UN Day: Obama and UN Boss Urge Celebrations, More Power

The New American
by Alex Newman

UN

Citing multiple real and imagined crises facing the world today, United Nations boss Ban Ki-moon celebrated the 69th anniversary of the dictator-dominated outfit he leads by claiming it is now “needed more than ever.” In a statement, the UN said its festivities would highlight the orgaization’s focus on “education of global citizens.” Rabidly pro-UN President Obama, meanwhile, issued a presidential proclamation celebrating “UN Day,” urging America’s 50 governors and all officials under the U.S. flag to also “observe” the controversial day with “appropriate ceremonies and activities.” Obama and the UN chief both suggested that the would-be global government should be further empowered, too.  

Left unsaid by Ban and Obama, of course, is how much misery and tyranny has been inflicted on humanity by the scandal-plagued UN and its oftentimes barbaric member regimes — many of which continue to serve on the UN Security Council and the disgraced “Human Rights” Council. Indeed, from UN “peace” troops raping and murdering civilians around the world to growing UN assaults on U.S. sovereignty and liberty, the organization is increasingly out of control. And it will only get worse without strong action.

It is time for the United States to withdraw from the UN and defund all of its tentacles.

However, if Obama and Ban get their way, the UN will not only continue to perpetrate abuses with impunity and legitimize mass-murdering regimes, it will get more power and more U.S. taxpayer funding to do it. In recent years, for instance, despite $17 trillion in federal debt, Obama has been seeking to drastically increase the amount of American wealth funneled to the UN and its various organs — especially toward its ruthless “peacekeeping” machinations. The presidential proclamation on October 24 makes the administration’s agenda clear.

“In 1945, in the shadow of a world war and the face of an uncertain future, 51 founding nations joined in common purpose to establish the United Nations and codify its mission to maintain international peace and security, encourage global cooperation, and promote universal respect for human rights,” Obama said in his proclamation, without noting that the UN’s vision of human rights is entirely incompatible with the God-given rights guaranteed to Americans in the U.S. Constitution. “Nearly seven decades later, we once again find ourselves at a pivotal moment in history — a crossroads between conflict and peace, disorder and integration, hatred and dignity — dealing with new challenges that require a united response.”

“As we confront these global problems in an increasingly interconnected world, the United Nations remains as necessary and vital as ever,” Obama continued. “On United Nations Day, we recognize the important role the United Nations continues to play in the international system, and we reaffirm our country’s commitment to work with all nations to build a world that is more just, more peaceful, and more free.” By “nations,” of course, Obama is referring to the collection of governments, dictators, and mass-murderers that make up the UN’s largely totalitarian membership.

According to Obama, the UN “enables progress on the world’s most immediate threats and critical long-term challenges.” His first example — alleged man-made “global warming” — comes amid the ongoing implosion of the dubious theories underpinning climate hysteria and the failure of virtually every falsifiable prediction made by warming (and global cooling) theorists over the last four decades. Obama also claimed the UN helps “eradicate poverty,” which, of course, is ridiculous, as the overwhelming majority of poverty in the world today is caused directly by oppression and bad policy foisted on humanity by UN member regimes (often with UN support).  

“In this spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect, the international community must continue to find common ground in the face of threats to the prosperity and security of all our nations,” Obama added. “On this day, let us resolve to strengthen and renew the United Nations. Let us choose hope over fear, collaboration over division, and humanity over brutality, as we work together to build a tomorrow marked by progress rather than suffering.… By harnessing the power of the United Nations, we can build a more peaceful and more prosperous future for all our children and grandchildren.”

Obama did not bother to mention that much of the UN’s focus in recent years has been attacking the independence, liberty, and constitutional system of government bequeathed to the American people by the republic’s Founding Fathers. From calling on Obama to unconstitutionally overturn state laws approved by voters, to demanding “international standards” in America on everything from policing and water “affordability,” to attacking the God-given rights to self-defense and arms, to demanding that the federal government defy the Constitution that created it in the first place, the UN has completely discredited and exposed itself. Fellow civilized nations have also come under UN attack even as operatives for the world’s most brutal communist regimes are selected to lead UN agencies.   

Like Obama, though, UN boss Ban was similarly full of praise for the increasingly power-hungry Leviathan he leads, not-so-subtly calling for the organization to be empowered to control virtually every aspect of human activity. “Poverty, disease, terrorism, discrimination and climate change are exacting a heavy toll,” Ban claimed in his “UN Day” statement, with no reference to the tyranny, death, and horrifying suffering inflicted on humanity by UN member states. “Millions of people continue to suffer deplorable exploitation through bonded labour, human trafficking, sexual slavery or unsafe conditions in factories, fields and mines. The global economy remains an uneven playing field.”

In other words, Ban believes the role of the UN includes everything from setting global labor standards and law enforcement to wealth redistribution and rationing emissions of what scientists call “the gas of life” (CO2, exhaled by every human being) supposedly under the guise of stopping non-existent warming. “The founding of the United Nations was a solemn pledge to the world’s people to end such assaults on human dignity, and lead the way to a better future,” continued Ban, who earlier this year was rallying Third World dictators to create a “New World Order” based on global socialism. “There have been painful setbacks, and there is much work ahead to realize the Charter’s vision. But we can take heart from our achievements.”

In an almost mind-boggling claim, Ban also claimed that the UN had “inspired the most successful anti-poverty campaign ever.” In reality, of course, free markets, economic liberty, and voluntary charity are entirely responsible for reducing and eliminating poverty around the world. Studies show that taxpayer wealth showered on dictators and Third World regimes actually perpetuates poverty and oppression for the masses, while economic freedom lifts everybody out of poverty. That is why, for instance, the United States, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Hong Kong are among the wealthiest places on Earth, while Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and various totalitarian-ruled African nations are among the poorest.

“At this critical moment, let us reaffirm our commitment to empowering the marginalized and vulnerable,” Ban continued, perhaps oblivious to the irony. “On United Nations Day, I call on Governments [sic] and individuals to work in common cause for the common good.” The “common good,” of course, has been the rallying cry of tyrants always and everywhere throughout human history. For a brief overview of the UN’s activities toward the “common good” in recent years, check out the “Related Articles” section below this for a tiny sample of news articles on the UN that have appeared in The New American.

But despite all of that, the UN and its establishment backers have much, much bigger plans for the future — and they have had such designs in mind since the UN’s founding. One of the key architects of the UN at its founding conference was John Foster Dulles, who would go on to become U.S. secretary of state. In his 1950 book, War or Peace, Dulles, who also served as a founder of the global governance-promoting Council on Foreign Relations, offered insight into the outfit’s true purpose.

“The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Later on in the book, he noted that he had never seen any proposal with “teeth” in it to create a “world government” or “world federation” that “could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Instead of celebrating UN Day, Americans should redouble their efforts to get the United States out of the UN “dictators club,” and the UN out of the United States. Legislation in Congress right now, HR 75, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, would do precisely that. In the meantime, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives could stop all U.S. taxpayer funding to the UN and all funding for the implementation of its radical schemes within the United States.

Withdrawing from the UN would save U.S. taxpayers vast sums of money and would deal a massive blow to the plans of those who seek to use the outfit to extinguish the liberty and independence of these United States. 

The New American

Land of the Free – 1 in 3 Americans Are on File with the FBI in the U.S. Police State

Liberty Blitzkrieg
by MICHAEL KRIEGER

Zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes has led authorities to make more than a quarter of a billion arrests

cops

The sickening transformation of these United States into an authoritarian police state with an incarceration rate that would make Joseph Stalin blush, has been a key theme of my writing since well before the launch of Liberty Blitzkrieg. One of the posts that shocked and disturbed readers most, was published a little over a year ago titled: American Police Make an Arrest Every 2 Seconds in 2012. In the event you never read it, I suggest taking a look before tackling the rest of this piece.

Fast forward to fall 2014, and the Wall Street Journal has a powerful article about how children in schools systems across the U.S. are being arrested or turned over to police custody for doing things that children have always done since the beginning of time. Things such as wearing too much perfume, sharing a classmates’ chicken nuggets, throwing an eraser or chewing gum.

As a result of our insane societal obsession with authority and disproportionate punishment, the WSJ reports that “nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

USA! USA!

From the Wall Street Journal:

A generation ago, schoolchildren caught fighting in the corridors, sassing a teacher or skipping class might have ended up in detention. Today, there’s a good chance they will end up in police custody.

In Texas, a student got a misdemeanor ticket for wearing too much perfume. In Wisconsin, a teen was charged with theft after sharing the chicken nuggets from a classmate’s meal—the classmate was on lunch assistance and sharing it meant the teen had violated the law, authorities said. In Florida, a student conducted a science experiment before the authorization of her teacher; when it went awry she received a felony weapons charge.

Over the past 20 years, prompted by changing police tactics and a zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes, authorities have made more than a quarter of a billion arrests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates. Nearly one out of every three American adults are on file in the FBI’s master criminal database.

Did you catch that too? “Zero-tolerance attitude toward small crimes.” Indeed, the big criminals go to Wall Street, crash the economy and then receive trillions in taxpayer bailouts. Or they get a top job in the Obama Administration, such as Jedi-master of cronyism, Tim Geithner, being chosen as Treasury Secretary.

Back to the WSJ…

At school, talking back or disrupting class can be called disorderly conduct, and a fight can lead to assault and battery charges, said Judith Browne Dianis, executive director of the Advancement Project, a national civil-rights group examining discipline procedures around the country.

If these rules were in place in my day, I would have been arrested about 150 times.

“We’re not talking about criminal behavior,” said Texas State Sen. John Whitmire, the Democratic chair of the senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, who helped pass a new law last year that limits how police officers can ticket students. “I’m talking about school disciplinary issues, throwing an eraser, chewing gum, too much perfume, unbelievable violations” that were resulting in misdemeanor charges.

According to the U.S. Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights, 260,000 students were reported, or “referred” in the official language, to law enforcement by schools in 2012, the most-recent available data.

The number of school police officers rose 55% to about 19,000 in the 10 years to 2007, the last year for which numbers were available, according to a 2013 study from the Congressional Research Service.

The schools crackdown has had its intended effect. Victims’ surveys compiled by the Education Department show that there is a lower rate of violent crime committed in schools, falling to 52 incidents per 100,000 students in 2012 from 181 incidents per 100,000 in 1992.Supporters say that alone proves the worth of aggressive policing.

Well yeah, and pigs in a pen are easily controlled too, but are these the types of children we want to raise?

And what about the downside, such as:

Brushes with the criminal justice system go hand in hand with other negative factors. A study last year of Chicago public schools by a University of Texas and a Harvard researcher found the high-school graduation rate for children with arrest records was 26%, compared with 64% for those without. The study estimated about one-quarter of the juveniles arrested in Chicago annually were arrested in school.

A science experiment that went awry turned into a 17-month battle for Kiera Wilmot and her mother as they tried to clear the honor student’s arrest record. According to the police report, she was on school grounds outside the classroom trying out an experiment that hadn’t been authorized by her teacher. Ms. Wilmot, now 18, said she put a piece of aluminum inside a bottle with two ounces of toilet cleaner to see what would happen. The teen’s mother said she was trying to simulate a volcanic eruption.

“It popped,” blowing the top off the bottle, she said. She was handcuffed by the school-resource office, escorted out of the Bartow, Fla., school and taken to a juvenile facility where she was charged with possessing or discharging firearms or weapons at school and making, throwing, possessing, projecting, placing or discharging a destructive device.

Think about what sorts of lessons we are teaching talented students about experimenting and being creative. A modern Benjamin Franklin would most likely be rotting away in solitary right now.

So as we militarize the police, we police the schools. See the direction this is all headed in?

Keep chanting muppets.

Liberty Blitzkrieg

The PSYOPS of the Coming EBOLA Genocide (Part 1)

The Common Sense Show
by Dave Hodges

"Psst, there is something called a New World Order and they don't like us".

“Psst, there is something called a New World Order and they don’t like us”.

Why won’t America stand up for herself? Why is our country, once a country which possessed courage and conviction , now sitting idly by while allowing itself to be taken to the slaughter without so much as a whimper?

As I predicted, Ebola is beginning to make its way across the country. There are serious allegations of Ebola patients being “disappeared” in order to cover up how widespread the crisis has become. We have an administration which refuses, under any and all circumstances, to protect the American people as evidenced by the fact that we allow unscreened immigrants into the country and our airports are still open to travel from West Africa, the site of the Ebola outbreak.

It matters not if its Ebola that is going to rip through the country like a Tsunami coming ashore, or, whether it is the hastily prepared soon-to-be vaccines that are soon going to be thrust among us which will potentially devastate our collective  immune systems. To those who are still debating if the Ebola crisis is a false flag, you are wasting time and you are causing the public to take their eye off of the ball. Does it matter if the Ebola is an instrument of oppression or it will be the vaccine that serves this purpose? The full or partial spread of Ebola is a prerequisite condition for the roll out of mandatory vaccines. Both Ebola and the subsequent vaccines are like “love and marriage”, as Frank Sinatra once said, “You can’t have one without the other”!

The presence of Ebola in America is not going to end well for the American people. Whether the decimation of America comes from the virus itself or the resulting vaccine, does not matter and those perpetuating this debate are doing a disservice to the country. The fact remains that we will soon be faced with some very dire circumstances and we need to be focusing on how to wake up the public instead of engaging in this meaningless intramural debate!

The Process of “Waking Up”

The bankster degenerates, have mastered the art of an effective PSYOPS. They have perfected brainwashing practices as well as the stunting of human initiative. The globalist PSYOPS strategy is based upon the principle that it was much easier to control a population through psychological means than  by committing genocide. However, when the people begin to wake up, PSYOPS will eventually give way to extermination as a means of political control as evidenced by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

waking up nwo summary of despots

When Did You Wake Up?

Do you remember the day that you woke up? Do you recall rejoicing in the fact that the seemingly unconnected events in the world now made perfect sense because you knew who was behind much of the evil on the planet? It is as if you had stolen the globalist playbook and everything suddenly made sense. We all remember our profound excitement to our new found fortune in which we realized that the world suddenly made a lot more sense and we could not wait to share our “new knowledge” with anyone who would listen to us. But suddenly, we found yourself marginalized by a society that was still being held captive by the same PSYOP forces that had previously kept us trapped in our former matrix of externally imposed ignorance and conditioned obedience.

The term “waking up” has come to denote the period of time in which a person stops believing the lies being perpetrated by the six corporations which controls the 98% of the mainstream media. The term “waking up” also has come to mean that day when a person realizes that the left-right paradigm, the Republican-Democrat pretense of political choice and even the major elections are a facade designed to give the illusion of choice.

On that day when you found yourself awakened, did you realize how very much alone you were as you watched the masses sleep-walking through life while serving false Gods and living lives of quiet desperation in a futile effort of trying to find some meaning in their lives?

The Public Knows That Something Is Terribly Wrong and the MSM Is Not Providing Answers

waking up bush if the people only knewThe general public knows that something is terribly wrong with this country and its not being covered in the MSM and they are seeking answers. Returning veterans who have served in Afghanistan are returning home with stories of how American soldiers are providing protection for Afghan drug lords. Their neighbors and friends are wondering why these stories are not on the nightly news.The American people are beginning to view the police with more distrust because of the rampant instances of police abuse taking place in this country.

Many Americans know Obama is a foreign national who cares nothing about the plight of the middle class. Obama’s anti-American policies and unwarranted EBOLA swat teams  are in place as America joins the ranks of a police state.

A growing number of Americans have awakened to the fact that this is not the case and are looking for “alternative” means to get their news. Once an obscure term, most average Americans have now heard of FEMA camps. Most Americans are aware of Fast and Furious despite the minuscule attention paid to this Watergate type of event by the MSM. The sheer number of disenfranchised groups have alerted the rest of us that we are not getting the full truth in the MSM. Most Americans have had some exposure to the alternative media and as a result, we are seeing a lot of Americans in flux in terms of what they now believe about their government.

The MSM Is Now the Dinosaur Media

According to a recently released Pew Research study, the number of prime time viewers for CNN, Fox and MSNBC  fell by a combined fell by11% last year. Eleven percent may not sound overwhelming, so allow me to rephrase this in another light. In 2013, over one in ten Americans have stopped watching the corporate controlled media propaganda which serves to anesthetize and  lobotomize it viewers, listeners and readers from the realities of what is really taking place in this country. Here is the breakdown of the decline of the corporate controlled media empire:

Fox News has lost 6% of its prime time audience and this is the good news for the MSM.

CNN is down by 13%

MSNBC is down by a whopping 24%

Newspaper ad revenues are down by a third and major magazines are selling 20% less ad space in today’s advertising wars.

Sorry George Noory, Coast to Coast AM ratings are also in the toilet. Since Noory fired the more popular John B. Wells, earlier this year, Noory’s audience has caught on to the fact that the show and host fit into the corporate controlled category and they do not represent any semblance of true investigative journalism as we formerly saw with Art Bell and presently see with John B. Wells.

A recent Gallup survey found that an amazing 77% of Americans distrust mainstream media television and are turning to other sources for news and information. According to the Gallup Poll, only HMO’s, the banks and Congress have lower public trust ratings than the media. And would you care to guess who owns the banks, HMO’s and Congress? It is the same people who own the media. This fact tells me that an increasing number of Americans, whether they realize it or not, are rejecting the New World Order. It’s that most Americans don’t know how to label their arch enemies. We in the truthful media are teaching them and we are having an effect. These are the potential foot soldiers of tomorrow’s resistance.

The Ten Percent Factor

ten percent factorScientists from the prestigious Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have determined that if just 10% of any given population holds to an unshakable idea, that the idea will become adopted by the majority of the country. However, the scientists who belong to the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) found that if the ideas are shared by less than 10% of the population, the idea will not progress and will eventually die out. The research was first published in a peer reviewed E Journal in an article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities.”

Computational and analytical methods were used to discover the tipping point where an obscure idea eventually becomes the majority opinion. The finding has dramatic implications for those of us trying to wake up the sheep in this country.

The SNARC scientists found that the 10% figure was applicable whether they were talking about the spread of innovations or to advance a political ideal. There is evidence that nearly 10% of the sheep have been awakened and this is why the globalists are introducing us to our newest friend, Ebola.  The release of Ebola is an act of desperation by the globalists. To use an athletic analogy, the wakening masses are forcing the elite to keep their starters in the game a lot longer than they want to.

The Evidence Is In

The evidence about Ebola is in and it is official, we are being lied to.  From mid-September to earlier this week, I wrote over a dozen articles, with documentation from government sources and peer reviewed scientific journals which exposed the lies of the CDC on behalf of the Obama administration regarding the threat being posed by Ebola and the subsequent vaccines. In these articles  I exposed the following:

The new strain of Ebola is weaponized, otherwise the CDC could not own the patent on all Ebola and up to 70% of the variance of the virus. The CDC does not realize royalties unless the virus is treated within the U.S. Therefore, there must be more Ebola in order to fulfill the profit motive. 

There has been a vaccine in existence, from Crucell but now owned by the National Institute of Health. This vaccine has been in existence for over 10 years.  Then why is GSK developing a hastily prepared NEW vaccine? This fact does actually inspire trust now does it?

Bill Gates has put in over $650 million dollars of his own money in the development of the “new vaccines”. 

The CDC lied about the ability of Ebola to be transmitted through airborne means. This  single factor is the strongest evidence of a conspiracy being perpetrated against the American people because 100% of the evidence comes from peer reviewed scientific journals.  

Conclusion

If you are one of the sheep that is too lazy to spend about an hour reviewing these articles which are specified within previously mentioned date ranges, don’t worry, come back here tomorrow and I will build upon this last section. Further, tomorrow’s article is going to expose the very nature and mechanisms of the PSYOPS being utilized to keep most Americans in the dark about the dangers our country faces. Further, the reader will be presented with some strategies which could be applied to personal survival.

The Common Sense Show

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

Alt-Market
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.

Alt-Market

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

Political Manipulations with the Price of Oil

Strategic Culture
by Mikhail AGHAJANYAN

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,066 other followers

%d bloggers like this: