April 18, 2012
By Patrick Henningsen
“It should be pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that KONY 2012 is a joke.” –KTRN
Time is running out. Not for Joseph Kony, but for Invisible Children.
Tales of the LRA and Kony have again been reignited, as the KONY 2012 campaign’s urgent April 20th deadline approaches. The attempt by evangelical-based business Invisible Children Inc to craft the mythology around Joseph Kony as public enemy number one as a ’Bin Laden Lite’, demonstrates more than anything the emotive power of film, and film as propaganda.
Quite simply, Invisible Children are meant to serve as the new cultural influencers, or “culture makers” who will do the community public relations work that softens the ground for the globalist establishment agenda embodied in organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the United Nations.
Although quiet about its religious affiliation, Invisible Children’s organization is staffed almost exclusively with young, ‘Christian activists’ and could very well have support links to other Christian evangelist organizations, some of whom have historical links to the CIA, and round table groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. Many of these also share links with the powerful clandestine US religious-based right-wing Christian political fraternity known as “The Family“, also known as “The Fellowship“.
Invisible Children’s link to The Family explains how KONY 2012 was fast-tracked on to the desks of politicans in Washington DC. A recent expose on Invisible Children explains:
Among the current and past Invisible Children leaders and employees with professional and social ties to Fellowship members are Jason Russell, Laren Poole, Ben Keesey, Ben Thomson, Adam Finck, James A. Pearson, and Jared White – who in late 2009 went on a cross-Africa motorcycle trip with three young Americans who are working to develop The Fellowship’s programs in Uganda, including Eric Kreutter – son of Tim Kreutter, The Fellowship’s longtime American leader on the ground in Uganda.
April 12, 2012
By Kurt Nimmo
Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.
“The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature,” Madison wrote.
In the video, Stone notes Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya was waged “despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya.”
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.
The Obama administration “does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war,” Stone notes, and “accordingly the president should be impeached.”
March 29, 2012
By Tim McCoy
Obama has nominated Dartmouth University president Jim Yong Kim, M.D. to head the United Nations World Bank. Most people think that UN agencies benefit poor people, but this is far from the truth.
The UN World Bank claims to fight poverty in developing nations by financing infrastructure projects. But the UN World Bank is really a tool used to acquire Third World natural resources through conditions on loans that are extremely difficult to repay. The raw resources are then privatized by insider multi-national corporations. The World Bank actually creates more poverty.
The nomination of Jim Yong Kim indicates that the World Bank may shift away from focusing on infrastructure and will instead turn toward providing healthcare in Third World countries. Jim Yong Kim’s areas of interest include vaccines for tuberculosis as well as drugs for HIV and AIDS.
Kim brokered a deal with Big Pharma and the UN World Health Organization for expanding the pharmaceutical drug market to a larger populace in exchange for lower drug prices for second-line tuberculosis drugs. Second-line drugs are used when basic treatment fails because of drug resistance. Drug resistance similar to the new ‘resistant White Plague‘ brought about by big pharma’s drugs.
Many in the medical community believed it would be dangerous to distribute second-line drugs widely. Kim is also responsible for pushing HIV/AIDS retroviral drugs in developing nations.
HIV/AIDS drugs used in the Third World have profound side effects that include eye, kidney, liver and heart problems.
March 19, 2012
By Madison Ruppert
“It appears there may have been more than one solider involved with the senseless murder rampage in Afghanistan. America’s finest at work.” –KTRN
Rumors and eyewitness accounts have been circulating since the news first broke of the massacre of Afghan civilians, including women and children, which left 16 dead.
Most of these focus on casting doubt on the American account of a lone wolf gunman acting completely on his own without the involvement of any other soldiers.
However, it is not pure rumor; indeed a probe conducted by the Afghan parliament determined that up to 20 American troops were involved in the killing.
According to Pajhwok Afghan News, the nine-member parliamentary probe spent two days in the southern Kandahar province conducting interviews with the families of the victims, tribal elders, as well as survivors while collecting evidence at the site of the brutal slayings in the Panjwai district.
Hamidzai Lali, a lawmaker representing the Kandahar province at the Wolesi Jirga, told Pajhwok Afghan News, that their probe concluded that there were anywhere between 15 to 20 American soldiers involved in the murders.
“We closely examined the site of the incident, talked to the families who lost their beloved ones, the injured people and tribal elders,” he said.
Lali stated that the attack lasted an entire hour and involved two different groups of American soldiers.
“The villages are one and a half kilometer[s] from the American military base. We are convinced that one soldier cannot kill so many people in two villages within one hour at the same time, and the 16 civilians, most of them children and women, have been killed by the two groups,” he said.
Lali has called for the Afghan government along with the United Nations and the rest of the international community to make sure that those who were responsible for the killings are brought to justice in Afghanistan.
March 8, 2012
By Paul Joseph Watson
“Here is proof that the US congress has less power than the American people think they do.” -KTRN
The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.
During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.
Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”
The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.
“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
February 24th, 2012
U.S. crude futures rose for a seventh day on Friday, ending with their best weekly performance since December, as a report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog that Iran had stepped up work on nuclear enrichment was seen further inflaming tensions between Tehran and the West.
On the New York Mercantile Exchange, crude for April delivery settled at $109.77 a barrel, gaining $1.94, or 1.8 percent, the highest settlement since May 3, when prices ended at $111.05.
In seven straight days, front month crude futures surged $9.03, or 8.96 percent, their biggest seven-day increase since Oct. 31, when they gained 9.25 percent. For the week, front-month crude rose 6.33 percent, the best weekly percentage gain since the week to Dec. 23, when prices rose 6.58 percent.
For The Full Story Go To MSNBC
February 23, 2012
By Paul Joesph Watson
“You might want to think twice before you post an anti-government comment on your Facebook page. Apparently, the government doesn’t have anything better to do than read social media. What are they afraid of? The answer is you and me. Hooray for freedom.” –KTRN
A Homeland Security training manual belies claims made by DHS representatives during a Congressional hearing last week that the federal agency is only monitoring social media outlets for “situational awareness,” and proves the fact that Bis Sis is also tracking online criticism of government, including discussion of airport body scanners.
“Analysts for a Department of Homeland Security program that monitors social networks like Twitter and Facebook have been instructed to produce reports on policy debates related to the department, a newly disclosed manual shows,” reports the New York Times.
The manual, entitled Department of Homeland Security National Operations Center Media Monitoring Capability Desktop Reference Binder, was obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center via a FOIA request.
The controversy over DHS spying on social media erupted last month following the release of 300 documents which detailed how DHS had hired an outside contractor, General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, to monitor social media outlets along with a list of websites, on a “24/7/365 basis,” in order to uncover “any media reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government and the Department of Homeland Security.”
During a subsequent Congressional hearing on the matter, DHS representatives Mary Callahan and Richard Chávez denied the fact that tracking criticism of government agencies formed any part of the program, and that the effort was merely aimed at developing “situational awareness” of potential threats, mostly related to extreme weather events.
However, the 2011 manual makes it abundantly clear that the program was a backdoor effort to keep tabs on what the American people were saying about not just the DHS, but a whole host of federal agencies, including the CIA, the ATF, the TSA, FEMA, as well as organizations outside of the U.S. government such as the United Nations and the Red Cross.
By Ryan Jaslow
February 2, 2012
Should the government regulate sugar, just like it regulates alcohol and tobacco?
A new commentary published online in the Feb. 1 issue of Nature says sugar is just as “toxic” for people as the other two, so the government should step in to curb its consumption.
The United Nations announced in September that chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes contribute to 35 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the commentary. The U.N. pegged tobacco, alcohol, and diet as big risk factors that contributed to this death rate.
Two of those are regulated by governments, “leaving one of the primary culprits behind this worldwide health crisis unchecked,” the authors, Robert H. Lustig, Laura A. Schmidt and Claire D. Brindis, argued.
They said that over the past 50 years, sugar consumption has tripled worldwide. That’s also helped contribute to the obesity epidemic – so much so that there are 30 percent more obese people in this world than there are malnourished people.
But how does sugar compare to alcohol?
What do you think?
Should the government regulate sugar, just like it regulates alcohol and tobacco?
Yes, sugar should be regulatedNo, people should eat what they wantVOTE NOWView Results
Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as alcohol, the authors wrote, because it’s unavoidable, there’s potential for abuse, it’s toxic, and it negatively impacts society. They write that sugar is added to so many processed foods that it’s everywhere, and people eat up to 500 calories per day in added sugar alone. Sugar acts on the same areas of the brain as alcohol and tobacco to encourage subsequent intake, they wrote, and it’s toxic because research shows that sugar increases disease risk from factors other than added calories, such as when it disrupts metabolism.
“Many people think that obesity is the root cause of these diseases,” they wrote. But 40 percent of normal-weight people are developing diseases like diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, heart and liver disease. “Obesity is not the cause; rather, it is a marker.”
January 30, 2012
By Brandon Turbeville
In a world where national sovereignty is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, announcements that the United Nations will be taking the lead on any variety of topics is no longer shocking. Indeed, there is a real push across the world to view the United Nations as the ultimate authority on virtually every issue, from human rights to nutritional content in food.
Through decades of propagandizing, the United Nations has developed an undeserved reputation for humanitarianism and democracy. As a result, the vast majority see the United Nations as a benevolent organization which they can call on to defend human rights in their home countries. Unfortunately, national sovereignty rarely enters into the equation anymore, as the average citizen tends to look straight to the United Nations to address their concerns, bypassing their own governments.
As case in point, a recent report by AFP, entitled, “Experts urge U.N. to address mental health,” discusses how a recent article in PLoS Medicine, a reputable medical journal, has called for the United Nations General Assembly to develop a plan to tackle mental, neurological, and substance-abuse disorders (MNS).
The article was authored by Vikram Patel of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Judith Bass from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in the United States, among other contributors. They write, “The time has come for recognition at the highest levels of global development, namely the U.N. General Assembly, of the urgent need for a global strategy to address the global burden of MNS disorders.”
They also state that investment is needed in three different, but key, areas – “expanding knowledge about mental health disorders, better access to evidence-based programs of care and treatment, and protection of human rights.”
Although the further understanding of mental health disorders and their treatment is a laudable goal, it is also one in which both the Psychiatric/Psychological complex and the United Nations have a horrible track record.
Indeed, even within individual national boundaries, the Psychiatric/Psychological complex has vastly more authority that it needs or deserves. When one multiplies that oppressive authority with the global jurisdiction of the United Nations, as well as the U.N’s tendency to introduce tyrannical guidelines in its own right, we can see a clear recipe for disaster.
January 25, 2012
By Madison Ruppert
Two legal rights groups recently requested that the United Nations conduct an investigation into allegations targeting officials in the United States and Spain who reportedly conspired to block criminal probes into the authorization of illegal killings and torture of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration.
The request was made by the Center for Constitutional Rights, based out of New York, along with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights out of Berlin.
According to McClatchy, the request was made to the United Nations’ special rapporteur for judicial independence.
The two groups say that the United States interfered with the Spanish justice system in three separate criminal cases and they asked the UN to demand that both the Spanish and American governments cease their meddling in court cases.
I think this is pretty much a pipe dream, given that the United Nations is based in the United States, has incredibly close ties with the American government, and is far from the legitimate, accountable, and representative organization some make it out to be.
All we need to do is look at their inaction over the breaches of the Geneva Conventions carried out by the Bush and Obama administrations, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Libya which left unknown numbers of civilians dead while breaching the Constitution of the United States of America, just to name a few examples.
The United Nations has no interest in justice unless it serves their needs, as we have seen with their deafening silence over the many illegal assassinations carried out by the United States in recent history.
“When arguably the leading human rights country in the world is engaged in torture and then gives impunity to those torturers, it sends a pretty bad message,” said the President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Michael Ratner.
I think Ratner’s assertion is laughably misguided, given that the United States is far from “the leading human rights country in the world” and I find it to be a hardly arguable point.
Sure, there are worse countries out there, but I would very much like to debate the assertion that the United States leads the world in human rights with Ratner or anyone else who genuinely believes this to be true.