Trackside - The UN on Malaria

by John D'Aloia


Readers know what I think of the UN. Do not think that I have gone over the edge, but I want to give an atta-boy to the World Health Organization for supporting the use of DDT to control the malaria epidemic that claims the lives of millions each year. In September, Arata Kochi, director of the WHO Global Malaria Program, stated that "We must take a position based on the science and the data. One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT." Another WHO official said "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of [malaria] infections ... and DDT presents no health risk when used properly."

Some eco-fascists still call for the complete ban of DDT, period. For those who inhabit these groups, human life is a cancer on the earth; malaria helps to reduce the number of humans. Banning DDT keeps the process working and saves the lives of countless mosquitoes. The Congress of Racial Equality has been working for years to get the use of DDT reinstated as a means of reducing human suffering and its economic impacts. Paul Driessen, a Senior Fellow at CORE, was quoted in an article in the December "Environmental & Climate News" on the impacts of malaria: "In addition to the needless deaths (100,000 people die of malaria each year in Uganda), countless millions are too sick to go to work or school. Other millions must stay home to care for sick family members. Is it any wonder that Sub-Sahara Africa is, and remains, one of the poorest regions on Earth?"

The U.S. government, which initiated the world-wide ban on the use of DDT in spite of the scientific evidence that it was not the end-of-the-world disaster claimed by Rachel Carlson, is changing its policy. Steven Milloy, in a Fox News article, reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development has endorsed and will fund the use of DDT for indoor spraying in Africa. The European Union is not so enlightened. Milloy also reported that the EU has threatened Uganda with a complete ban on its agricultural exports if it goes ahead with indoor DDT spraying. Milloy ended his article with "Let’s forget the myths about DDT - it’s time to stop malaria now."

"The tragedy of the commons" is a term used to identify a situation that happens all too often when property or goods are owned by everyone for the use by everyone. With no one responsible for the management of the asset to ensure a continuing supply, those using it have no incentive to take care of it or to concern themselves if it will be there tomorrow. Let George do it. The result is that the asset disappears. An example often given is a common pasture land open to all. It is not long before overgrazing destroys the pasture - no one was responsible for managing the number of head on the land to ensure that the asset, the grass, would be there tomorrow. Everyone wanted to ensure that they were able to graze as many head of the free grass as they could.

The antidote for the "tragedy of the commons" is private ownership. A microcosm of the "tragedy of the commons" is littering, seen in roads and parking lots across the country - how often have you seen a pile of cigarette butts on the ground about where the front door of a parked car would have been. It is probably a safe bet that the person who dumped them would not have dumped them in his own driveway. In our town, we spend a significant amount of money each year operating a street sweeper to clear the gutters of litter. I often wonder if the operation of the sweeper, affectionately known as "the slug" to some, could be reduced if people would take care of their own trash and not succumb to validating the "tragedy of the commons" thesis. In this case, "Let George do it" is exactly what happens - George is the slug’s operator.

There is another place in town where George and his machine cannot get, a connecting road between two built-up areas. It appears to be a magnet for trash discarded out car windows. If not for concerned citizens, the trash would accumulate for eternity and spoil what is in fact a pleasant walk along the pathway parallel to the road. Citizens often tell me that the city should do this or that "for the common good." Not littering represents something individuals can do "for the common good" - all it takes is exercising a responsibility for one’s own actions.


See you Trackside.




Republished from the old Eponym site in honor of former editor John D'Aloia


Report: Lawyer Caught Offering Woman $200,000 to Accuse Trump of Sex Assault

by V Saxena


Two months ago former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly revealed the existence of a tape that he claims shows what he described as “an anti-Trump attorney” offering a woman $200,000 during the presidential election last year to issue false sexual harassment claims against then-GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“It exists,” he said to Newsmax at the time. “We have urged the person who has the tape to hand it over to the U.S. attorney, because my investigative team believes there are three separate crimes on the audio tape.”

On Friday, O’Reilly doubled down on that claim during an interview with conservative talk show host Glenn Beck, though he declined to offer a deadline for when the tape might finally be released.

“There is an audiotape of an anti-Trump person offering $200,000 to a woman to accuse Donald Trump of untoward behavior,” he said.  When Beck asked whether this tape will ever be released, O’Reilly replied by maintaining that he “may have to go to the U.S. attorney” himself.  “I don’t want to have to do that and inject myself into the story … but I had my lawyer listen to the tape,” O’Reilly said. “There are at least three crimes on the tape. So as a citizen, I may have to do this.”  He cautioned, though, that the tape isn’t in his possession but rather with “someone who knows the seriousness of this situation.”

Then, Beck asked, why won’t this mysterious someone simply release the tape to the public?

“I can’t really get into that at this point, but I can tell you, Donald Trump knows about the tape,” O’Reilly said. “And I, for the life of me, am sitting here going, ‘Why on Earth are you allowing a movement to try to smear you when you have such a powerful piece of evidence that shows this is an industry — that there are false charges and money changing hands?'”

But Trump doesn’t “have such a powerful piece of evidence” at his disposal; the actual owner of the tape does, and until he or she chooses to release the tape, there might not be much the president can do about it.  Keep in mind that the former Fox News host first mentioned this tape two months earlier, and yet it still remains unpublished. 

My honest recommendation to O’Reilly would be to try his hardest to obtain a copy of the tape and then simply distribute the copy to conservative media.

The fact is that talk is cheap, and allegations come easy. It’s only surefire, indisputable evidence that’ll make any difference against the left’s ongoing war on our president.



Another One For The Transhumanist Scrapbook: Draconian Punishments

by Joseph P. Farrell


So many people sent me versions of this important and significant development that it was simply a kind of moral imperative that I alert readers here to it, and say something about it. In this case, there are four different articles, each of which reveals, almost immediately, what the new concern is:


Is Biotech Seeking Ways to Make People Suffer Eternally?

Should Biotech Make Life Hellish for Criminals? 

Enhanced Punishment: Can Technology Make Life Sentences Longer? 

Could we condemn criminals to suffer for hundreds of years? Biotechnology could let us extend convicts’ lives ‘indefinitely

When Dr. de Hart and I were writing Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, one of the questions we were impelled to raise, one which the transhumanist movement itself raises repeatedly, is what does it mean to be “human”? And this, we implied, was not simply a philosophical question. Nor was it a question of biological or chemical “scientism” with its convenient, and largely useless, materialist reductionisms. It was a question of culture, society, jurisprudence, and morality

Within the transhumanist “vision” there is a common underlying theme, regardless of whether or not one accepts the “heaven scenarios” of such advocates like Ray Kurzweil, or the more sobering assessments of transhumanist researchers like Joel Garreau and their “hell scenarios”, for in both cases, the favored transhumanist “GRIN” technologies – genetics, robotics, information processing, and nano-technologies – open both favorable and horrific vistas of the future.

In this case, we are concerned with the horrific ones, for as the articles suggest, what if such technologies made life extension possible as a matter of judicial punishment? This unpleasant prospect, as the articles aver, is actually being not only entertained but its advocacy is even being implied in some circles. What if, in addition to this, other technologies are super-added to life extension, technologies of the “androgynous and alchemical fusion” of man and machine, to implant criminals with chips, to subject them to forms of “virtual torture” and suffering? Some transhumanists have envisioned the downloading and uploading of individual’s personal memories as a technique of virtual life extension. But what if such technologies could recover the memories of victims of crimes? Would criminals then be punished by making them relive in some sort of “virtual reality” the horrors of the crimes they committed on their victims? Could criminals of the future be sentenced to “life extension and ‘hard reliving’ of their crimes from the victim’s point of view” for “x” number of years, without hope of parole or reprieve? While such questions sound like science fiction, as the above articles point out, they are already being entertained, and they are being entertained, because the technologies impelling them are already under development.

Indeed, one can envision a state of development where such technologies were so advanced that a sentence of life in prison with “at hard virtual labor” would be so horrific, that the death penalty, far from being a thing to be avoided by defendants, might become a thing sought.

But there are yet other possibilities as well, possibilities that were, in fact, explored in the television science fiction series Babylon Five in the 1990s: the “death of personality.” In that series, convicted murderers are subjected to a kind of “death of the ego”: the erasure of the personality, memories, and emotions of the perpetrator

While some may view all of this favorably, and argue that it is “ethical,” I incline to the other opinion, and hold that it is barbaric, and a measure of the dehumanizing that such philosophies and technologies are inevitably bringing with them. I submit that such punishments are indeed “cruel and unusual” and little other than a form of torture.

 But whatever one’s opinion may be, the cultural transformation of culture and society that the transhumanists are championing or, in a few cases, decrying, are indeed hurtling down the tracks toward us and will force each of us to deal with the types of questions these articles are pointing out.


See you on the flip side.



The article first appeared here.


Hillary Clinton Cannot win the 2020 Presidential Race

by Wayne Flaherty


There is no way Hillary can win the presidency when 66 % of the people believe she is not trustworthy and 58 % also believe that she is corrupt. She cannot run on her record since that will only bring more proof of her corruption. If she falls back on her tried and true technique of lying her way out of a situation, what lie can she tell that would facilitate her escape? How do you lie your way out of 25 years of corruption?

She cannot win a debate with Donald Trump. He will not only defeat her, he will annihilate her. He will ask her the questions she has so desperately tried to avoid. As of today, it has been 221 days since she has held a press conference. She will not hold a press conference because she has no answers for the questions that are sure to be asked. She depends totally on her 3 media outlets (ABC, CBS, & NBC) to whitewash her image. No other media outlet will give her the free pass that she gets from these 3 co-conspirators. The silence of her media trio cannot hide the millions of dollars she has accepted from foreign nations hostile to America. What she promised them in exchange for her 30 pieces of silver is unknown but you can be sure it won't be good for America.

She must find a squeaky-clean Vice Presidential running mate - a person who is her exact opposite in temperament, honesty, and corruption. What sane person would use their hard earned reputation in an attempt to prop up a candidate that the people distrust to the degree the public distrusts her? Maybe there is someone who wants to be the captain of the Titanic but I seriously doubt it. Not only will squeaky-clean fail to pull her up in the polls, she will pull them down so far that she will essentially end their political career. Already, one person discussed for her VP has been eliminated because he is just as corrupt as Hillary. She will never win by attempting to run on her VP's record. She will still be 'Crooked Hillary'.

Bill Clinton sealed Hillary's fate in the email scandal when he met with Attorney General Lynch. If the FBI recommends Hillary be indicted, the AG would be forced to proceed with the criminal charges. If the AG finds her not guilty, everyone will know the fix is in. If, as many people say, AG Lynch is an honorable person, she will have only one way to salvage her already damaged career - find Hillary guilty. If the FBI does not recommend a future indictment, then everyone will know the fix is in and Bill Clinton was just giving the AG her marching orders.

Hillary's time in Washington stands as stark evidence of 25 years of lies and corruption. Time after time, the Clintons, and Hillary in particular, demonstrate contempt for the law, and assure us common folk that the law does not apply to them. One area of proof is the number of books written about the Clinton corruption that increases almost weekly.

Like a caged animal, Hillary huffs and puffs, feigns indignation, and declares "It's time to move on!" Unfortunately, fate has decreed otherwise, and the people are choosing not to move on. They are demanding accountability and they will get it - at the polls if necessary.


Trackside - Malaria cases increase with Ban of DDT

by John D'Aloia


What would you call an action, knowingly taken, that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, people who lived in a certain part of the world? Does the word "genocide" come to mind? Consider these grim statistics - 50 million killed since 1972; almost 90 percent of the victims are in sub-Saharan Africa.

The perpetrators are the ecofascists who in 1972 convinced the federal government to ban DDT, a known eradicator of mosquitos, the malaria vector. The unindicted co-conspirators are the American people who, bowing to the ecofascists, have allowed the ban to remain in place in spite of the medical and scientific data that has shown that DDT "used according to the label directions" is not a danger to the environment or humans. (A DDT data synopsis is posted at https://junkscience.com/1999/07/100-things-you-should-know-about-ddt/.)


Socialists are enamored with environmentalism. It provides a rationale for a one-world government - we need a one-world government to be able to control population so as to be able to protect the environment. Think it far-fetched? As cited in "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin, Bertrand Russell expressed it thus: "I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing…A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is world government…" In the same book, Jacques Cousteau, interviewed by the United Nations UNESCO Courier in November of 1991, is cited to have said of death by cancer: "Should we eliminate suffering diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit in the long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."


With this mindset, malaria is a useful tool - the millions of deaths resulting from the ban on DDT produces the desired result. The death toll has raised up a new foe for the ecofascists, the civil rights organization Congress for Racial Equality. In a May 2003 press release, announcing a protest against a Greenpeace fund raiser, CORE stated: "Across Africa, malaria kills 2 million people every year, half of them children. Over 250 million more get this horrible disease and are unable to work for weeks or months on end, costing their countries $12 billion annually. Malaria also threatens Asia and Latin America. DDT and other pesticides, used in tiny amounts, can slash malaria rates and deaths by 80% or more. But Greenpeace absolutely opposes this and pressures the European Union to ban fish and agricultural exports (including tobacco!) from any African nation that uses DDT. Even the liberal New York Times says ‘wealthy nations should be helping poor countries with all available means – including DDT.’ But the callous eco-radicals refuse to budge."


CORE’s anti-Greenpeace protest was not a one-shot deal. A petition, in the form of a letter with as many signatories as CORE can muster was prepared to present to President Bush. The letter’s first two sentences set the tone: "There is no more important human right than the right to live. Without life, all other human rights are irrelevant." CORE went on to ask the President to take four actions: ask congressional leadership to schedule hearings and to ensure that taxpayer money funds the use of DDT and other measures that work; abolish the ineffective USAID’s malaria program; instruct government agencies to promote and fund the use of DDT when requested by officials in developing countries; and reduce or eliminate funding of any agency, U.S. or foreign, that obstructs or fails to support the use of DDT or other pesticides. CORE closes by stating "On behalf of hundreds of millions of parents and children in countries where malaria continues to take a terrible, unnecessary and intolerable toll, we thank you for taking a leadership role in helping to make this a humanitarian effort that transcends religious, racial, or political affiliations."


The ban on DDT not your problem? Think again. Malaria is found in the U.S. - and think West Nile, another disease transmitted by mosquitos. (Kansas had 731 confirmed cases of West Nile in 2003, with seven deaths.) These disease agents, and others, exist in this country - and so do the carriers, the zillions of little buzzing critters. A bit of DDT goes a long way towards the drastic reduction of the diseases they carry at a cost that compares not with the death and misery they cause.


See you Trackside.





Republished from the old Eponym site in honor of former Editor John D'Aloia.



Kentucky's 'Pay for Play' Legal System

by Allen Williams


In October of 2017 I was returning from a trip On US 64 which brought me through Louisville, Kentucky.  Just about a half to three quarters of a mile before the Shively 264 exit, I was bumped in my rented 2017 Chevy Impala by an individual in some sort of green sports car. I saw him or her  swing in behind me from an angle consistent with someone entering the highway from an on ramp. 

It looked to be a woman or guy with long hair from my rear view mirror who fell in behind me after the hit and slowed down.  I had expected him to pull in behind me after the bump event.  I signaled to pull over to the shoulder where we could exchange insurance information.   I stopped on the shoulder about 100 yards from the Shively 264 exit.  Instead of pulling directly in behind me, the guy sped away on the 264 exit just as traffic began to back up at the Shively exit.  However, I got his license number '840 CAL' before he fled the scene.  Looking at the rental vehicle right side damage, the collision was consistent with an onramp entry and appeared to be more that $500.

Two Louisberg police officers showed up about a minute or so after the individual sped away. I thought they might have witnessed the accident but instead they began clearing debris off the Shively exit to free up traffic. Lacking a working cell phone I was unable to contact the police.  One female officer at the scene I attempted to talk with said they were 'super busy' and that another patrol car would be coming.  At that point, she and an accompanying officer jumped into their cars and left the scene. I waited 30 minutes at the Shively exit for the promised patrol car but it never showed.  I then left and continued my journey home.  The next day, I filed a Kentucky Civilian Traffic Collision Report with the state police.

The civilian traffic collision report I filed is a joke.  It gets no identifying number after it's filed; nobody appears to do anything with the report. It's likely a convenient archive that allows insurance adjusters to determine your 'risk' factor in premium assignments. Otherwise, it's a worthless document for anyone who has filed it.

After I arrived back home I called the Kentucky state police but they wouldn't run the license plate I recorded.  They suggested that I talk to Louisville police at Division 4 of Jefferson County.  So I called there and the officer tells me they don't have jurisdiction and they wouldn't run the plate because I'm not a law enforcement officer or an insurance representative.  They suggest I call the Jefferson County DA.  So I talk to a Jefferson County assistant DA who tells me that I cannot file a criminal complaint over the phone and that I would have to return to Kentucky.  Neither would they accept my complaint in a notarized letter. Only a local lawyer could file my complaint, I was told.  I believe the reader can see where this might be going.

Talking to a number of lawyers in the Loiuisville area that handle auto accidents revealed a host of solutions for the hit and run accident I was involved in but none of them were viable. I should point out that few attorneys called me back the same day as either business was exceptionally good or the amount of damages I experienced wasn't sufficient to peak their interest.

One attorney suggested that I file a civil action to recoup the rental losses. But unfortunately, even if I returned to Kentucky and filed a civil and criminal action, I was told that the accused could simply deny it. (The perpetrator obviously didn't have insurance which was why the person fled to begin with).  Another lawyer said paying the damages myself (or my insurance company) would be cheaper than hiring a lawyer to resolve the issue. What this translates to is unless there's sufficient money in play because of an incident we're not interested in pursuing it even if it's a felony. Remember that statement because it's nothing more than 'pay to play' and even if you win the civil suit it's doubtful that you'd be awarded attorney's fees. it's characteristic of the endemic corruption in America's legal system. You'll understand this a bit further down. 


My personal favorite was a local lawyer who advertises  'How to Get a Car Accident Report or Police Report in Kentucky'.  Nothing gauche about tooting your own horn.  The process is actually quite simple, "There is a company that has a website to handle requests for car accident reports for Louisville and all of Kentucky. The website is called www.buycrash.com (www.buycrash.com/Public/Home.aspx). There is a fee for each accident report that can be paid by credit card (MasterCard, Visa, Discover, or American Express) or PayPal...Written requests need to be addressed to the Kentucky State Police post that worked the accident. Written requests should include a self-addressed stamped envelope and a $5.00 check or money order payable to Kentucky State Treasurer...If you believe another person was responsible for your car accident in Louisville or elsewhere in Kentucky, you may want to contact a Kentucky attorney to assist you with filing a claim or pursuing a lawsuit..You can contact Brett via email or call (502) 749-5700, toll free (866)935-5729.."

So the lawyer's advertisement suggests that what I experienced outside Louisville is quite common in the area. His site has a number of testimonials from happy satisfied clients  So there you have it, if the monetary damages are sufficient to make it worthwhile for the attorney then a claim will be pursued.  Apparently the same condition applies to the Jefferson county D.A. Never mind that a particular law has been violated, after all we break the country's laws every day where immigration is concerned. 

One final call to the Jefferson County DA to suggest that their office pursue the criminal charge against the individual who fled the accident scene as it was at least a Class C misdemeanor.  (My guess is it wouldn't be a felony unless it was something like $5000 or more in damages) The assistant DA that I talked to said they don't pursue individuals and that I would have better luck with a civil complaint through an attorney.  Now the DA had to know that a civil complaint against an individual without auto insurance was futile so his recommendation was more 'pay for play' rhetoric. 

I retorted with 'I bet if I robbed a bank and someone got my license you’d run it. That’s no different than someone leaving the scene of an accident.'  There was complete silence from the assistant D.A. I thought he had hung up.  He reiterated that there was nothing he could do and so the call ended.


Travel through Kentucky at your own risk.




2030: You Own Nothing, Have No Privacy...

by Chris Campbell


“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.”

In 2017, we find ourselves caught between the incredible and Earth-shaking potential of exponential technology — and a million minds, pulling the reins, trying to tame the beast and train it to build out their particular vision of the future.

One such vision is horrifyingly articulated in an article promoted by the World Economic Forum late last year.

The article, written by young Ida Auken, was published ahead of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils.  It details a techno-utopian circular economy, which, on the surface, sounds great. In the circular economy, products are turned into services. Everything is Uber-ized. So, of course, nobody owns anything and all non-ownership is transparent.

“When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods.”

The devil, of course, is in the details. And a tiny, unavoidable glint of darkness emerges halfway through the article:  “Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.”

Ah, I see.

In this scenario, without privacy, forget about freedom of speech, assembly or the basic ability to form one’s own opinion about the nature of things.

If the politicos are still at the top of the food chain, if the sociopathic wolves still guard the chicken pen, we wonder, what would this society look like?

The flow of information would likely be managed to the bit. Models of reality would be shaped in real-time. Maps would be mistaken for the territory, as nobody would have a reason to think different.

“Free” education would perfect the art of brainwashing. A.I. programs would parse through text messages, emails and social media, in search of “problematic” language. And those deemed a threat to the civility and order of the “Free Society” would likely be, at best, casted out to live with the rurally deplored or, at worst, hanged (humanely as possible, of course) in the public square.

Think of all of those meandering thoughts which run through your mind, of which you cannot control.  Now imagine that any one of them could be used against you. Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, I have no privacy and life couldn’t be more terrifying.

Fortunately, privacy isn’t dead. And technology is a wild beast which might prove impossible to tame completely. In fact, for those willing to put in the work to protect themselves, there are plenty of options to keep your information safe and protected from prying  eyes. Today, to talk about one tool you should add to your privacy arsenal, we invite Simon Black of Sovereign Man.

Read on.

Here’s a FANTASTIC Security Tool You Really Should Know About

By Simon Black


Chances are you probably use a cloud service to store at least a portion of your files. Dropbox. iCloud. Microsoft’s OneDrive. Mega. Box.

There’s so many of them these days. And a few of them, like Switzerland-based Tresorit, focus heavily on privacy and security to keep your data safe.

But let’s be honest– privacy is definitely not a top priority among most of the top cloud providers.

Dropbox states right on its own website that the company has direct access to your files.  ensitive company data. Financial records. Intimate photos. Personal information. Password files. Cryptocurrency keys.And even if you delete the files, the backup copies are STILL stored on Dropbox’s servers.

(It’s not just Dropbox– most of the major cloud services operate this way.) This presents a significant amount of risk from multiple fronts.

Hacker threats are nearly ubiquitous these days. Hardly a month goes by without another announcement of some major data breach… and we only hear about the big ones in which millions of people are affected.  One of the latest hacker trends is when attackers gain control of your mobile devices by calling up your mobile carrier and convincing them that they’re you.  This allows them to reset passwords and easily gain access to your emails and files.  Then of course there are legal risks.

If you’ve never been sued, congratulations. Let’s hope it stays that way. If you have been sued, congratulations. It means that at least someone thinks you’re successful. Broke people typically don’t get sued. Bear in mind that the ‘justice’ system today has very little to do with justice.  It’s about government prosecutors or some twisted, amoral, money-hungry lawyer convincing 12 strangers on a jury that you’re a terrible person.  And during the discovery process of a lawsuit, EVERYTHING is up for grabs. A court can literally subpoena your entire life, including your emails, files, financial records, etc. Chances are they can find something in all that data to make you look bad.

Then there’s the other never-ending issue of government spying and the NSA archiving every kilobyte of data that passes across the Internet. It might be easier to simply CC the government on every email you send and add their email address as an authorized user of your Dropbox account. Despite all these known risks, though, and the constant stream of stories about hackers and government spying, few people take steps to safeguard their data.

(As an example, according to a study by Keeper Security, the most common password is 123456. Not exactly hacker-proof.)

But there are some very simple tools available that can help.

One of them is called Cryptomator, which came to my attention from a close friend of mine who works in the US Army’s cyberwarfare divison, which was established to defend government systems against foreign hackers. Cryptomator is free, simple program which encrypts every single file you store on a cloud server. Let’s say you use Dropbox to sync files between your laptop and the cloud.

Ordinarily, your files are stored unencrypted on your laptop, and they’re accessible by certain Dropbox staff through the cloud servers. Cryptomator encrypts the files on BOTH ends, i.e. the file that’s stored on the Dropbox servers is encrypted, AND the file stored locally on your laptop is encrypted.

Dropbox employees who try to access your data would see nothing but gibberish. And anyone who gains physical access to your laptop would see nothing but gibberish.  Only you have the ability to unlock the files.

Now, this sounds like a cumbersome process… having to constantly encrypt and decrypt files, enter passwords, etc.  But it’s not. Cryptomator has created a streamlined platform where you can group files together in ‘vaults’. Then you can decrypt an entire vault, attach it to your file system, and easily re-encrypt it when you’re finished. You can see an example in this video.

Try it out if you’re interested; the software is free, available on Mac OS, Windows, Linux, Android, and iPhone.  Plus it’s open-source, meaning that anyone who knows the Java programming language can download the source code and verify that the software contains no backdoors or malware.





[Ed. note: This article originally appeared on the Sovereign Man blog, right here at this link.]  Chris Campbell is the Managing editor of Laissez Faire Today. Before joining Agora Financial, he was a researcher and contributor to SilverDoctors.com.  The article is published under a creative commons license here.

FBI Had Evidence That Russia Bribed Clinton Foundation Before Obama Approved Uranium Deal

by Randy DeSoto


"The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats."

The FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives were using bribes and kickbacks to compromise individuals involved in the U.S. nuclear industry, but it approved the controversial sale of a Canadian-owned uranium mining company anyway, according to a new report.

The Hill reported that the FBI possessed recordings and emails showing Russia using bribes and kickbacks to compromise employees of an American uranium trucking firm, but chose not to bring charges or inform the public for years.

In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat on a panel made up of Obama administration officials that approved the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining company, to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, thus turning over 20 percent of America’s known uranium reserves to Moscow.

The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” The Hill quoted a “person who worked on the case” as saying.  According to an affidavit from a federal agent, the scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks.

The Hill further noted that Russian nuclear officials “routed” millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, with the Obama Justice Department aware of the attempts to compromise Americans.

As previously reported by Western Journalism, a group of 64 House Republicans signed a letter last summer calling on the FBI, the IRS and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate alleged criminal conduct in regards to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.  The letter highlighted an appearance of “pay for play” regarding the sale of Uranium One, that raises “serious allegations of criminal conduct requiring further explanation.”

The lawmakers cited the evidence presented in Peter Schweizer’s 2015 book, Clinton Cash, including payments former President Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation received from Russian interests, as further backing for their call for further investigation.



Oregon Judge Tries to Silence Mother of Medically Kidnapped Children: Orders Website Taken Down

by HealthImpactNewsStaff

 

Multnomah County Oregon Circuit Court Judge Susan M. Svetkey recently ordered Trisha Delaurent of Vancouver, Washington, to take down a website and Facebook page that chronicled her struggles with Oregon CPS to get her children back. Trisha was charged with “medical neglect” of her oldest son, Max, who is 15.

Oregon CPS not only removed Max from her custody, but also his 3 siblings, including a newborn baby just 12 days after he was born.
Baby Elias – Removed from family just 12 days after birth. Image Source.

The website chronicling the family’s struggles is injusticeoregon.com, which has since been taken over by other interested parties, so that Trisha no longer has control over the website. The website was ordered to be taken down by Oct. 2nd, but is still up at the time of publication. The Facebook page for injusticeoregon has apparently been removed. 


Family Court Judges Routinely Violate the 1st Amendment

Judge Svetkey. Image source/contact info.


Here at MedicalKidnap.com we have had family court judges order our stories about families who claim they have had their children taken away unjustly be removed from our website. These judges usually threaten the parents and issue gag orders against them that many attorneys have claimed are unconstitutional. The parents are, of course, terrified, because the state is holding their children in custody. Sometimes the parents come back and beg us to remove their stories. A few times judges have threatened to jail parents for failing to comply with their order.

But Health Impact News has never given in to pressure to remove these stories. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to publish these stories, and each time we stood firm and defied those orders, any legal action threatened by the judge against the parents, such as going to jail, has (so far) not happened.


Why Does Oregon Want this Mother Silenced?

Since the website injusticeoregon.com is still up despite a judge’s order that it be taken down, much of the background of this case is documented on this site. Guy Bini, writing for GarrettsVoice.com has also covered their story recently:

Delaurent has been accused of medical child abuse. She has publicized her family’s story and claims her innocence. The information published on the website has been highly critical of both Oregon CPS and law enforcement investigators who have been looking into the medical child abuse allegations.
 

Specifically, Delaurent has published a counter narrative with details that point to a lack of a genuine investigation which includes false reporting, false statements, failure to investigate and witness tampering all initiated by state investigators.


According to Judge Svetkey, the creation of the website and FB page flies in the face of state and federal laws designed to help protect the privacy and confidentiality of minor children who become caught up in the DHS/CPS system. However, DHS attorneys representing the children did not present any documentation during the 9/28 hearing that would suggest Delaurent was in violation of any state or federal privacy laws, nor were any specific laws referenced by code or by statute. Instead, state attorneys asked Delaurent if she posted medical information about the children which any parent has a right to do. Delaurent answered “Yes” which embolden Judge Svetkey to order the entire website injusticeoregon.com to be shut down.

Delaurent, a mother of four, is currently embattled with both Oregon DHS and Washington DSHS over the custodial rights of her children.

In October of 2016, the three oldest children were taken into temporary protective custody by Oregon CPS and later placed with the children’s maternal grandmother. On the surface it seems like an optimal plan to place the three older children with their maternal grandmother, until one scratches the surface to dig into grandma’s background and discovers a long-term hostile relationship towards Delaurent.

In February 2017, Delaurent gave birth to her 4th child. Twelve days after the birth of her youngest son, Washington CPS took temporary custody of him as well based upon a ‘threat of harm’ due to the other 3 children being taken by Oregon CPS.

Delaurent’s motivation to develop a website was to publish her family’s story. It was born out of her frustration which stemmed from what she believed to be a biased investigation on the part of Oregon CPS investigator, Steve Jackson, and Gresham Police Officer, Detective Robert Harley who is assigned to the Portland Child Abuse Team known as CAT. Neither investigator interviewed friends or family members close to the Delaurent family. Instead, they sought the opinions of those who were adversarial to Delaurent, and that includes Delaurent’s mother.

In April of 2017, Detective Harley interviewed Delaurent, six months after the decision was made by the state to take her children into temporary protective custody, and only after she had made numerous requests to be interviewed.

Medical abuse cases typically involve parents who fail or neglect to seek medical attention for their children, especially those children who have life threatening ailments. Delaurent has done the exact opposite. Delaurent has sought out medical treatment for her children and accepted the medical advice given by her doctors. She has made certain that doctor’s orders were followed. Then why has Delaurent been accused of medical child abuse?


Read the full article here.


Chelsea’s ‘Best Friend’ Wins $11 Mil In Defense Contracts With No Clearance

by Richard Pollock


A company whose president is “best friends” with Chelsea Clinton received more than $11 million in contracts over the last decade from a highly secretive Department of Defense think tank, but to date, the group lacks official federal approval to handle classified materials, according to sensitive documents TheDCNF was allowed to review.

Jacqueline Newmyer, the president of a company called the Long Term Strategy Group, has over the last 10 years received numerous Defense Department contracts from a secretive think tank called Office of Net Assessment.

The Office of Net Assessment is so sensitive, the specialized think tank is housed in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and reports directly to the secretary. To date, the Long Term Strategy Group has received $11.2 million in contracts, according to USAspending,gov, a government database of federal contracts. But after winning a decade of contracts from the Office of Net Assessment, the federal agency is only now in the process of granting clearance to the company. Long Term Strategy Group never operated a secure room on their premises to handle classified materials, according to the Defense Security Service, a federal agency that approves secure rooms inside private sector firms. Long Term Strategy Group operates offices in Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass. 

“The Long Term Strategy Group is currently in process for a facility clearance with the Defense Security Service,” the agency informed The DCNF in an email. 

Newmyer declined to address her company’s lack of facilities to handle classified material. “With regard to your questions about the status of our facilities, those are best directed to the US government, which has authority over such matters,” she wrote in an email to The DCNF.  She also declined to say whether her company is footing the bill for the new secure facility, or if the taxpayers are footing the bill through the Office of Net Assessment.

Adam Lovinger, a whistleblower and 12-year Office of Net Assessment (ONA) veteran, has repeatedly warned ONA’s leadership they faced risks by relying on outside contractors as well as the problem of cronyism and a growing “revolving door” policy, where ONA employees would leave the defense think tank and join private contractors to do the same work.

Others outside ONA have drawn similar conclusions about the office’s reliance on outside contractors. USA Today complained in August 2013 that the same set of contractors never seem to leave ONA: “While Democratic and Republican administrations come and go, ONA and its team of outside advisers remains the same. Contract records show the office relies on studies from outside contractors.” 

Clinton and Newmyer first met each other while attending Sidwell Friends School, an exclusive private Quaker school in the nation’s capital. They were in each other’s weddings, and in 2011 Chelsea referred to Newmyer as her “best friend.”  In numerous emails, Chelsea’s mom, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, actively promoted Newmyer and attempted to assist her in securing Defense Department contracts.

Secretary Clinton put Newmyer in contact with Michèle Flournoy, then-President Barack Obama’s undersecretary of defense, according to the emails from Clinton’s private email server released by the Department of State under a lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.  Hillary followed up in a July 19, 2009 email, asking Newmyer, “By the way, did the DOD contract work out?”

ONA was supposed to work on complicated future warfare scenarios when it was originally set up in the 1970s.  The think tank’s first director, Andrew Marshall, was adored by a coterie of ONA staff. He was called “Yoda,” after the “Star Wars” series, adding to his mystique. Marshall lasted in the DOD post for 42 years and retired at the age of 93 in 2015.


In 2016, Lovinger sent a series of memos to James H. Baker, ONA’s new director, raising many problems Baker “inherited” from Marshall, including the use of contractors. ONA has a reputation for issuing “‘sweet-heart contracts’ to a privileged few,” Lovinger told Baker in a Sept. 30, 2016 email chain.


ONA’s leadership, led by Baker, did not take kindly to Lovinger’s warnings and allegedly retaliated against the staffer, according to Sean Bigley, a federal security clearance attorney who also represents him.  Baker suspended Lovinger’s security clearance in May for “security infractions,” and launched numerous investigations.  The suspension came after Lovinger had been detailed to the National Security Council. He was removed from the National Security Council after losing his security clearance, and now languishes inside a Defense Department satellite office doing busy work.

In a Sept. 13, 2017 letter to DOD officials, Bigley charged: “A review of the ‘case file’ in this matter illuminates a picture of intentional whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Lovinger; personal and political vendettas against Lovinger by Baker …”  Although Lovinger has since been exonerated of all the accusations, he still faces the possibility of a revocation of his clearance. His case is currently pending before Defense Department officials.

In a recent move, Baker decided to “reclassify” Lovinger’s ONA position to one that now requires new skills he doesn’t possess.  Bigley complained about this new act of alleged retaliation in a Sept. 21 letter to the DOD acting general counsel:  “The practical effect of Baker’s plan, if executed, is that Mr. Lovinger will become a surplus employee and will be terminated; he does not possess the skill set applicable to the proposed reclassification.” Lovinger is the only staff member Baker has “reclassified,” according to Bigley.

One of Lovinger’s main complaints about ONA was that many of the reports contractors wrote imparted very little new information to the think tank. “Over the years ONA’s analytic staff has expressed how they learn very little from many (if not most) of our often very thin and superficial contractor reports,” he wrote in the Sept. 30, 2016 email. 

Some of Long Term Strategy Group’s reports bear out Lovinger’s critique. A September 2010 Long Term Strategy Group report, titled “Trends in Elite American Attitudes Toward War,” came to the astounding conclusion that, “American intellectuals have for the last century held considerably more cosmopolitan views than their non-intellectual counterparts.”  Another Long Term Strategy Group report was “On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People.”

Lovinger also suggested in a March 3, 2017 memo to the record that contractor studies should be peer-reviewed: “There has never been an external review of these contractors’ research products,” he said, adding, “It is now clear that over several decades the office transferred millions of dollars to inexperienced and unqualified contractors.” 

Others outside of ONA have been even more critical of the think tank. Book critic Carlos Lozada criticized the think tank as “an opaque bureaucratic outfit,” in a Washington Post review of a book about Marshall, ONA’s founder.  University of Notre Dame Political Science Chairman Michael C. Desch said “a systematic scrutiny of [ONA’s] work is long overdue” in the December 2014 issue of  The National Interest. He recommended that ONA, “like so many now-superfluous parochial schools, should close its doors.”

On the liberal front, Middlebury Institute’s director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program, Jeffrey Lewis, wrote a scathing attack on ONA in the Oct. 24, 2014 edition of Foreign Policy Magazine. “Marshall funded a fair number of crackpots,” he charged.  Lewis cited two studies on Iraq “written by a crackpot who thinks Saddam planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9/11, and a study on ‘Islamic Warfare’ by the guy who fabricated both a Ph.D. and an interview with Barack Obama.”

Lovinger has also been critical of the revolving door at ONA, where previous government staffers went to work for ONA contractors.  Phillip Pournelle, who was ONA’s military adviser from November 2011 to December 2016, now works at Long Term Strategy Group as its “director for gaming and analysis,” according to his LinkedIn page.

Steve Rosen, also a long-time ONA consultant, was originally Newmyer’s professor at Harvard. But Newmyer and Rosen hit it off, and they “co-taught” a Harvard class together in 2006.  Newmyer and Rosen are top officers in a nonprofit they created together called the American Academy for Strategic Education, which is dedicated to educating a rising generation of strategic thinkers,” according to its website.  The organization has raised $894,000 since it began operations in 2013, according to their IRS 990 filing. The academy paid Newmyer and Rosen $45,000 each in 2015.

Since serving as president of Long Term Strategy Group, Newmyer has participated in many prestigious bodies on national security, and she was enrolled in a Ph.D. program at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.  But her Ph.D. had little to do with today’s international conflicts or in contemporary military strategy. Her dissertation was on “a comparison of seminal works on strategy and statecraft from ancient China, the medieval Middle East, and early modern Europe,” according to a Harvard profile of her.

Adam Lovinger did not consent to an interview for this article. The Office of Net Assessment did not reply to a DCNF inquiry.

 

 


Delivered by The Daily Sheeple We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details). Contributed by Richard Pollock of The Daily Caller News Foundation.