America's Secret History: 5 Important Facts You Were Never Taught In School


 by Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri


We are either going to have a future where women lead the way to make peace with the Earth, or we are not going to have a human future at all. ~ Dr. Vandana Shiva

History, as the saying goes, 'belongs to the victor.' Oftentimes, this unfortunately, results in biased and totally distorted history. In my own American archival research, I have discovered that the American history we continue to learn in both public and private schools and universities has been drastically manipulated.

Lies might be the more accurate word.

Today, we do not have any real accounting, or public discussion, or textbooks and very few other books about what really happened in our past, since the signing of our Declaration of Independence in 1776. These lies actually go back further than the founding of this country. What we have might accurately call his-story. Even with all the distortions and deceit, it is certainly not even "a collective narrative"; and despite 40 years of feminist scholarship, it still does not include much about women the other half of our population or people of color. There is an enormous amount of research on these marginalized and forgotten people.

The problem is that most of the research stays in obscure journals, and doesn't get into mainstream texts that are already biased. The corporate-controlled media is also part of this massive deception. They do not report the truth, but are part of a vast and corrupt cover-up. It is all about "Orwellian" news. This includes the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, even the PBS News Hour; the list goes on and on. Mainstream News is a wasteland here and all over the globe.

This article is a short accounting of some major historical issues/events that we never learned in school. However, they are vital to our understanding of the corruption, coverup, and depth of lies and deceit that continues to be perpetrated on all Americans, all with the collusion of public officials from one century to another. This remains an invisible but, nonetheless, criminal compact of enormous proportions. It affects all Americans and everyone else on the planet.

I urge everyone to read this, share it with everyone you know, and do your homework over the 4th of July Nationwide General Strike for which United We Strike and I are calling. The New World dis-Order plan of lies and deceit is over. We will no longer buy into their 'USA Inc.' This was a corporate-planned nightmare that has deliberately destroyed our country and Gaiaâ's ecosystem for the benefit of banksters and other elites all at the expense of the 99% rest of us.

Unknown American History

1: Incorporated Government Entities

We are no longer under our original 1789 Constitution for the united states of America. It was destroyed by stealth when the Act of 1871 was treasonously passed by a criminal Congress. This made Washington, D.C., a corporation beholden to England's bankers. The District of Columbia is a separate city-state, just as are Vatican City and the inner part of London. All three geographic areas are key centers of interlocking financial power for this planet.

After the Civil War, America was in deep financial trouble essentially, it was bankrupt. So, on February 21, 1871, the 41st Congress [with NO AUTHORITY to do this!] creates a separate form of government for the District of Columbia [Washington, D.C.] for this area's 10-square miles.

This was a strategic move by foreign interests (international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers (specifically the Rothschilds of London) to incur a debt to said bankers. Because the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the United States.

See: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

By this act, Washington, D.C., and then eventually all the other states became a corporation that was 'owned by foreign interests' and beholden to the banksters. It then began operating via Private International Law. America, then had a new and illegal constitution, called: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". (Note all capital letters, and "OF" was substituted for the original for Our original Constitution was spelled this way: The Constitution for the united states of America).

The District of Columbia then became an INCORPORATED government - no longer a republic. This new 'CONSTITUTION' is a separate and illegal document that benefits the corporations not us!

Over the ensuing decades and again by stealth and with the complicity of Congress (could this have even been done without Congress?) this became the illegal corporate takeover of all the other states. This form of corporate law is based on Roman Civil Law and Admiralty or Maritime Law not Common Law.

None of this is taught to us in any school! The complexity and deceit are ENORMOUS.

For 142 years, this facade has been ILLEGALLY in place with the help of public officials, the media, and the three branches of 'US Inc.' government and their corrupt corporate agencies. To add to this criminality, in 1892, the Banker's Manifesto was adopted, stating:

"We [the bankers] must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them..

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders."

Remember this was written in 1892. More than a decade later, and while in office (from 1907-1917) Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., revealed the Bankers' Manifesto to Congress and thus to the American people. See p. 2-3 at: http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/tag/organic-act.of-1871

Then, in 1913, The fraudulent Federal Reserve Act was passed, again putting our finances into the hands of private banksters. All present and succeeding debts of the U.S. Treasury were assumed by the Federal Reserve (a municipal corporation). Remember, the Federal Reserve is a private banking consortium. It has been in business for 100 years, and this whole time has been stealing from us. Here is more information. See p. 6: http://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/tag/organic-act-of-1871

By 1933, the Federal Reserve Notes (basically paper money with no intrinsic worth) were no longer backed by gold, just backed by the credit of the nation. What happens when the nation is bankrupt, as it is now?

Essentially, this means that Congress does not work for us. So-called public officials are working for US Inc.

WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DUPED!

2: Unlawful Constitutional Amendments

a) There are two original Amendments that must get widespread coverage. Firstly, the original 13th Amendment was deleted (sometime before the Civil War) without any public discussion. This is not in any of the current CONSTITUTION printings or online.

This is the original:

No title of Nobility can be granted by the United States [NOTE: not all capital letters] and no person holding any office under them can, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or Foreign State.

Any Citizen of the United States accepting, claiming, receiving, or retaining, any title of nobility or honour, or, without the consent of Congress, accepting and retaining any present, pension, office, or emolument, of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince or Foreign Power, such person ceases to be a citizen of the United States, and is incapable of holding any office under them or either of them.

Without any public discussion, this amendment was deleted. In its place is now the Abolishing of Slavery.

b) The 16th Amendment was only ratified by four states. This is the original text:

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Therefore, without proper ratification, this amendment is actually null and void. Yet, it is included in current printings of the now corporate and illegal CONSTITUTION.

See: https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

We do not now, nor ever have had to pay federal taxes! More information is available through the courageous work of former IRS Agent, Joe Banister who became a whistle-blower.

Here is his 2-part interview:

Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKePl2gW_3M
Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Qv_j-Y0nE

To support this even further, former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller (who was asked to resign) has recently admitted on May 17, 2013, that paying taxes are voluntary.

See: Former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller says income tax is voluntary

In addition, film director, the late Aaron Russo has done an investigative documentary about the IRS cover-up that is essential for everyone to see. This is an eye-opener for those who are unfamiliar with this massive government deception. PLEASE SHARE THIS WIDELY!

View: America: Freedom To Fascism (Directors Cut) on YouTube

3: The U.S. is under Martial Law

We have been under Martial Law, since the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln instituted Martial Law during the Civil War. However, after he was assassinated, it was never rescinded. This is in part, why we have a centuries-long scenario of 'perpetua wars', one war after another to feed the out-of-control greed of the banksters, while millions of people lost their lives in wars deliberately created for corporate and elite profits on both sides.

Any current threats of instituting Martial Law are spurious, because it is already there.

4: Your Social Security Number (SSN)

This 9-digit number was created in 1936, supposedly to track your earnings and benefits. It does far more than that. It is another excise tax imposed on income, in addition to other taxes and according to the Internal Revenue Code, has nothing to do with insurance. The Code reads:

IRC (Internal Revenue Code) 3101. Rate of tax. (a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance [my bold italics]. In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)

[See: www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap7.html]

As noted in this chapter just cited above, "social" means public and "security" is corporation stock. This means:

When you get a social security number, you are activating or creating the public stock (security) of the corporation known as the United States, stock created for you to use, which adds to their collateral. By getting a social security number you declare yourself to be public stock of the U.S. government. You ARE a social (public) security, with a security number, you do not GET social security insurance!

[See above-cited link.]

This Social Security number belongs to the US Inc. government and, your name, in ALL CAPS, is included. This makes you a U.S. Corporate [US Inc.] "citizen." This number means you declare yourself to be a public "stock" of the US Inc. government. We became collateral for US Inc. to acquire debt. Did we ever learn this in any classroom?

5. Your Birth Certificate Number

Remember, now we are under Admiralty Law, the law of the seas. The UCC (Universal Commercial Code, the bible of business all over the earth) coordinates and harmonizes all 50 states sales. This code is based on ancient Vatican Canon Law. Going back to the days of the Caesars in Rome (and Roman Canon Law), the Roman Empire established that all nations worked on a level playing field. These regulations STILL exist under the Roman Catholic Church and the UCC.

Birth registration or certificates started in 1921, under the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act. This was another bill of goods sold to a duped and un-informed public who were then told it would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes.

One of those "other purposes" provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating ˜federal children." This government, under the doctrine of "Parens Patriae", [Latin: one's country's parent, i.e. government] now legislates for American children as if they are owned by the federal government. Through the public school enrollment process and continuing license requirements for most aspects of daily life, these children grow up to be adults indoctrinated into the process of asking for permission from the government to do all those things necessary to carry out daily activities that exist in what is called a ˜free country.'

[See: http://macquirelatory.com/Birth%20Certificate%20Truth.htm]

At birth, the parents do not get an original birth certificate. They get a copy, which is written, on Exchequecher bank note paper that is owned by the [British] Crown even for Americans. The corporation of the U.S. is registered at the Inner City of London and a Roman enclave of the Vatican.

See: network54.com/Forum/Why is my name printed in all capital letters on my bank card+driver's licence

Basically, your birth certificate is the way your parents register you with the government as a corporation. Further, since 1933, when the U.S. went bankrupt, our birth and marriage certificates pledge the people as collateral against those loans and municipal bonds taken out with the Federal Reserve' banks. [See: macquirelatory, just cited above.]

Our birth certificates are a security; and they are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. We are owned by the international bankers; and we work as perpetual debt slaves.

Watch: Your Birth Certificate is a Stock on the NYSE on YouTube.

See also, Ellen Brown and her website (essential reading): www.webofdebt.com

So, these numbers, our numbers, are traded regularly on the Stock Market.

Why do you think when you call to see if a company is hiring, you have to go through a division known as Human Resource? The people are resources to the government, their birth certificates are a security on the New York Stock Exchange, which is why if you look at all birth certificates in America, it will say at the bottom this is printed on security paper, do not accept if not on full color security paper. At the bottom, you will always have a series of numbers, red numbers printed on the birth certificate, in which those numbers are a security stock exchange number on the World Stock Exchange, in which the American people are worth money to the International Bank that bought the government in the 1930's. [See: macquirelatory, cited above]

This is Just the Tip of the Proverbial Iceberg

To take this idea a bit further, the depths of the deceit go down miles and miles into the ocean. The educational system (along with most other institutions and agencies) is so riddled with corruption, we never have known either our real collective stories or what is really happening today. Everything is an Orwellian fade of massive proportions, all deliberately created.

We are already a society that is dumbed-down and heavily poisoned through the water, food supply, dangerous vaccines, and air and soil rife with lethal aerosol Chem-trails and other immune-supressing hazards. We have been set up to be automatons. Robots are glorified in the movies.

This global societal paradigm is based on harm and fear. That is in the movies, on TV, and in war stories that are all glorified. So, children learn hate and fear at an early age. It is passed on from generation to generation





Bill and Melinda Gates: Controlling Population and Public Education

by Anne Hendershott

Continuing their commitment to controlling global population growth through artificial contraception, sterilization, and abortion initiatives, Microsoft founder and philanthropist, Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, a self-described “practicing” Catholic, are now attempting to control the curriculum of the nation’s public schools. Subsidizing the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has committed more than $76 million to support teachers in implementing the Common Core—a standardized national curriculum.  This, on top of the tens of millions they have already awarded to the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop the Common Core in the first place.

Working collaboratively with the Obama administration, the Gates Foundation subsidized the creation of a national curriculum for English and mathematics that has now been adopted by 46 states, and the District of Columbia—despite the fact that the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act all protect states against such an intrusion by the United States Department of Education.

The Common Core Standards were developed by an organization called Achieve, and the National Governors Association—both of which were funded by the Gates Foundation.  The standards have been imposed on the states without any field testing, and little or no input from those involved in implementing the standards.  In a post entitled “Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards,” educational policy analyst and New York University Research Professor, Diane Ravitch, wrote that the standards “are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers or schools…Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states."

Ravitch is especially concerned about the content of the curriculum—what she called the “flap over fiction vs. informational text.”  Rather than giving English teachers the freedom to teach literature, the Common Core mandates that a far greater percentage of classroom time be spent on “fact-based” learning. Ravitch’s concerns are shared by others.  For example, one teacher claimed that she had to give up having her students read Shakespeare in favor of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point because it was “fact-based” and Shakespeare was not. Of course, Tipping Point has a political agenda.  Parents may be concerned if they were to learn that Gladwell suggests such “facts” as the belief that parents should stop worrying about their children’s “experimentation with drugs,” including cocaine because “it seldom leads to hardcore use.”

“Fact-based” books on climate change are also replacing classic works of literature because they are viewed as offering students an opportunity to learn “science.” Freakonomics—a book that has already been a favorite of public school teachers—is preferable to Poe because students will learn about the positive effects of abortion on reducing crime rates by reducing the population of those more likely to commit crime.

While the adoption of the Common Core was “voluntary” by the 46 states that adopted it, it was well understood by these states that they would not be eligible for Race to the Top funding ($4.35 billion) unless they adopted the Common Core standards.  The Gates Foundation was very much a part of this.  According to Lyndsey Layton of the Washington Post (December 2, 2012), “the Gates Foundation invested tens of millions of dollars in the effort…The Obama administration kicked the notion into high gear when it required states to adopt the common core—or an equivalent—in order to compete for Race to the Top grant funds.

Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post recently reported (February 26, 2013) that there is growing resistance. Alabama, for example, withdrew from the two consortia that are working on creating standardized tests aligned with the standards. Indiana, which adopted the Common Core in 2010 under the state education superintendent Tony Bennett, is now talking about a “pause” in the implementation of the curriculum.  Bennett was defeated in the November elections by an educator who opposed Bennett’s support for the Common Core.

Now, there are concerns that the imposition of the Common Core within the public schools could threaten the autonomy of private schools, religious schools and home schools.  An op-ed published in the Orange County Register by Robert Holland, claims that the Common Core could “morph into a national curriculum that will stifle the family-centered creativity that has fostered high rates of achievement and growth for home education…Many private and parochial schools—including those of the 100 Roman Catholic dioceses across the nation, already are adopting the CCSS prescriptions for math and English classes…Their debatable reasoning is that the rush of most state governments to embrace the national standards means publishers of textbooks and tests will fall in line, thereby leaving private schools with no practical alternatives for instructional materials.  According to October 8, 2012 article in Education Week by Erik Robelin, it is not just Catholic schools that are adopting the Common Core, some Lutheran and other denominations of Christian schools are shifting to the common core, including Grand Rapids Christian in Michigan and the Christian Academy School System in Louisville, KY.  According to Robelin, parochial school leaders claim that they must “remain competitive” with public schools and now feel pressured to adopt the Core. These are real concerns.  As Diane Ravitch points out, “Now that David Coleman, the primary architect of the Common Core standards has become president of the College Board, we can expect that SAT will be aligned to the standards.  No one will escape their reach, whether they attend public or private school.”

On February 14, 2013, Missouri legislator Kurt Bahr filed HB616 that prohibits the State Board of Education from implementing the Common Core for public schools developed by the Common Core Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly. An increasing number of parents are voicing their concerns.  For example, Tiffany Mouritsen, a Utah mother, blogged that the American Institutes for Research (AIR), the primary source for Common Core testing is a major concern for her:  “AIR markets its values which includes promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual agenda for teens, and publicizes its client list (including George Soros and Bill and Melinda Gates).”  In a column published in January, political commentator Michelle Malkin calls the Common Core a “stealthy federal takeover of school curriculum and standards across the country.” And, she maintains that the Common Core’s “dubious college and career read standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren."

The Gates Foundation: Buying Control

The promise of federal funds to states in order to “encourage” them to adopt the Common Core is nothing new.  Our government has been doing this both nationally and internationally for decades.  In a 2008 book entitled Fatal Misconception, author Matthew Connelly writes that in the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson leveraged food aid for family planning during crop failures in India, thus creating an incentive for the sterilization program.  India’s Ministry of Health and Family Planning admitted that, “The large number of sterilizations and IUD insertions during 1967-68 was due to drought conditions.”  Eventually, more sophisticated incentives such as bicycles and radios were used to encourage women to accept sterilization.  Connelly writes that under Indira Gandhi in the mid-1970s sterilization became a condition not just for land allotments, but for irrigation water, electricity, ration cards, rickshaw licenses, medical care, pay raises and promotions.  There were sterilization quotas—especially for the Dalits (the untouchable caste) who were targeted for family planning.

While the Gates Foundation has not been involved in anything this coercive, they have indeed been very much involved in giving aid to those countries willing to participate in family planning initiatives.   For nearly two decades, the Gates Foundation has been generous in providing aid to more than 100 countries—often coupled with family planning opportunities.  Such aid is often framed as a way to foster economic growth.  In an article in American Thinker, Andressen Blom and James Bell wrote that Melinda Gates made that connection explicit in a speech at a population gathering that “government leaders are now beginning to understand that providing access to contraceptives is a cost effective way to foster economic growth.”

Bill Gates revealed his own population goals in February, 2010, at the invitation-only Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference in Long Beach, California, when he gave his keynote speech on global warming: “Innovating to Zero!” In a youtube video available here,  Gates stated that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 and advised those in attendance that population had much to do with the increase in CO2.  Claiming that each individual on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year, Gates stated that “Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero…It has been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all.”  To illustrate, Gates presented the following equation: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).  Gates told the audience that “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.  That’s a fact from high school algebra.”  For Gates, the P (population) portion of the equation is the most important: “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

Gates maintains that improvements in health care—including an expansion of the administration of vaccinations—will encourage families to reduce the number of children they desire to have.  And, in an ongoing attempt to expand the types of birth control, Gates has spent millions of dollars on research and development.  According to Christian Voice, a few years ago the Gates Foundation awarded a grant of $100,000 to researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, to develop a new type of ultrasound described as a “non-invasive form of birth control for men” which would make a man infertile for up to six months.

Such strategies have been effective.   In fact, the Gates Foundation has been so successful in their family planning initiatives that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) awarded their annual Population Award in 2010 to the Foundation.  According to a June 15, 2010 article in Mercator.net, at the awards ceremony, UNFPA executive director Thoraya Obaid cited the Gates Foundation as a “leader in the fields of global health and global development, particularly in promoting excellence in population assistance, including through the design of innovative, integrated solutions in the areas of reproductive health, family planning, and maternal and neonatal health.”  The International Planned Parenthood Federation is a previous winner of the United Nations Population Fund’s Annual Award.

It is easy to understand why the United Nations Population Fund—a fund which Steven Mosher, the President of the Population Research Institute has exposed as being a direct participant in China’s coercive one-child policy—honored Gates with their prestigious Population Fund award since the Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to “family-planning” groups including the United Nations Population Fund itself; CARE International—an organization which is lobbying for legalized abortion in several African nations; Save the Children—a major promoter of the population control agenda, the World Health Organizationan organization that forcibly sterilized thousands of women in the 1990s under the pretence of providing tetanus vaccination services in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines; and of course, the major abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Bill and Melinda Gates truly believe that population control is key to the future.  Plans are already in place to track births and vaccinations through cell phone technology to register every birth on the planet.  Gates claims that the GPS technology would enable officials to track and “remind” parents who do not bring their children in for vaccines.   Maintaining that vaccination is key to reducing population growth, Gates predicts that if child mortality can be reduced, parents will have fewer children, following the example of the urbanized West where birth rates have dropped to below replacement levels: “The fact is that within a decade of improving health outcomes, parents decide to have fewer children.”   For Gates, “there is no such thing as a healthy, high population growth country.  If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth… As the world grows from 6 billion to 9 billion, all of that population growth is in urban slums…It’s a very interesting problem.”

More than a decade ago, on May 17, 2002, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation had purchased shares in nine of the largest pharmaceutical companies valued at nearly $205 million.  Acquiring shares in Merck, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson Wyeth, Abbott Labs, and others, the Gates Foundation continues a financial interest in common with the makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines, and contraceptives.  But, the commitment to global population control goes well beyond financial interests.  It is likely that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will continue its commitment to global population control, and now, curriculum creation in the nation’s schools because they truly believe that they know better than anyone else how we all should live.

A Product of Poor Catholic Education

It is difficult to believe the claims of Bill and Melinda Gates that they are not involved in the abortion industry when you look at the relationships they have with organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation—the largest abortion provider in the world.  According to the National Catholic Register, Melinda Gates represents herself in the media as a practicing Catholic who has a great uncle who was a Jesuit priest and a great aunt who was an Ursuline nun who taught her to read.  She graduated from Ursuline Academy in Dallas, where she claims to have learned “incredible social justice.”  And, this may indeed be where the problem begins.  For so many Catholics, social justice has been so broadly defined that it now includes giving women access to reproductive rights—including the right to abortion—so that they can play an equal role in contributing to the workplace and the economy.  In an article entitled “Why Birth Control is Still a Big Idea” published in Foreign Policy in December, 2012, Melinda Gates writes:

Contraceptives unlock one of the most dormant but potentially powerful assets in development:  women as decision makers.  When women have the power to make choices about their families, they tend to decide precisely what demographers, economists, and development experts recommend.

Most recently, in a January 2, 2013 article published on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website entitled “Profiles in Courage: Philippines Passes Reproductive Health Bill,” the article congratulates all of those who helped bring expanded access to “reproductive health” through the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012—recently signed by President Aquino. This bill states that women and men—living in the most Catholic of Catholic countries—can now “decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children.”   What the Gates Foundation website omits is information about the provision within the bill involving “population management” through mandatory counseling of couples seeking marriage licenses.  In this case, social justice involves a demand that couples learn about the government’s views on an ideal family size of two children—coming one step closer to China in its government’s one-child policy.

This commitment to a distorted definition of social justice by Melinda and Bill Gates will likely continue because they have been lead to believe that such control is what is best for people.  The Core Curriculum is really just another component of population control—it is used to help teach children the “facts” about climate change and problems of over-population.  Indeed, the population agenda is a trap that many wealthy, highly intelligent people have fallen into in the past. From the wealthy eugenics supporters of Planned Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger, to the Rockefeller family and their population control initiatives, this work continues today through their heirs—heirs like David Rockefeller—an ally of Bill and Melinda Gates.  And some influential Catholics have been complicit in this.  At one time, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of the University of Notre Dame served as a trustee, and later, Chairman of the Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, a funder of population causes counter to the teachings of the Church.

The population control initiatives promoted by the Gates Foundation will continue to grow nationally and internationally because they have convinced others and themselves that they are saving lives. On their website, they ask: “what is more life affirming than saving one third of mothers from dying in childbirth?”   What they do not seem to acknowledge is how many unborn children have died from their initiatives.

317


Anne Hendershott is Professor of Sociology at Franciscan University in Steubenville. Previously, she taught for fifteen years as a tenured faculty member at the University of San Diego. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education and The Politics of Abortion.


The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy

by Bob Bauman

 

The ghost of Richard Nixon is haunting the halls of power in Washington, D.C.

In 1974, as a 37-year-old member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I counted Dick Nixon as my friend. Then, the Watergate scandal broke. President Nixon was accused of, among other things, trying to get the IRS to harass his political enemies with tax audits. It resulted in a vote for his impeachment.

Now, fast forward nearly four decades to last Friday. A director at the Internal Revenue Service openly revealed that the agency had specifically targeted for special scrutiny 75 conservative groups that had 'Tea Party' or 'Patriots' or other similar terms in their names. They even went so far as to target groups looking to educate citizens on the U.S. Constitution.

I know, it's chilling. It prompts us to ask: If faceless IRS bureaucrats can target Americans for their beliefs at will, are you next?
 

As The Wall Street Journal (May 11, 2013) stated: "Other than the power to prosecute, the taxing authority is the most awesome power the government has. It can ruin people and companies."

And if you offend the IRS, it could ruin you too!

In the face of these appalling attacks on our basic liberties, perhaps the time has come for Americans to protect their fundamental financial and personal privacy rights by considering heading offshore. For decades, The Sovereign Society has been showing members how to implement simple asset protection strategies, take advantage of global investment opportunities and employ safe, cost-effective ways to move assets to safer havens abroad.

As recent events have highlighted, the proverbial government noose around our necks is only getting tighter.


The United Police State of America


Think, for a moment, about the implications of the IRS's actions.

If you dare to advocate a political position that it dislikes, will your taxes be audited? How much will it cost you to defend yourself?

This is not small-time Chicago ward heeler politics. This is serious, criminal official misconduct on a massive scale.

Until now, I think most Americans assumed that the IRS treated us as the law and our Constitution required, although not always courteously or fairly.  In reality, things were much different. High IRS officials knew about and concealed their anti-conservative policy for two years, since at least June 29, 2011.

Equally shocking, one of my least favorite bureaucrats, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, for a year falsely denied that the IRS had done the very thing they just finally admitted doing.
 

A few months ago, I wrote: "As a former professor of constitutional law, I would hope the president knows that the Bill of Rights guarantees every citizen due process of law. But if the president is willing to ignore the U.S. Constitution, what might such a zealot do to implement his vision of social justice and redistribution of wealth?"

Turns out, some people's names (or at least the names of their organizations) really are on Obama's list.

In anticipation of the tyrannical impulses of our current government, I recently created a survival guide for Washington D.C's new tax assault, wrote about a fast-track residence program in Panama and shared the secrets to the easiest way to enjoy the benefits of European Union citizenship.

It pains me to admit it, but I believe that our best chance to protect our liberties and enjoy financial freedom may exist overseas. I urge you to plan for your future accordingly.

I leave you today with the words of Martin Niemiller, a prominent Protestant pastor who was an outspoken foe of Adolf Hitler. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps and is best remembered for this quotation in which we all can find a lesson, we must all speak out against oppression:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.



Read more: http://patrioteponym.webnode.com/news/power-to-tax-power-to-destroy/

OP's Reich adds License Plate Scanner To Tighten Citizen Surveillance

by Jennifer Lynch and Peter Bibring

Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using sophisticated cameras, called "automated license plate readers," or ALPRs, to scan and record the license plates of millions of cars across the country. These cameras, mounted on top of patrol cars and on city streets, can scan up to 1,800 license plate per minute, day or night, allowing one squad car to record more than 14,000 plates during the course of a single shift.

Automated License Plate Recording System

Photographing a single license plate one time on a public city street may not seem problematic, but when the data are put into a database, combined with other scans of that same plate on other city streets, and stored forever, it can become very revealing. Information about your location over time can show not only where you live and work, but your political and religious beliefs, your social and sexual habits, your visits to the doctor, and your associations with others. And according to recent research reported in Nature, it's possible to identify 95% of individuals with as few as four randomly selected geospatial data points (location plus time), making location data the ultimate biometric identifiers.

To better gauge the real threat to privacy posed by ALPRs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of Southern California asked the LAPD and LA Sheriff's Department for information on their systems, including their policies on retaining and sharing information and all the license plate data each department collected over the course of a single week in 2012.

After both agencies refused to release most of the records we asked for, we sued. We hope to get access to these data, both to show just how many data the agencies are collecting and to show how revealing they can be.

Automated license plate readers are often touted as an easy way to find stolen cars -- the system checks a scanned plate against a database of stolen or wanted cars and can instantly identify a hit, allowing officers to set up a sting to recover the car and catch the thief. But even when there's no match in the database and no reason to think a car is stolen or involved in a crime, police keep the data.

According to the LA Weekly, the LAPD and LASD together already have collected more than 160 million "data points" (license plates plus time, date, and exact location) in the greater LA area -- that's more than 20 hits for each of the more than 7 million vehicles registered in LA County. That's a ton of data, but it's not all -- law enforcement officers also have access to private databases containing hundreds of millions of plates and their coordinates collected by "repo" men.

Law enforcement agencies claim that ALPR systems are no different from an officer recording license plate, time and location information by hand. They also argue the data don't warrant any privacy protections because we drive our cars around in public. However, as five justices of the Supreme Court recognized last year in U.S. v. Jones, a case involving GPS tracking, the ease of data collection and the low cost of data storage make technological surveillance solutions such as GPS or ALPR very different from techniques used in the past.

Police are open about their desire to record the movements of every car in case it might one day prove valuable. In 2008, LAPD police Chief Charlie Beck (then the agency's chief of detectives) told GovTech magazine that ALPRs have "unlimited potential" as an investigative tool. "It's always going to be great for the black-and-white to be driving down the street and find stolen cars rolling around... But the real value comes from the long-term investigative uses of being able to track vehicles -- where they've been and what they've been doing -- and tie that to crimes that have occurred or that will occur." But amassing data on the movements of law-abiding residents poses a real threat to privacy, while the benefit to public safety is speculative, at best.

In light of privacy concerns, states including Maine, New Jersey, and Virginia have limited the use of ALPRs, and New Hampshire has banned them outright. Even the International Association of Chiefs of Police has issued a report recognizing that "recording driving habits" could raise First Amendment concerns because cameras could record "vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors' offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests."

But even if ALPRs are permitted, there are still common-sense limits that can allow the public safety benefits of ALPRs while preventing the wholesale tracking of every resident's movements. Police can, and should, treat location information from ALPRs like other sensitive information -- they should retain it no longer than necessary to determine if it might be relevant to a crime, and should get a warrant to keep it any longer. They should limit who can access it and who they can share it with. And they should put oversight in place to ensure these limits are followed.

Unfortunately, efforts to impose reasonable limits on ALPR tracking in California have failed so far. Last year, legislation that would have limited private and law enforcement retention of ALPR data to 60 days -- a limit currently in effect for the California Highway Patrol -- and restricted sharing between law enforcement and private companies failed after vigorous opposition from law enforcement. In California, law enforcement agencies remain free to set their own policies on the use and retention of ALPR data, or to have no policy at all.

Some have asked why we would seek public disclosure of the actual license plate data collected by the police -- location-based data that we think is private. But we asked specifically for a narrow slice of data -- just a week's worth -- to demonstrate how invasive the technology is. Having the data will allow us to see how frequently some plates have been scanned; where and when, specifically, the cops are scanning plates; and just how many plates can be collected in a large metropolitan area over the course of a single week. Actual data will reveal whether ALPRs are deployed primarily in particular areas of Los Angeles and whether some communities might, therefore, be much more heavily tracked than others. If these data are too private to give a week's worth to the public to help inform us how the technology is being used, then isn't it too private to let the police amass years' worth of data without a warrant?

After the Boston Marathon bombings, many have argued that the government should take advantage of surveillance technology to collect more data, rather than less. But we should not so readily give up the very freedoms that terrorists seek to destroy. We should recognize just how revealing ALPR data are and not be afraid to push our police and legislators for sensible limits to protect our basic right to privacy.


{Editor Note: Automated License Plate Recorders are merely the precursor ro CCTV which is already in use in many U.S. cities. However, a recent Australian court decision casts doubt as to their real purpose which doesn't appear to be crime.  "A local resident opposed to the introduction of CCTV cameras succesfully proved that public surveillance carried out by his city council not only broke Australia’s privacy laws, but also did nothing to prevent crime – the supposed reason for its installation."}


Daniel Solove, author of Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security, believes these arguments, and many like them, are flawed. They are based on mistaken views about what it means to protect privacy and the costs and benefits of doing so.

Terrorist attacks, while horrific, claim far fewer lives each year than suicide in the U.S. Nearly 30,000 Americans take their own lives each year. According to The Guardian, 3,467 American lives have been lost in terrorist attacks since 1970; 3,003 of those were in 2001.  A version of this article was originally posted here.


The Offering Of The Natural

by Oswald Chambers

"Nothing has any power to alter a man save the incoming of the life of Jesus

and that is the only sign that he is born again.

 

"Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." Galatians 4:22

Paul is not dealing with sin in this chapter of Galatians, but with the relation of the natural to the spiritual. The natural must be turned into the spiritual by sacrifice, otherwise a tremendous divorce will be produced in the actual life. Why should God ordain the natural to be sacrificed? God did not. It is not God's order, but His permissive will. God's order was that the natural should be transformed into the spiritual by obedience; it is sin that made it necessary for the natural to be sacrificed.

Abraham had to offer up Ishmael before he offered up Isaac. Some of us are trying to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God before we have sacrificed the natural. The only way in which we can offer a spiritual sacrifice to God is by presenting our bodies a living sacrifice. Sanctification means more than deliverance from sin, it means the deliberate commitment of myself whom God has saved to God, and that I do not care what it costs.

If we do not sacrifice the natural to the spiritual, the natural life will mock at the life of the Son of God in us and produce a continual swither. This is always the result of an undisciplined spiritual nature. We go wrong because we stubbornly refuse to discipline ourselves, physically, morally or mentally. "I wasn't disciplined when I was a child." You must discipline yourself now. If you do not, you will ruin the whole of your personal life for God.

God is not with our natural life while we pamper it; but when we put it out in the desert and resolutely keep it under, then God will be with it; and He will open up wells and oases, and fulfill all His promises for the natural.




Endowing the U.S. Dollar with real value

by Wayne Flaherty

As America’s fiat paper money continues in its death spiral toward zero value, there is a very real way to endow it with a minimum value no matter what the Fed does to it. Our government should change the size of the dollar, the composition of the paper on which it is printed, and the method by which it is delivered to the end user (no pun intended).

Were the American dollar made in rolls 4 inches wide by 4-1/2 inches in diameter and wound around a 1 inch diameter cardboard tube its value would be guaranteed forever. There would be no need for central banks or even Fort Knox. Every American would become a guardian of the nation’s wealth by storing their fair share in their bathrooms.

The politicians and central bankers who spent the last half a century stealing and debasing our currency would suddenly find themselves able to possess and control only their fair share. That would make the two most profitable occupations far less attractive. After what is the use of being elected to office if there is not treasury from which to line your pockets? What is the use of being a central banker if you can’t privatize the profits and publicize the losses?

We could make it a constitutional amendment. It won’t need a number – we’ll just call it the “Last Amendment”. If you think about it, the possibilities are endless.




Two Supreme Ct. Decisions the Anti-Gunners Don't Want You to See

by Carl F. Worden

There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45). Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.

Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

I didn't make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.


DICK ACT of 1902... CAN'T BE REPEALED

 
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
 
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
 
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."


The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917



 






Kansas Ethics Head Hazlett in Ethics Trouble Himself

by Mary Kay Culp, KFL Executive Director

Today's KFL blog (read it HERE) examines how the states' legal ethics head, Stan Hazlett, went after one attorney's license, allegedly breaking the rules and repeatedly lying! He now faces his own set of ethics charges. Interestingly, that attorney also had a connection to abortion. Because of his actions it was revealed in a story in the Topeka Capitol Journal that sexual abuse was going on at the women's correction center in Topeka, with abortion being used to hide it!

This strongly echoes the ongoing saga of former attorney General, Phill Kline who Hazlett is also going after. 

Three weeks ago, anti- Kline "tweets" were going on the internet against Phill Kline, at his ethics hearing in the Supreme Court. After complaining about the source of the derisive comments--an appellate court law clerk (who helps the justices write their rulings)--Kline's attorney issued a letter to Hazlett. The letter is HERE. Many substantive charges are made, and Hazlett is asked to release more materials.

Note: Donate to Kline's defense at https://www.lifeissues.org/amistad/donate/index.html

The question remains why Hazlett steadfastly dogged Kline after two investigative bodies and a Wichita judge supported his actions.

Is it because of the fact that Hazlett works for the Kansas Supreme Court, whose member, Justice Carol Beier, has a recognized dislike of Mr. Kline? That assertion is not wholly ours. A December 2008 Supreme Court ruling regarding Kline found he did nothing wrong and yet Beier, who wrote the opinion, devoted 18 pages to denigrate him. The entire ruling written by Beier was so out of the ordinary, that the chief justice at the time, Kay McFarland said this, as part of her separate comments:

" …It appears to me that the majority invokes our extraordinary inherent power to sanction simply to provide a platform from which it can denigrate Kline for actions that it cannot find to have been in violation of any law and to heap scorn upon him for his attitude and behavior that does not rise to the level of contempt. This is the very antithesis of "restraint and discretion" and is not an appropriate exercise of our inherent power.”

Adding:

“I believe it is inappropriate to set forth, as if to threaten [Kline] with, the various penalties that could be imposed if some past or future hypothetical misconduct should "come to light" at a later date….This vague statement seems to anticipate and encompass the discovery of additional past or future misconduct.”

It is difficult not to wonder if there was some tipoff to Beier or her staff (especially as more "bad tweets"have been uncovered) about a CD with work product from then-former KS AG Kline's staff that supposedly appeared "mysteriously" on the desks of abortion attorneys just weeks earlier and that it supposedly contained damning information.  It didn't although they have tried during Kline's ethics allegations journey to make something of it. The origin of the CD, and its transfer to abortion attorneys has never been determined, but certainly needs to be. 

There are other issues related to Kansas corruption that we are working on because they too demand further exploration and action, and we will be reporting on them soon--especially the destruction of evidence related to the Planned Parenthood charges that have all now been dropped by Johnson County DA Steve Howe. 

Again, read the KFL blog article (here) about another Kansas attorney who Hazlett pursued who is fighting back allegedly with facts that proved Hazlett is not above lying, and note the similarities to how Hazlett has treated and continues to treat Phill Kline! Also, again, please read the great letter Kline's attorney Condit has written to Hazlett HERE.  




Trafficking in human beings for removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy

by The National Rapporteur


National Rapporteur on trafficking in Human Beings and forced commercial surrogacy. In the report, the Rapporteur focuses on current developments in the field of organ donation and the forced removal of organs and  for the first time argues that forced commercial surrogacy could fall within the scope of human trafficking. The report can be downloaded using the link at the bottom of this page.

Organ removal

There are no indications of a high incidence of trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs (sometimes referred to as ‘organ harvesting’) within the Netherlands. Neither do Dutch citizens appear to be involved in this crime abroad often. Nevertheless, the Rapporteur calls for watchfulness: "Considering the continuous severe shortage of organ donors, growing globalisation and interconnectedness as a result of the Internet, we have to be on the alert. Manifestations of trafficking in human beings we are witnessing in other countries, will sooner or later affect us too. For that we have to be prepared. The Rapporteur has called on the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport to take the lead in recording the scale and nature of organ trafficking and organ tourism

The Netherlands are experiencing a shortage of organ donors. Live organ donations are rare, and must be voluntary and non-commercial. Because of the severe shortage of organs, patients seem to be willing to pay for them. There are calls from various quarters for financial incentives for organ donation. A number of points need to be considered in this context. Financial incentives could alleviate the shortage of organs and, hence the chance of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. However, financial incentives for organ donation would also make organ donation a commercial activity and create a market for organs, which would, in itself, carry the risk of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. That risk could be avoided by offering donors an exemption from health insurance premiums rather than a direct monetary reward

Trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs are not constrained by national borders. It is important for states to try to reach new joint solutions and

where possible, coordinate policies and strategies with respect to organ donation, trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. 

Forced commercial surrogacy 

In addition to the trade in these ‘classical organs’, a market is also growing for other parts of the body. One such market is the demand for surrogate mothers. Commercial surrogacy is increasingly common, partly as a result of developments like the Internet, the globalisation of society and advances in procreation techniques. For the first time Dutch National Rapporteur Corinne Dettmeijer studied the relationship between forced commercial surrogacy and trafficking in human beings. Forced surrogacy is not explicitly included in the Dutch Criminal Code as a form of trafficking. It can be argued that, under certain circumstances, surrogacy could constitute exploitation in the sense of forced services. An important indication of exploitation would be if other persons than the woman carrying the child, such as an intermediary or a spouse, earn money out of the surrogacy and if the financial risks and health risks are borne entirely or largely by the surrogate mother.

 The Netherlands have strict laws about surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy (receiving payment for carrying someone else's child) is not allowed. National policy is aimed at preventing the spread of commercial surrogacy, and accordingly, behaviour that promotes supply and demand in relation to surrogacy has been made a criminal offense. Surrogacy itself is not a criminal offence. In some other countries, such as the United States, India and Ukraine, commercial surrogacy is allowed.

 Intermediary companies operate in the international ˜baby market"™, bringing together donors, parents, surrogate mothers and fertility clinics and making the legal arrangements. The internet, globalisation and advances in procreation techniques bring services abroad within reach of Dutch couples who wish to become parents through surrogacy. But there is a risk there: the rights of surrogate mothers are not respected in all countries. When it comes to commercial surrogacy, the question is to what extent the surrogate mothers are acting voluntarily. As with trafficking in organs, social determinants such as poverty, debt, a vulnerable social position and illiteracy can force a woman to become a surrogate mother. “No one wants to contribute to the phenomenon that women are being exploited to have children. The Dutch government should inform prospective parents about this risk," says the Dutch National Rapporteur.

 
More information:


Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy (2012) Report | 04-12-2012 | pdf-document, 0.25 MB



Read more: http://patrioteponym.webnode.com/news/trafficking-in-human-beings-for-the-purpose-of-the-removal-of-organs-and-forced-commercial-surrogacy/