proper procedures in place to prevent further infection, and without a CDC team present? The CDC has an annual budget of nearly $7 billion. Where is all of this money going if not to stamp out such threats as Ebola?

The argument presented by the White House, the CDC, and even the World Bank, has been that stopping direct or indirect travel from nations with an Ebola outbreak would be “impractical”, and that such travel bans would somehow “make matters worse”. They have yet to produce a logical explanation as to how this makes sense, but what if we did not need to institute a travel ban? The CDC, with it’s massive budget, could easily establish quarantine measures in infected countries. Anyone wishing to travel outside of these nations would be welcome to do so, as long as they voluntarily participate in quarantine procedures for a set number of days. No quarantine, no plane ticket. Where has the CDC response been in Western Africa?

Why not use minor and measured travel restriction in Africa today, instead of using unprecedented martial law in America tomorrow? It makes no sense, unless, of course, the plan is to allow Ebola to spread…

Why has the White House nominated Ron Klain, a man who knows absolutely NOTHING about Ebola or medical emergency strategies, as the new “Ebola Czar”?

Why has all discussion on Ebola prevention revolved around government measures rather than community measures?  Why has all talk centered on what the government will do AFTER an outbreak occurs, rather than on what can be done to prevent an outbreak in the first place?

The reality is that the federal government does not have any treatments for Ebola that are outside of the knowledge and capabilities of the average medically trained citizen. Meaning, the government and the CDC are NOT needed for a community to handle an Ebola outbreak, if that community is given proper guidelines and strategies in advance. Treatment for Ebola, at least in first world nations, consists primarily of regimented transfusions. These transfusions are a mixture of isotonic saline, electrolytes, and plasma, designed to keep the body supported until it’s immune system can build up a proper defense to the virus. Natural and homeopathic methods can also boost immune system functions making the body resistant to the virus before it is ever contracted. The most effective of all treatments appears to be the transfusion of blood from a recovering patient with anti-bodies into a newly sick patient. This is likely the reason for the quick recovery of infected doctors like Kent Brantly.

The CDC would never be able to coherently organize a large scale program of transfusion initiatives, even if it wanted to. Most hospitals around the country have no isolation wards able to handle even a minor Ebola outbreak. The hospitals that do have facilities are limited to less than a dozen beds. According to the medical workers I have spoken with, most hospitals require a minimum of around 50 health professionals to deal with a single Ebola patient.  In the event of an outbreak larger than a few people per state, the CDC and local hospitals are simply not equipped to react to the problem.  Blood transfusions from recovering donors would be few and far between, unless organized by local citizens working under their own directives.

Ironically, it was the Bush Administration’s own report in 2006 on the possibility of bird flu pandemic that admitted the government is completely unequipped to handle an outbreak of moderate size. The report stated that “all sources of external aid may be compromised during a pandemic,” and that “local communities will have to address the medical and non-medical effects of the pandemic with available resources.” Little has changed in the federal government’s pandemic preparations since the report was written.

This leaves individual communities to either prepare for the worst, or die off while waiting for the government to save them. Self isolation and self treatment are the only practical options.

The greatest danger to American citizens is, in fact, not the Ebola virus, but government reactions to the Ebola virus. Already, several medical outfits around the world are suddenly interested in producing an Ebola vaccination when no one seemed very interested before. This might sound like good news, until you learn the terrible history of modern vaccinations.

Pharmaceutical company Merck was caught red handed faking vaccine efficacy data. Merck’s Gardisil was found to contain DNA fragments of human papillomavirus.

Glaxosmithkline, a major vaccine producer, has been caught repeatedly attempting to bribe doctors and health professionals into promoting their products or outright lying about their effectiveness. Glaxo was caught producing rotavirus vaccinations tainted with a swine virus in 2010. Glaxo has been caught producing vaccines tainted with bacteria and endotoxins.

It is important to point out that Glaxo is also spearheading an Ebola vaccine initiative.

U.S. company Baxter produced a flu vaccination in Austria tainted with both avian flu and swine flu. The mixture just happened to be randomly tested on a group of ferrets by a lab in the Czech Republic. The test animals died. The exposure of this “mix up” was quietly swept under the rug by Baxter and the mainstream media, but reports indicate that if the vaccine had been used on the general population, a terrible pandemic would have erupted.

Beyond the fact that vaccinations have a tendency to cripple our natural immune system and infect patients with the very disease they are meant to prevent, none of these existing companies can be trusted to produce a vaccine that is safe even by traditional pharmaceutical standards (which are very low). If the CDC and the federal government trigger a medical martial law scenario, they will most likely include forced vaccination of the population to maintain “herd immunity”. The bottom line? The use of such vaccines will be a death sentence for many, a death more certain than the contraction of Ebola. In my opinion, Ebola vaccination should be avoided at all costs by the American populace.

I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, or states. DHS and FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are also a no go, given FEMA’s track record of dismal disaster response. They CANNOT be allowed to take control of our communities.

The only way for Americans to survive such an event is to cut out government entirely and establish their own medical strategies, as organizations like the Oath Keepers Community Preparedness Teams (CPT) are doing.

If someone wants to voluntarily go to the CDC or FEMA for assistance, then they should be allowed to take that risk. However, medical martial law over all of us in the name of the “greater good” should not be tolerated. The government has proven beyond a doubt that it is not qualified to handle a viral crisis scenario, let alone determine what the “greater good” actually is. I can’t speak for the whole of the Liberty Movement, but as for myself, if a group of hazmat suited thugs decides to chase me down with a syringe, I am relatively certain none of them will live through the encounter.

Will I be accused of aiding the spread of Ebola because of my non-compliance? Of course. Do I care? Not so much. Each individual American will have to make their own decision on this matter in due course. Is it better to conform and risk annihilation at the hands of an ignorant and/or corrupt government, or, to fight back and be labeled a bio-terrorist? With the clear lack of tangible government preventions for outbreak in the U.S., you’ll probably get your chance to find out soon enough.


Who Will Control Your Internet?

The New American
by William F. Jasper

internet control

In late September and early October of this year, huge demonstrations broke out in Hong Kong. The protesters were outraged by the decision of Communist Party leaders on the mainland to stack the deck for elections to Hong Kong’s chief executive post with pro-Beijing lackeys. Day after day, as the “umbrella revolution” in Hong Kong swelled from thousands to hundreds of thousands, China’s infamous “Great Firewall” effectively prevented most Chinese from even learning about the Hong Kong protests. China’s army of Internet censors, ably assisted by software and hardware from Western companies, worked furiously to block and scrub stories, images, and comments about the demonstrations from news sites, blogs, social media, and search engines.

Beginning on October 1, the propaganda organs of the People’s Republic began flooding China’s media — including the regime’s controlled Internet sites and social media — with stories extolling patriotism and images of parades and other events celebrating National Day, the PRC’s great communist holiday. When coverage of Hong Kong finally did appear on mainland television and Internet, it was to falsely present the largely peaceful demonstrations as violent and lawless. The man-on-the-street interviews presented by the Party-controlled media, not surprisingly, presented comments that universally condemned the Hong Kong protests and unanimously supported the “democracy” willed by the party leaders.

But the rigid control exercised by Communist China over the Internet does not merely encompass censorship of truths that the regime finds inconvenient. It also entails tracking down those who dare to dissent from the party line in cyberspace.

“A friend of mine recently tried to access some politically sensitive websites while at an Internet café in a remote, small city in Xinjiang Province,” recounted human rights activist Harry Wu, in Congressional testimony in 2006. “The police quickly showed up to arrest him.” They had been able to track down his friend thanks to the “Golden Shield” program, an integral part of China’s Great Firewall for Orwellian control of the Internet. Wu, who spent 19 years in China’s labor camps, explained that Golden Shield has been built with indispensable assistance from U.S.-based companies. “The project will help prolong Communist rule by denying China’s people the right to information,” Wu testified. “In order to develop the ‘Golden Shield,’ China has utilized the technologies of a number of foreign companies, such as Intel, Yahoo, Nortel, Cisco Systems, Motorola, and Sun Microsystems. The ‘Golden Shield Project’ would not have been possible without the technology and equipment from these companies.” Communist China may be infamous for its Golden Shield and its Great Firewall, but it is far from alone in using draconian police powers to troll, patrol, and censor the Internet. The member states of the United Nations comprise a den of thugs and thieves with atrocious human rights records. Even the governments we are accustomed to deeming more “enlightened” — such as those of the United States and Western Europe — have been revealed, by recent leaks and admissions, to be more than willing to trample the rights of netizens. The National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Defense, FBI, IRS, and other agencies have shown that they have already opened the door for tyrannical abuse of their awesome capabilities to monitor virtually every word and action of every American — not to mention the billions of other human inhabitants of our planet.

Who will control the Internet — and all of our personal and business data, communications, and activities that stream through it? The United Nations? The U.S. government? Multinational corporations? A hybrid consortium of governments, non-governmental organizations, UN agencies, and corporations?

Those were the important questions under discussion and negotiation at the recently concluded Ninth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which took place September 1-5 in Istanbul, Turkey. Considering the magnitude of the issues involved — privacy, surveillance, cybercrime, national security, intellectual property rights, not to mention trillions of dollars in commerce — the UN-sponsored IGF summit received remarkably little coverage from the mainstream media. A Plenipotentiary Conference of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is taking place in Busan, South Korea, during the last week of October and the first week of November.

It was the ITU’s World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 (WCIT-12) in Dubai that touched off a worldwide reaction against the UN grab for control over the Internet.

China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and other repressive regimes that already drastically censor and restrict Internet usage, while at the same time using cyberpolice to track and arrest dissidents, have been demanding that control over the Internet be “internationalized” under some sort of multilateral UN apparatus that would give governments Beijing-style controls globally. When the secret text of the ITU’s proposed Dubai “reforms” leaked out in 2012, it was clear that it reflected these statist influences.

On September 22, 2012, the U.S. Senate, in a rare show of unity, by unanimous consent passed a resolution introduced by Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calling on the U.S. government to oppose United Nations control of the Internet. The U.S. House of Representatives, likewise, approved the same resolution by a 397-0 vote.

Other “stakeholders” — NGOs, corporations, think tanks, and Western governments — have been pushing for a “multistakeholder” mixed form of “global governance” for the Internet that appears, on the surface at least, to be a better alternative. But as is so often the case, surface appearances can be misleading.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration has already begun transferring stewardship of the Internet to a nebulous and evolving multistakeholder system that may prove little different from the UN’s multilateral model. Despite repeated pledges by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other administration spokesmen of commitment to openness, transparency, privacy rights, and freedom of expression on the Internet, the reality is that the administration is moving toward more censorship, surveillance, and repression on the Internet.

On March 14, the Obama administration announced that in October 2015 the United States will relinquish all remaining control over the “root” of the Internet to an obscure, non-profit organization. That group, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), promises to create a new structure that will keep the Internet private, safe, and robust. From the start of the Internet in the early 1990s, a computer genius named Jon Postel managed the Internet from his office at the Information Sciences Institute at the University of Southern California, under the name Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA). When Postel died suddenly in 1998 at age 55, his responsibilities were transferred to ICANN under the control of the Department of Commerce (DoC). But the contract under which ICANN has been operating ends in September 2015, after which ICANN will operate on its own. According to Larry Strickling, the head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) inside the DoC, the new ICANN management will not lead to control by the UN or any other international government agency. “I want to make clear,” said Strickling, “that we will not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental solution.”

However, these and other assurances notwithstanding, there is more than ample cause for the freedom-minded to be concerned about the administration’s Internet policy. On October 1, 2011, President Obama signed the global Internet treaty known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which, among other things, sets up international governing and adjudicating bodies and would allow foreign companies to demand that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) remove web content in the United States without any legal oversight. Typical of his modus operandi, President Obama has attempted to implement this treaty as an executive agreement, in clear violation of our Constitution’s requirement of congressional approval. In addition to ACTA, the Obama White House has also been simultaneously championing the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House of Representatives and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) in the Senate, both of which contain dangerous ACTA-style censorship and control provisions. Then, of course, there is Presidential Policy Directive 20 (PPD 20), which was secretly implemented by President Obama in October 2012, ostensibly as a security directive against cyberattacks. The American people didn’t find out about it until June 2013, when PPD 20 was leaked by Edward Snowden.

But the threat to freedom in cyberspace does not emanate only from the Obama White House and the United Nations. As with virtually every other effort to expand “global governance” over some vital aspect of our lives — energy, air, fresh water, oceans, forests, firearms, education, medicine — there is the usual convergence of socialist, communist, and authoritarian regimes with globalist think tanks, multinational corporations, and tax-exempt foundations, all aiming to centralize control over the Internet. Specifically, leading the charge in this push for control are the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), also known as Pratt House, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Trilateral Commission, and the Ford, Rockefeller, and Soros Foundations.

In an essay entitled “The Strategic Significance of the Internet Commons,” former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff describes cyberspace and the Internet as a “global commons” that must come under “global governance.” The article by Chertoff (a Trilateral Commission member) was published in the Summer 2014 issue of Strategic Studies Quarterly, a journal published by the Air Force Research Institute. In it, Chertoff writes:


Cyberspace, much like the high seas, air, outer space, and Antarctica should be viewed as the newest global commons…. Cyberspace is a strategic resource that is essential to today’s global economy yet poses unprecedented risk and vulnerability. Like the development of global governance for the high seas and outer space, cyberspace needs global governance that preserves its freedom and openness while strengthening its security to protect the shared economic and utility value of all nations.


Chertoff & Chatham

Former DHS Secretary Chertoff (who now heads the high-powered Chertoff Group consultancy) is especially fond of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), citing it several times as the model for dealing with the cyberspace global commons. This is revealing, inasmuch as LOST has been a cauldron of controversy for decades, since it would: a) challenge the sovereignty of our inland and coastal waters; b) give the UN pretended legal authority over “all ocean space”; c) give the UN a huge constant revenue stream from seabed mineral rights and sea lane taxes; d) subject our naval operations to UN interference; and much more.

Chertoff seems to speak with authority on this subject by virtue of the fact that he sits on the impressive-sounding Global Commission on Internet Governance. Sounds very official and important, right? So it might be fair to ask who commissioned this commission.

According to a press release from Chatham House on January 22 of this year:


Carl Bildt, Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, will chair a new Global Commission on Internet Governance, launched by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House).


The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the British cabal of globalists who serve as the de facto governing class of the U.K., in much the same manner that its New York-based sister house, the Council on Foreign Relations, operates here in the United States.

Bildt serves on the International Advisory Board of the CFR. Another CFR luminary serving on the new Global Commission on Internet Governance is Nobel Prize-winning economist Michael Spence, author of The Next Convergence. And another is Joseph Nye, professor and former dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, former chair of the National Intelligence Council, current executive director at the CFR, and current North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission. As we’ve already noted, Chertoff is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a very rarified group of one-worlders organized by David Rockefeller (former chairman of the board and current honorary chairman of the CFR, as well as founder and current honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission). The CFR, RIIA, and Trilateral Commission form the top tier of globalist think tanks promoting world government. Notable allied outfits in this effort include the Brookings Institution, Aspen Institute, Peterson Institute, Club of Rome, Club of Madrid, Rand Corporation (of which Bildt is also a trustee), and a host of the big foundations, such as Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Gates, Soros, Hewlett, et al.

Not surprisingly, Chertoff’s views concerning Internet governance fit nicely with his un-American views of “homeland security.” In 2012, he co-chaired the Aspen Institute’s Homeland Security Group, which produced a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission.” As to be expected, the Chertoff-led Aspen report advocated for evolution in the direction of centralized, nationalized control of police functions. That is always a given, for in the CFR-RIIA worldview, power — political and economic — must always “evolve” (with plenty of helpful pushes, shoves, and brow beatings by the CFR thought cartel) toward more concentrated and centralized power, first by breaking down checks and balances and transferring authority from the local to the national level, and then from the national to the regional and global levels.

Chertoff is getting an assist in this effort from former CIA Director General Michael Hayden, a CFR member, who is a principal of the Chertoff Group. General Hayden served as a member of the CFR’s Advisory Committee that helped produce the Council Special Report No. 56 entitled “Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity.” The report was a project of the CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance program, an ongoing project that is ever pushing for more centralized, concentrated global government.


Globalists, Socialists Unite

Among the many other key CFR hands in the Internet governance game are Senator John D. “Jay” Rockefeller and technology/investment guru Esther Dyson. Rockefeller is enthusiastic over the internationalizing of the Internet, stating,


Since 1998 the U.S. has been committed to transitioning management of the Internet’s domain name system to an independent entity that reflects the broad diversity of the global Internet community. This is the next phase in this transition.


Esther Dyson served, along with General Hayden, on the Advisory Committee that produced the above-mentioned CFR report. But Dyson’s role goes much deeper — she was the founding chairwoman of ICANN when it was established in 1998 to take over the Internet domain roots. And although she often is described as “an entrepreneur and philanthropist,” like many of her fellow global corporatist elites, she has an affinity for authoritarian (and totalitarian) regimes. Dyson, for instance, is a major investor in Russian tech companies and a big promoter of Skolkovo, Russia’s effort to build a competitor to America’s Silicon Valley.

We reported on Dyson’s infatuation with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin’s sock puppet, in an August 5, 2010 article entitled “‘Breathing Pixie Dust’ Investing in Russia”:


“Maybe I’m breathing the same pixie dust, but there’s real momentum for this,” says Esther Dyson, in a June 25 online article for Foreign Policy magazine reporting on Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to California’s Silicon Valley. Dyson, a globally celebrated technology guru, is a major promoter of Skolkovo, the ambitious project near Moscow that Kremlin leaders intend to make into a high-tech research and production center.

A one-time member of the Skolkovo advisory board, Dyson is the founder of EDventure holdings, which has invested heavily in Russian start-up companies. She sits on the advisory board of AmBAR, the American Business Association of Russian-speaking Professionals, which organized a major summit of American venture capital investors in Russia this past May. Dyson and AmBAR also were involved in facilitating Medvedev’s tech-shopping trip to the United States in June.


We also noted in the same article that Dyson had been appointed to the Presidential IT Advisory Council of Bulgaria, by Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov, who, like Putin and so many “former” communists now in power in central and eastern Europe, is a veteran “Chekist,” a member of the secret police. But CFR/RIIA globalists such as Bildt, Dyson, Hayden, Rockefeller, et al., have never had a problem consorting with tyrants.

It is worth noting that the venue chosen by the RIIA for its press release announcing the launch of the Global Commission on Internet Governance was the 2014 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. WEF/Davos is that annual glamorous soirée of globalist billionaires, bankers, butchers, dictators, politicians, and academics where the CFR-RIIA elites of the capitalist world hobnob and network with their communist and socialist counterparts. Thus the subsequent explosion of activity and prop­aganda in favor of “global governance” for the Internet.

The timing of the RIIA announcement at the WEF was not accidental. The organized one-worlders targeted 2014 as the critical  year to advance their agenda to seize the Internet with the NETmundial conference in Brazil in March, the IGF summit in Istanbul in September, and the ITU conference in South Korea in October-November.

At the Istanbul summit, the WEF proposed that its elite “grass tops” membership is the perfect partner for the “grassroots” activist organizations supporting an open, transparent, freedom-promoting Internet. It is noteworthy that “grass tops” is a term the WEF has adopted to describe the cozy relationship that its uber-rich elites enjoy with the street activists.

Alan Marcus, head of IT and telecommunications industries at the World Economic Forum, told IGF participants that the WEF-ICANN NETmundial initiative is intended to “bring our ‘grass tops’ community to the issues of internet governance,” and “bring their resources and identifying solutions and convening coalitions around those solutions to move some of our collective challenges forward.”

Of course, many of the so-called grassroots groups attending the IGF summit are actually “AstroTurf” organizations that already are financial beneficiaries of the WEF “resources” to which Marcus made reference. The WEF is based in Geneva, Switzerland, which makes for easy collaboration between its grasstops members and the multitude of UN agencies headquartered in that city, including the International Telecommunications Union.

The September IGF confab in Istanbul was noteworthy on several other accounts, not the least of which is the irony (or mockery) in selecting Turkey for the venue. After all, the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, embroiled in one scandal after another, has resorted to extreme repressive measures to prevent exposure of its corruption via the Internet and social media. Turkey’s notorious Law No. 5651 on the Struggle Against the Crimes Committed on the Internet has been used to block YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, Blogger, and, reportedly, thousands of other websites. According to the liberal-left Freedom House, the government of Turkey also is “the world’s leading jailer of journalists.”

But the despot pedigree of the IGF conference didn’t begin and end merely with the host country. Befitting an event sponsored by the UN, the Istanbul Internet Governance Forum was presided over by Wu Hongbo, under-secretary-general of the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Comrade Hongbo, besides representing the UN, ultimately answers to his real bosses in Beijing, the leaders of the Communist Party of China. The communist Beijing regime, of course, is notorious for brutal repression of all human rights, including rigid censorship and aggressive policing of the Internet. Under-Secretary-General Hongbo issued the UN’s official invitation for the IGF confab “on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations,” Ban Ki-moon.

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

In addition, there is the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms, which has had a huge hand in forming the agenda for the IGF. Among its members is Liu Qingfeng, director of the National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China.

Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin had their representatives at the IGF/Istanbul as well. One of them was Robert Aleksandrovich Schlegel, a member of Russia’s State Duma, where he is deputy chairperson of the Committee on Physical Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. Schlegel is also a spokesman for the Russian Internet Governance Forum, where his official bio unabashedly admits (or perhaps boasts) that he was press director of the “Nashi” movement, Putin’s version of the Hitler Youth.

So, American taxpayers should be happy to know that Secretary of State John Kerry (CFR) was so impressed with the potential of this conference that he allocated $350,000 to the IGF to boost their “reform” effort.

“As part of the United States efforts to ensure a continued open, interoperable, and secure Internet through global, multistakeholder participation, the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs is providing $350,000 as a one-time contribution for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from its 2012 International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) budget,” the Department said in a press release.

Lest one may think that the Istanbul IGF conference was a one-off, unique affair, as far as providing a venue that is unfriendly to freedom is concerned, consider the 2012 IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan, hosted by the ultra-repressive regime of Ilham Aliyev. Aliyev inherited his position as “president” from his father, Heydar Aliyev, the KGB chief and Communist Party dictator of Azerbaijan under the old Soviet Union.


Socialist International

Unfortunately, Schlegel, Hongbo, Xiaodong, and others of similar ilk are not rare outliers; they are representative of the prevailing makeup of the UN, the IGF, and the Internet governance “reform” effort. One of the most ominous signals that this UN-led effort is fatally tilted against freedom is the dominance of the process by leaders of the Socialist International, which traces its lineage to the First International founded by Karl Marx.

The Socialist International (SI) is a massive, globe-straddling organization of 168 political parties and organizations from all continents, including 60 member parties that currently are running national governments. Its members are completely at home inside the United Nations and are comfortable collaborating with representatives of communist regimes. In fact, many Communist Parties of the former Soviet bloc have simply renamed themselves (as socialists or democrats) and are now member parties of the SI. Speakers at Socialist International confabs address each other as “comrade,” and the SI still maintains the old Soviet organizational structure, governed at the top by a “Presidium.”

Prominent SI members have dominated many of the UN’s agencies, departments, commissions, and conferences for decades. Currently, former Swedish Foreign Minister Jan Eliasson serves as deputy secretary-general at the UN, second only to Ban Ki-moon in the organization’s hierarchy. Eliasson is a member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party, which is a member party of the Party of European Socialists (PES) and the Socialist International.

Estonian President Toomas Ilves serves as chairman of the aforementioned High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms. His Estonian Social Democratic Party is a member party of SI, and when Ilves served as a member of the European Parliament, he sat with the Party of European Socialists group. Also on the Panel is Thorbjørn Jagland, former Norwegian prime minister and leader of the Norwegian Labour Party, an SI member party.

The most significant person in the SI orbit regarding “global governance” of the Internet may be High-Level Panel member Nitin Desai. A former UN under-secretary-general and former secretary-general of the UN’s World Summit for Sustainable Development, Desai has been in the forefront of the globalist effort to place the Internet under “international” control. Desai, who was appointed in 2004 by the UN secretary-general to chair the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), has been an active participant in many SI activities. During the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit on sustainable development, Desai penned an op-ed attacking the United States for failing to jump on board the UN’s global-warming bandwagon. “The American way of life — and, for that matter, the way of life everywhere — has to be up for negotiation,” opined Desai. “This is because climate change is the mother of all externalities — global, long-term and potentially catastrophic in its impact.”

Other high-level Socialist International agents within the UN system include former Irish President Mary Robinson and former prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. Robinson, who was previously appointed UN high commissioner for human rights (1997-2002), now serves as UN special envoy for climate change. Brundtland, a former SI vice president and former director general of the UN World Health Organization, now, along with Robinson, also draws a lucrative salary as UN special envoy for climate change.

The Socialist International’s many hands are especially evident in the hijacking of Internet “reform” in the service of “sustainable development,” that favorite all-purpose term the United Nations finds ever useful in its efforts to usurp new powers. In 2003, the UN’s World Summit on the Information Society declared its challenge “to harness the potential of information and communication technology (ICT) to promote the development goals of the Millennium Declaration.” Those Millennium Development Goals have been the centerpiece of the UN’s plan for global wealth redistribution for the past decade-and-a-half. Naturally, the high-flying, high-living UN plutocrats intend for the dwindling middle classes of the United States and Europe to foot the bill for this trickle-down program, which, incidentally, will never result in any appreciable level of aid actually trickling down to those genuinely in need.

Despite the continuing rhetoric from the Obama administration and many of the leading advocates of the new “multistakeholder governance” system, the entire future of the Internet has been put in jeopardy. Very clearly, many of the top globalists in our government, the corporate world, and the think tank/foundation world are, for the most part (if not entirely), comfortable with the authoritarian/totalitarian regimes that use the Internet to enforce Orwellian conformity and tyranny. That means that actions taken by netizens to influence Congress in the next weeks and months may well determine whether cyberspace will continue to offer a window of freedom for communication and expression, or whether it will become the new tax and surveillance arm of Global Big Brother.

The New American

UN Calls for National Water “Affordability Standard” in America

The New American
by Alex Newman


As more than one billion people oppressed under United Nations member regimes struggle to live on less than $1 a day, the UN’s “human rights” brigades visited Detroit this week — where the average welfare benefits amount to almost $30,000 per year — to call for a national “affordability standard” for water. According to the planetary human-rights bureaucrats, the taxpayers and the bankrupt city government must continue to provide water even for residents who have not paid their bill in months because apparently free water services are now among the “most basic human rights.”

The UN delegation to Detroit included two operatives with bombastic titles: “Special Rapporteur on the human right to water and sanitation” Catarina de Albuquerque, and Leilani Farha, dubbed “the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing.” In a press release posted on the dictator-dominated organization’s website, the duo “expressed concern” over the water shut-offs that have been taking place in Detroit as city officials seek to collect on seriously delinquent accounts. The two had previously called for “international law” to be enforced amid what they said was a violation of the UN’s bizarre notions of “human rights.”

“It is contrary to human rights to disconnect water from people who simply do not have the means to pay their bills,” said de Albuquerque in the UN press release following the two-day propaganda visit to Detroit, apparently unaware that a recent study revealed average state and federal welfare benefits in Michigan pay $28,872 per year. “I heard testimonies from poor, African American residents of Detroit who were forced to make impossible choices — to pay the water bill or to pay their rent.”

The average rent in Detroit is about $800, which, for somebody bringing in more than $80 per day based on average welfare benefits, should leave about $20,000 per year to pay water bills and other expenses — if they live alone. According to the Detroit Free Press, the average water bill in the city comes to about $65 per month, or less than $800 every year. In other words, average water bills and rents combined should cost around $10,000 per year, leaving an average welfare recipient with more than $18,000 left to spend. Gallup data suggests that $18,000 is about twice the median household income worldwide. 

Apparently that is not enough for the UN’s dictator-dominated human rights bureaucracy, which was disbanded some years ago after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was elected by UN member regimes to lead it. Today, the self-styled UN “Human Rights Council” includes such paragons of human rights as the communist regimes ruling Cuba and China, among others. The Saudi monarchy, which literally beheads “apostates,” serves on the council, too. It also recently added the regime ruling El Salvador, headed by a “former” communist mass-murderer who led a bloody Castro-backed campaign to overthrow the former government.  

Instead of dealing with real human-rights abuses, however, the UN body has increasingly stepped up its attacks on America and other civilized nations for protecting liberty, having low taxes, stay-at-home moms, and more. For instance, in recent years, the UN body has lashed out at the United States for its protections of the right to keep and bear arms, parental rights, the right to a fair trial, state sovereignty, self-defense rights, and much more. The U.S. Constitution and the American system of government have also been placed openly in UN crosshairs.

As if to drive home the UN’s ignorance of — or hostility toward — the U.S. system of limited government and federalism, “Special Rapporteur” de Albuquerque made a series of outlandish demands that would put the federal government in direct violation of the contract that created it. “First, we suggest that the city of Detroit restores water connections to all residents unable to pay, and also to stop any further disconnections of water in those cases,” she was quoted as saying. “We also urge the city, the state, but also the national government … to adopt a mandatory affordability standard.” Of course, the “national government” has no constitutional authority to create any such standard.

The other UN “special rapporteur,” Farha, played the race card, saying that mostly blacks were affected by the shut-offs (because mostly blacks live in Detroit). “Every effort should be made by all levels of government to ensure that the most vulnerable are not evicted from or lose their housing as a result of water shut-offs or water bill arrears,” decreed Farha. “Where an individual or family is rendered homeless due to water shut-offs, the City of Detroit must have in place emergency services to ensure alternate accommodation with running water is available.”

She also demanded what sounded like a parallel legal system to challenge the municipal water provider’s billing. “If you have a dispute about a bill, you need an administrative remedy to that dispute,” Farha said. “If you want to challenge the affordability of water in the city of Detroit, you need a legal mechanism to do that.” It was not clear under what supposed authority the UN bureaucrats were purporting to issue commands to local, state, and federal authorities in the United States.

Local officials, though, hit back at the UN bureaucrats. Mayor Mike Duggan’s top aide, Alexis Wiley, blasted the UN “review” as one-sided, saying the office was “very disappointed” with the “rapporteurs” and their supposed probe. “They weren’t interested in the facts,” she explained. “They took a position and never once [before Monday] reached out to the city for data.” Indeed, as The New American reported in June, the same UN operatives made virtually the same claims before their “investigation” based on complaints about Detroit by radical Canadian activists submitted to the UN.

According to local officials, currently presiding over the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history, the city shuts off water services to businesses and residents who are either two months past due on their bills or who owe more than $150. It also has a variety of programs to help residents who get behind on their payments, including offering payment plans to delinquent account holders. Among those whose services were disconnected: a city council member, the Joe Louis Arena that hosts the NHL Detroit Red Wings team, and the NFL Detroit Lions’ Ford Field, according to media reports.

While the UN frames the issue as a “human rights violation,” it is important to keep some crucial facts in mind. The latest UN attack on American policies comes amid a concerted global campaign, led by the UN and the globalist establishment, to redefine the very notion of rights. In the United States, as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution make crystal clear, individual rights come from God and cannot be legitimately infringed upon by government. In fact, the Founders pointed out that the whole purpose of government is to protect unalienable rights.

Under the UN’s vision, by contrast, revocable privileges are granted by all-powerful governments, which are permitted to infringe on those pseudo-rights at will. In its “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the UN even states its abhorrent position that what it inaccurately refers to as “rights” are “granted” by governments, not the Creator. The global entity also claims “rights” can be limited “by law,” and that no rights may be “exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” The declaration also claims everyone has “duties” to the “community.”

Rather than freedom from coercion — free speech, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches, and more — the UN admittedly views rights in totalitarian terms, such as the “right” to the fruits of others’ labor. Like communist and socialist dictators worldwide, the UN justifies its existence partly based on the dangerous notion that taxpayer-funded goods and services can be considered “rights” to be enforced by the coercive power of government.

The difference between the visions, of course, is crucial: Real rights are freedom from government coercion; UN “rights” require government coercion. For more evidence of the UN’s view of “human rights,” simply consider the brutal assortment of communist, socialist, Islamist, and mass-murdering tyrants on the UN “Human Rights Council.” Late last year, even the regimes ruling China, Cuba, Vietnam, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Russia — among the worst violators of actual rights on Earth — were appointed to the council.

What Detroit needs is not UN bureaucrats, more welfare, or a redefinition of rights to conform to failed and murderous totalitarian models of the last century. Instead, as countless studies have demonstrated, good government, economic liberty, and protection for unalienable rights produces abundant prosperity for all — that is why the United States, Canada, and Switzerland are among the richest countries on Earth while Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe are the poorest.

For now, the UN “human rights” outfit acknowledged that it has no authority to impose its wild demands. However, if Americans are not careful, that will not always be the case. Rather than continue to play along with the anti-liberty and anti-sovereignty antics of the UN — widely ridiculed as the “dictators’ club,” and for good reason — the U.S. government should defund and withdraw from the outfit immediately.

The New American

Political Manipulations with the Price of Oil

Strategic Culture

The drop in oil prices that began at the same time as Islamic State (IS) attacks in Iraq and Syria is impossible to explain with economic factors. The world has long been used to the fact that the market has reacted to every war in the Middle East, where 47 per cent of the world’s ‘black gold’ reserves are concentrated, with a sharp jump in oil prices. That is what happened during the two wars in the Persian Gulf, and that is also what happened when the Americans began their ‘mission to restore democracy’ in Afghanistan. And speculation about a possible military conflict between the US and Iran was accompanied by the expectation of a jump in oil prices of up to $200 a barrel and higher. At present, everything has turned upside down, but for how long? 

When the IS invaded Iraq in June, stock exchange quotations for oil initially began to rise, increasing from $109 to $115 a barrel between 10 and 19 June, but then the invisible hand of the market suddenly seemed to lose its strength. The Islamic State’s military successes in Syrian and Iraqi theatres of war have been marked by a fall in oil prices to their lowest level since November 2010. Further reductions in the price of a barrel of oil have been recorded with each new wave of military activity in the Middle East. Increased airstrikes on Syrian and Iraqi targets by America’s hastily thrown-together coalition and the influx of information on IS plans to invade Lebanon and Jordan have all led to a drop in the price of ‘black gold’. And at the time of the most intensive US air strikes on IS positions in the Syrian town of Kobani (more than 50 airstrikes were carried out over the course of 48 hours between 15-16 October), the price of a barrel even dropped below the $85 level. 

The theory of a new ‘oil conspiracy’ between the US and Saudi Arabia against Russia (and possibly Iran) has a strong hold on the minds of many analysts. For the time being, this predominantly involves guesswork. But then the whole point with conspiracies is that they are difficult to uncover, if the conspiracy is in fact true. On the whole, the anti-Russian focus of possible American-Saudi Arabian speculation on falling oil quotations is noticeable. It must also be remembered, however, that right now, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama’s team is not only knocking together a new military coalition and supplying the American military-industrial complex with orders, it is also preparing for midterm elections to Congress to be held on 4 November, the results of which could clarify the possibility of a ‘changing of the guard’ in the White House in the autumn of 2016. Theories of a US-Saudi conspiracy also contain the idea that oil prices slumped during recent election campaigns in the US, for which there are once again no economic reasons. 

It seems that history is repeating itself. Obama and his Republican opponents are trying to win over voters’ sympathy. For Americans, low petrol prices are much more important than their government’s foreign policy endeavours. The affordability of oil products needs to not only seduce American households, but also stir up business activity. The stakes for the democrats and for Obama personally in the midterm elections are relatively high. If the Republicans take control of both houses, the White House’s current occupant is doomed to become a lame duck for two years until the next presidential elections. The alarm bell for the democrats sounded four years ago during the previous midterm elections to Congress, when members of Obama’s party, who up until that point confidently controlled the upper and lower houses of Congress, lost their advantage in the House of Representatives after losing 63 seats there, and 6 seats in the US Senate. It was the biggest loss of votes for a ruling party in midterm elections since 1938. 

An understanding between the US and Saudi Arabia with regard to the regulation of oil prices using non-economic levers is highly probable. However, Washington knows it should not take it too far. And not just for economic reasons, when the shale oil being extracted from North American oil fields is ruining the companies involved because of the high cost of its production. For the US, it is more important that China is one of the main beneficiaries of the downward trend in the oil market. Do Americans really want to speed up the moment that China becomes the leading global economy, with all the geopolitical consequences that that implies, with their own hands? Or have they become so obsessed with the idea of punishing Russia that its policy of restraining China has lost all urgency? It is neither one nor the other. It seems that after the Congressional elections, Obama’s administration will lose much of its motivation to play around with pushing down prices on the oil market. All the more so since with the approach of the winter season, bear speculation would be excessively costly. 

In the long term, political manipulations with oil prices would also cause major problems for the second alleged conspirator. Saudi Arabia has shouldered most of the expense in the fight against the Islamic State. They are financing the training of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition in the hope that, over time, it will manage to overthrow Bashar Assad’s regime by force. Riyadh is also providing financial support for major arms deals in the region (the contract with France and Lebanon for $3 billion). The largest monarchy of the Persian Gulf also has the burden of its own domestic problems associated with the need to control the growth of radicalism among Saudi Arabians through the use of multi-billion dollar social programmes. All this requires money. But there is no guarantee that the oil monarchy will receive as much as it needs at the prices that have recently been established in the oil market.

Strategic Culture


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,066 other followers

%d bloggers like this: