Tavistock The Best Kept Secret in America - Part I

by Dr. Byron T. Weeks, MD


[Editor's Note:  No one deserves more credit than Dr. John Coleman for bringing to light the history and true purpose of the City of London's Tavistock Institute and its many subdivisional institutions and organizations which was exposed in stunning detail in his 1992 book, . Dr Coleman has rightly complained that many NWO expose writers who have followed in his wake, have routinely used his original research Conspirators' Hierachy: The Story of The Cimmittee of 300 without crediting him as the originating source and in fairness to him, it should be observed that the information presented below is a reflection of his pioneering investigations into Tavistock.


Formed in 1947, the Tavistock Institute is an independent not-for-profit organization which seeks to combine research in the social sciences with professional practice. Problems of institution-building and organizational design and change are being tackled in all sectors - government, industry and commerce, health and welfare, education, etc. - nationally and internationally, and clients range from multinationals to small community groups. A growth area has been the use of a developmental approach to evaluation of new and experimental programs, particularly in health, education and community development. This has also produced new training events alongside the regular program of group relations conferences. The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.

Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.

The ideology of American foundations was created by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. In 1921, the Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shellshock on British soldiers who survived World War I. Its purpose was to establish the "breaking point" of men under stress, under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare, commanded by Sir John Rawlings-Reese.

Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of "controlling" humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, <https://archive.is/HduBc> Hudson Institute, <https://archive.is/fSv6f> Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: See Watch Unto Prayer report on The Heritage Foundation founded by Paul Weyrich with funding from Joseph Coors, who also founded and financed respectively the Moral Majority and Council for National Policy.]

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a "refugee", the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General [William] Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report on <https://archive.is/CLSXa>The John Birch Society & Council for National Policy for information regarding CIA operations on the Christian Right.]

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill purely as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions". All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal---to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to "establish new rituals of personal interaction", that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives, destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family. Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.

Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis. The "experiment" in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations. The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Such is the power of Tavistock that our entire space program was scrapped for nine years so that the Soviets could catch up. The hiatus was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and was promptly granted by the government, to the complete mystification of everyone connected with NASA.

Another prominent Tavistock operation is the Wharton School of Finance, at the University of Pennsylvania. A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy---the use of drugs. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like "guinea pigs", resulted in several deaths.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt's advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the [1913] Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <https://archive.is/ZSGs9> Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD "counter-culture" of the 1960s, the "student revolution", which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

One victim, the wife of a member of the Canadian Parliament, is now suing the U.S. companies who provided the drug for the CIA. All the records of the CIA's drug testing program were ordered destroyed by the head of MK Ultra. Because all efforts of the Tavistock Institute are directed toward producing cyclical collapse, the effect of the CIA programs are tragically apparent. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., writing in the Washington Post August 20, 1984, cites the "squalid consequences of the 60s radicals in SDS [Students for Democratic Society]" as resulting in "the growing rate of illegitimacy, petty lawlessness, drug addiction, welfare, VD, and mental illness".

This is the legacy of the Warburgs and the CIA. Their principal agency, the Institute for Policy Studies, was funded by James Paul Warburg; its co-founder was Marcus Raskin, protege of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy had Raskin appointed to the post of President Kennedy's personal representative on the National Security Council, and in 1963 funded Students for Democratic Society, through which the CIA operated the drug culture.

Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences.

One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report <https://archive.is/ZSGs9>Freedom House: A CFR Front.]

One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the World Order, because he produces for himself, and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence. In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks believed they had attained total control over the people; they were dismayed to find their plans threatened by the stubborn independence of the small farmers, the Kulaks.

Stalin ordered the OGPU to seize all food and animals of the Kulaks, and to starve them out. The Chicago American, February 25, 1935 carried a front page headline, SIX MILLION PERISH IN SOVIET FAMINE; Peasants' Crops Seized, They and their Animals Starve. To draw attention from this atrocity, it was later alleged that the Germans, not the Soviets, had killed six million people, the number taken from the Chicago American headline by a Chicago publicist.

The Communist Party, the Party of the Peasants and Workers, exterminated the peasants and enslaved the workers. Many totalitarian regimes have found the small farmer to be their biggest stumbling block. The French Reign of Terror was directed, not against the aristocrats, many of whom were sympathetic to it, but against the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for the worthless assignats. In the United States, the foundations are presently engaged in the same type of war of extermination against the American farmer.

The traditional formula of land plus labor for the farmer has been altered due to the farmer's need for purchasing power, to buy industrial goods needed in his farming operations. Because of this need for capital, the farmer is especially vulnerable to the World Order's manipulation of interest rates, which is bankrupting him. Just as in the Soviet Union, in the early 1930s, when Stalin ordered the Kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural trusts. The Brookings Institution and other foundations originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy the American farmer, a replay of the Soviet tragedy in Russia, with one proviso that the farmer will be allowed to survive if he becomes a slave worker of the giant trusts.

Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, the destruction of the family, the degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why every agent of the federal government is against him; the alphabet agencies, the FBI, IRS, CIA and BATF must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.

The foundations are in direct violation of their charters, which commit them to do "charitable" work, because they make no grants which are not part of a political goal. The charge has been made, and never denied, that the Heritage-AEI network has at least two KGB moles on its staff. The employment of professional intelligence operatives as "charitable" workers, as was done in the Red Cross Mission to Russia in 1917, exposes the sinister political economic and social goals which the World Order requires the foundations to achieve through their " bequests ".

Not only is this tax fraud, because the foundations are granted tax exemption solely to do charitable work, but it is criminal syndicalism, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States of America, Constitutional Law 213, Corpus Juris Secundum 16. For the first time, the close interlocking of the foundation "syndicate" has been revealed by the names of its principle incorporators---Daniel Coit Gilman, who incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, and became an incorporator of the General Education Board (now the Rockefeller Foundation); Gilman, who also incorporated the Russell Trust in 1856, later became an incorporator of the Carnegie Institution with Andrew Dickson White (Russell Trust) and Frederic A. Delano. Delano also was an original incorporator of the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Daniel Coit Gilman incorporated the Russell Sage Foundation with Cleveland H. Dodge of the National City Bank. These foundations incorporators have been closely linked with the Federal Reserve System, the War Industries Board of World War I, the OSS of World War II and the CIA. They have also been closely linked with the American International Corporation, which was formed to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Delano, an uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. His brother-in-law founded the influential Washington law firm of Covington and Burling. The Delanos and other ruling families of the World Order trace their lineage directly back to William of Orange and the regime which granted the charter of the Bank of England.

END Part I


School District Under Fire From Parents After Banning Fast Food

By Cillian Zeal


Parents of children at a Missouri school are fighting back after the school district announced it was banning fast food from being eaten on campus during school hours.

A terse announcement on the Facebook page of Dear Elementary in the Richmond School District in Richmond, Missouri, stated that “(n)ew board policy states that no fast food is allowed at lunch or during school hours for students.”

One would assume that there isn’t a Carl’s Jr. anywhere inside Dear Elementary or any of the other schools in Richmond. However, this means that parents can’t even make choices regarding what their own children bring to school.

It didn’t take long after the Aug. 15 announcement for the district to start receiving significant backlash.

“At the end of the day, we want to be able to decide on our own,” Chris Swafford, who has five kids in the district and two at Dear Elementary, told WDAF-TV.

“I thought it was overstepping at its finest,” he said. “It’s up to parents what their children eat.”

Swafford also contended that fast food was being made a popular scapegoat, claiming that there wasn’t a whole lot of nutritional difference between some of the bagged lunches that parents give their children and the fast food lunches the school was banning.

“Just because I don’t personally bring fast food to my children at school doesn’t mean other parents shouldn’t be able to do,” Swafford said.

“Parents’ lives are busy. They sometimes have things going on, and sometimes, grabbing a 10-piece nugget from McDonald’s and taking it to their child shouldn’t be an issue.”

Richmond School District Superintendent Mike Aytes told WDAF that district personnel were too busy to comment on the issue. Parents on Facebook, however, weren’t. School lunches, as those who remember Michelle Obama’s tenure as first lady know, are a hot-button issue.

“I don’t agree with this. At all,” one parent wrote.

“I’m the parent. It is my job to parent my child and make those decisions. What she eats, how much she eats, what she wears, how she does her hair, if I keep her home because she is sick, those are MY decisions The schools sole responsibility is to provide a safe, positive learning environment for my children to get an education. They are not, and will not be making parenting decisions for my children.”

“They don’t get money from students that bring a lunch from home. Why can’t they have a burger with family on special occasions?!” another wrote. “This is stupid as can be!”

One of the more common arguments for the policy wasn’t health outcomes, however, but the fact that fast food represents privilege.

“My kids take their lunch,” parent Karen Williams said. While she opposed the policy, she said she understood fast food might make other kids feel bad. “Kids have been getting their birthday lunch brought to them since they were in kindergarten. I think it’s kind of silly, but I could see how other kids would feel sad if they didn’t have anything ever.”

“Oddly I support this,” another Facebook commenter wrote, according to Fox News. “I would hope they are doing this for the right reasons though. That being it’s simply not right for kids who do not ever get these things to watch the other classmates eat it in front of them. Some parents can’t afford to bring child fast food.”

“So what about all of the other kids that are going to be complaining that your kid got a happy meal and they didn’t? What about the kids who parents can’t afford to bring their children lunch or something like that? Are you really gonna let your kid eat their happy meal in front of all these other kids? They’re avoiding those issues all together with this policy,” another person defending the plan wrote.

Head, meet hand.

I can marginally understand the concept behind banning fast food in schools for health reasons, although I’d point out that school-provided or home-cooked lunches aren’t necessarily any healthier. However, since when did fast food become a status symbol? Maybe it’s just me, but I was under the impression it was the other way around.

Here’s a novel idea: Let’s go further in eliminating outward vestiges of privileges. Why stop at burgers and fries?

Let’s put all these kids in school uniforms so nobody has to worry about being clothes-conscious. Students can’t be bused to school, since those buses might stop in front of their houses and other students would see how rich their families are. All kids will be henceforth driven to class in school-issued 2003 Kia Rios so that nobody will seem any richer than anyone else. Trained dogs will be stationed at all entrances, sniffing out any students that may try to smuggle in a Whopper or a Frosty.

Busybody educators of the world, unite and take over!

Yes, this is wholly ridiculous — just as ridiculous as banning fast food from schools that happily serve pigswill, all in the name of health consciousness and privilege-checking.

Complicating Conception: The Desires of Parents and the Rights of Children

by  Christopher White


{An interesting 2013 article about sperm donors and the difficulties they create for their offspring in establishing familial ties (emphasis others]- ED}

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous sperm donation as the solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, the difficulties faced by donor-conceived children are just beginning.

In the new film Delivery Man, Vince Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a man who discovers that he’s the biological father of 533 children—all conceived through his anonymous sperm donations. Now, almost two decades after his “donations” (from which he netted over $20,000), 142 of those children have filed a lawsuit against the sperm bank to reveal his identity. They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.

 The film is fictional—but it’s not far from reality. In 2011, the New York Times reported the story of one donor with 150 confirmed offspring. There have only been a handful of major studies following children who were conceived via anonymous gamete donation, yet certain key trends are emerging as they reach adulthood. Although these adult children have mixed opinions about the means in which they were conceived and the limits of such technologies, they’re almost all united in one belief:  anonymity should be removed from the equation.

Readers of Public Discourse are already familiar with Alana S. Newman, founder of the Anonymous Us Project and, most recently, editor of Anonymous Us: A Story Collective on 3rd Party ReproductionIn this volume, Newman compiles over one hundred stories of donor-conceived individuals who, like the kids in Delivery Man, long to know their biological parents.

“While anonymity in reproduction hides the truth,” writes Newman, “anonymity in storytelling helps reveal it.” Accordingly, these stories offer a glimpse into the reality faced by many donor-conceived children. Some contributions are angry, others are conflicted. All, however, reveal a deep loss. Consider just a few of the sentiments shared within the volume:

 “Who are you to deny me half of my family tree—branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told? Who are you to give away my heritage, knowing it will be replaced with something false?

 “I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its origins in animal husbandry. Worst of all, farmers kept better records of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage.”

 “As a donor-conceived person, I have a sense of being part of an underclass … Having a child is a privilege not a right.

There’s also the story of a young donor-conceived adult who was raised by a single mother.

After her mother’s early death, she’s since been desperately searching for her donor father and potential other siblings in hopes that she might have some remnants of a family to piece together.

Another young woman tells of her own struggle with infertility when she and her husband were trying to conceive. After telling her mom of their difficulties, her mom casually suggests artificial insemination—informing her for the very first time in her life that this was the means in which she was brought into the world. Countless other stories capture the experience of donor-conceived children finding out their origins after their social father is diagnosed with a major medical condition—only to be told not to worry because it won’t affect them, since they’re not actually biologically related. The grief stemming from the medical difficulties is then compounded by an unexpected family identity crisis.

The entries included in the Anonymous Us collective aren’t just limited to the testimonials from donor-conceived children. Stories from medical providers, sperm and egg donors, and parents who chose to conceive via this method fill the pages of these raw and emotional testimonials.

While some entries are an effort to justify past decisions, others speak with great candor about the regrettable outcomes of such a practice.

One Italian sperm donor reflects on the experience of his own family life and laments that the children whom he helped bring into this world won’t be able to have similar memories:

 “I have only a sister, but many, many cousins … and every time I meet them and all the relatives, we love to talk about similarities in the features, the body, the way we talk and move, because this gives us a stronger sense of identity and it is beautiful to have such a 'big family' … I hope this little story can help people in learning from the mistakes of the past.”

 In another entry, a former egg donor regrets the fact that she’ll never be able to meet her son or daughter, admitting that she only participated in the practice because of the lucrative financial incentives attached to selling her eggs: “I don’t even remember what I spent the money on,” she writes. “Debt, dresses, and dinners probably. I’d give you $10,000 this very second to meet my kid. Biggest oops of my life.

In the United States, there’s an open and unregulated market for gamete donation. Unlike Canada and most European countries, which limit the number of times a man can sell his sperm and have mandatory database registries where donor children can access their biological parents' medical histories, the United States enforces no such regulations. This lack of regulation is due, in large part, to legislators’ failure to listen to the voices of donor-conceived children. “How can we as a nation make wise decisions about family structure, third-party reproduction, and gamete donation,” asks Newman, “without the participation of and insights from those who have been most directly affected by these practices?”

Just how many donor-conceived children are born each year is anyone’s guess, due to negligible tracking and regulation. At a recent conference for fertility-industry attorneys, I listened to a prominent children’s psychologist (who favors the practice of third-party reproduction) speak about the potential psychological issues donor-conceived children might face. In a moment of candor, she admitted, “We never thought about the future families. We only set out to fix the infertility.

And this is precisely the problem with donor conception: the desires of the parents always trump the needs of the children.

The stories in the Anonymous Us Project and Delivery Man demonstrate the real suffering and loss felt by donor-conceived children. Yet, in considering the problem of infertility, we also encounter countless couples who experience great distress and grief as a result of their inability to conceive. Infertility is a deeply painful and often isolating experience for millions of couples.

The CDC estimates that 10 percent of women trying to conceive are infertile; hence the increasingly common decision to pursue assisted reproduction. This drive to have children is understandable; social science research reveals that the presence of children in a marriage leads to greater happiness, increased financial security, and a lower likelihood of divorce.

We must acknowledge the painful truth that, as infertile couples seek to remedy their suffering through third-party reproduction, they are unwittingly inflicting pain on their future children.

Eventually, those children must wrestle with the circumstances surrounding their conception. In aiming to satisfy their very natural desire for offspring, infertile couples go to great lengths to create children who are destined to experience complex crises of identity and purpose.

This transgenerational suffering precipitated by the experience of infertility is one that must be met with compassion, to be sure. Yet we must also offer a corrective that acknowledges the limits of desire and love.

Rather than supporting an inward focus on one’s own pain and loss from infertility, we ought to encourage infertile couples to give deep consideration to the suffering that children conceived from these technologies may face. Moreover, rather than privileging one’s own desire for a child as the ultimate goal, we must encourage  a preemptive compassion and empathy that should motivate infertile couples to refrain from pursuing such means.

 In one of the most revealing entries of the Anonymous Us collective, a former sperm donor criticizes the industry he profited from: “I now realize I was wrong. This whole system is wrong. Please forgive me, but I am not your father, nor did I ever intend to be.” Similarly, in one of the scenes from Delivery Man, when one of the donor children discovers that Wozniak is his biological father, the son seeks to spend time with him. Annoyed by this prospect, Wozniak brushes the kid off, telling him that he has a real family to attend to.

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous egg or sperm donation as an imperfect, though still acceptable, solution to their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.




[Note:  “They want to know their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and discover their roots.  ... for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.” 

Indeed, their difficulties are just beginning.  We’ve been told for decades that “the” Human Genome Project (HGP) had decoded all the genes of “the” human chromosome, only to learn recently that they missed over half of them -- not to mention that there is no such thing as “the” human genome (every human being’s genome is unique), their sample was a pool of samples from people all over the world, that they admit that they only decoded the “extrons” (about 15-2-% of the total number of genes), that they skipped the “junk DNA” genes in the “intron” (about 85% of the genes), that they only decoded a nuclear chromosome -- yet the human genome is defined as all the DNA in a human cell, both nuclear and extra-nuclear, e.g., mitochondrial, etc.  So how could “the” HGP data -- which is now admitted to be erroneous -- be used as the “blueprint” for any genetic research experiments or as the source of knowing/understanding any human genes, including those that donor-conceived children are seeking?  Can’t. (See:  http://www.designntrend.com/articles/9627/20131214/never-seen-before-secret-dna-code-unusual-meaning-scientists-find.htm).

And more genes than simply those from a man’s sperm or a woman’s “egg” could be involved.  Consider, simply, the epidemic rise in the use of genetic engineering and the desire for “designer babies” (genetically designed to “prevent diseases”, even down through the generations, e.g., the recent concerns about “3-parent” embryos -- or genetically designed to produce children with certain hair and eye color, etc.), eugenics agendas of many types, etc.  Simply put, “genes” are “genes”, and will act as genes wherever they are injected;  any “foreign” genes injected into the “infertility” or “disease” pictures complicate the donor-conceived children’s future pain. 

What foreign genes?  Producing :desired” genetic traits for their children would require genetically engineering the sperm, the “eggs”, both, or the embryo resulting from fertilization.  Where do those genes come from that supposedly would express the desired traits in the children?  Usually from early human embryos reproduced by couples who already express those traits.  Those foreign genes must then be inserted into the sperm, the “egg” or the “embryo” by means of a vector -- usually a virus or a bacteria -- both of which have their own genes.  If iPS stem cells are used -- i.e., iPS cells can be coated with a tetraploid coating, and then implanted, and the iPS embryo can be allowed to develop up to the formation of germ line cells (primitive sperm and “eggs”) in the embryo, then those germ line cells are used in fertilization to reproduce a new embryo (which embryo would retain the foreign genes used during the iPS deprogramming process, as well as retain those from the tetraploid coating derived by fusing two embryos together to make the “coating”).  This technique requires foreign genes, in addition to the ones already mentioned, called “transcription factors” -- pieces of foreign genes derived from early human embryos.  Few if any records are kept concerning the various sources of these genes.  And many of these “splices” of genes are already known to cause tumors.  No one is quite sure where any of these genes land once injected;  no one knows for sure what products any of these genes make, or if all of this manipulation causes serious mutations in any of the genes involved, etc., etc.  How could donor-conceived children ever find out about any diseases they are genetically predisposed to now?   No one knows what serious diseases these genes could cause.  Very few if any serious records are kept concerning the “sources” of all these genes.  So who’s the “biological donor” now?  The man whose sperm was used and genetically modified?  The woman whose “egg” was used and genetically modified?   The embryo who was genetically modified?  The embryos from whom the “desired” foreign genes are derived that are injected into the sperm, “egg” or embryo?  The foreign genes from the viruses or bacteria vectors used?  The foreign genes that produce the transcription factors used?  The embryos fused to make the tetraploid coating, or the iPS embryo produced.  How many “biological” fathers and mothers could such donor-conceived children end up with?!

And why was the research that should be required to answer these critical questions never performed before experimenting with vulnerable infertile patients?  ...  And why are so many women (and men) infertile now?  Questions, questions, questions -- with no one giving answers. The article first appeared here. -- DNI]

 





New Research Reveals Exactly Why Social Media Giants Are Censoring Conservatives

By Lisa Payne-Naeger


Sharing of information is probably the most powerful influence there is among human beings. Perhaps social media giants know this better than anyone. They’ve made fortunes from their internet empires, collecting data and luring the public into their information hubs.

Of late we have seen just how these internet moguls have used their power to control information, and discriminate against those with whom they disagree.

There is new information out now that may have these social media power moguls shaking in their shoes. As it turns out, all of their efforts to control the narrative may be falling short of presumed desired ends, and it’s fair to ask: Could this lead to an eventual destruction of their social media dynasties?

Barack Obama’s 2008 election was probably the first time we saw the power social media had at influencing a nation, politically. You’ve got to give credit where credit is due. Obama and his team correctly identified social media as an effective platform with which to reach a badly needed demographic to put him over the top in his presidential race.

And President Trump has managed to keep the liberal media in a tailspin with his use of Twitter to directly reach his audience and circumvent their ability to spin news coverage.

Over time conservatives awoke to developments and benefits of social media technology and began to grow in numbers and influences there, only to be met with roadblocks thrown up by liberal social media giants who wanted to diminish conservative thought, speech and influence.

Could they have already known what Pew Research just released in their latest round of polling? Americans are highly influenced by social media. At least 14 percent will flip on an idea or previously held beliefs based on what they see on social media platforms.

This is certainly something that should have Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai worried about their current business strategies because while 14 percent may not seem like a lot of people, it’s certainly enough to flip an election — especially if the flip is to the right. And the research shows the demographics influenced most are generally those traditionally secure in the liberal camp.

According to the poll, men 18 to 29 are an easier flip than women on political or social views due to social media influence. Race and ethnicity reportedly also have a role to play.

“Certain groups, particularly young men, are more likely than others to say they’ve modified their views because of social media. Around three-in-ten men ages 18 to 29 (29%) say their views on a political or social issue changed in the past year due to social media. This is roughly twice the share saying this among all Americans and more than double the shares among men and women ages 30 and older (12% and 11%, respectively).”

“There are also differences by race and ethnicity, according to the new survey. Around one-in-five black (19%) and Hispanic (22%) Americans say their views changed due to social media, compared with 11% of whites.”

And it’s got to be the data on how those folks flip within their own parties that is the most troubling to companies, for example, like Google and Facebook.

“Social media prompted views to change more among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (17%) than among Republicans and Republican leaners (9%). Within these party groups, there are also some differences by gender, at least among Democrats. Men who are Democrats or lean Democratic (21%) are more likely than their female counterparts (14%) to say they’ve changed their minds. However, equal shares of Republican and Republican-leaning men and women say the same (9% each).”

Breitbart reported last year that 67 percent of Americans get their news through social media. That’s a huge percentage of the population focused on a targeted information source. Is it any wonder why social media giants are fighting conservative speech to the degree with which we see today?

Can you imagine what kind of damage a message like #WalkAway could do to the progressive narrative from someone like Brandon Straka, a former liberal?

Straka started the social media #WalkAway movement this year after he left the Democratic Party. The young, formerly liberal male speaks quite effectively to the left about why liberal agendas have fallen short of their promises because he walked lockstep within its platform his entire life. Now he’s using social media to get that message out to the 29 percent of men and 18 percent of women who are black, hispanic and white before the midterms in November.

His Facebook page has grown to more than 75,000 followers in just a few months and a grassroots movement  has expanded to Canada. All this, through the power of social media.

I’m going to go out on a limb here to guess this isn’t quite what Zuckerberg planned when he started Facebook. But here’s hoping the latest polling results and campaigns like #WalkAway are a bigger testament to the power of American exceptionalism than it is to social media influence and power.



Babies for Cash – How the State Abuses Infants by Destroying the Mother-Child Bond in CPS Abductions

 by Terri LaPoint
Health Impact News



A baby’s first year is crucial to a baby’s emotional and cognitive development. It is in the earliest months of life that the foundations for basic trust, security, and relationships are laid. The parent-child relationship is the environment in which that is designed to happen.

Yet the majority of children who enter foster care are taken within their first year of life, depriving them of critical bonding time and causing permanent trauma and damage to the babies’ ability to trust. More children in this age group are not returned home and are later adopted out than any other age group.

Human babies are born with an innate emotional and psychological need for their biological parents. When the child cannot or does not receive the love and acceptance of their own mother and father, he or she is left with a gaping hole deep inside that they may struggle the rest of their lives to fill even if they are loved, wanted, and cherished by a substitute parent.

The rationale behind the existence of Child Protective Services is that the state works for “the best interest of the child,” removing children from homes that the state decides are not good for the child.

Social workers and judges alike argue that they would rather be “on the safe side” and “err on the side of the child” by removing children to prevent the chance of them being harmed by their family. Countless social worker court reports of families whose stories we have covered contain references to the “possibility of future harm” without any evidence of actual harm having taken place.

Tracy Verzosa’s breastfeeding newborn was taken from her and her husband because the state had the other children. The baby was almost 2 years old before the children came home. Story here.

While parents battle social workers, doctors, attorneys, and judges for their children, the children are often in the care of someone else besides their parents. Aside from the fact that they are more likely to be abused in foster care than in their own home, there is real harm that comes to the children simply from being separated from their parents.

The harm of that separation is seldom considered by anyone within the Child Protective Services or foster care industry, evidenced by the fact that it is never mentioned in any of the thousands of pages of documents that we have examined for hundreds of families whose stories have been featured by Health Impact News.

Babies More Likely to be Taken, and Kept, by CPS than any Other Age Group

According to the 2017 AFCARS report (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, almost 1 in 5 children who entered foster care during 2016 (the latest date for which data is available) were less than 1 year old when they were taken from their parents.

The report cites the numbers and percentages of children taken at each age, from less than 1 year up to 17, as well as the numbers and percentages of children returned for each age up to age 20.

For every age besides babies under a year old, the percentage of children who exit foster care is within a percentage point of the number who enter the system. For example, 5% of the children who entered foster care in 2016 were 4 years old. The number of 4 year old children who exited foster care that year was 4% of the total.

However, for the babies, 18% of the children taken were under a year old, representing 49,234 babies. Only 11,153 exited the system, which is 8% of those who exited the system.

Just 10% of all the children of all ages taken by Child Protective Services that year were in the system less than a month. Most stayed in the system for 6 months to 2 years.

Aniya was just 4 months old when she was mistakenly given the Gardasil vaccine. When she became ill, CPS blamed her mother who is still fighting to get her back. See story.

Fully 25% of the children deemed to be “waiting for adoption” were babies who came into the system at under a year old. These are defined as “children who have a goal of adoption and/or whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated.” (Source.)

The numbers are clear that babies are the most likely age group to be seized from their parents, not returned, and adopted out. 92% of the adopters receive an “adoption subsidy,” which is a taxpayer-funded financial incentive to adopt.

The same report states that less than 16% of the children taken by Child Protective Services are taken for reasons of physical or sexual abuse.

The number of children being taken has steadily increased every year since 2012, the earliest year covered by the AFCARS report. The number of terminations of parental rights and children “waiting to be adopted has also shown a steady increase.

Early Separation Devastates Babies’ Development

What kind of impact is there on babies who are taken away and separated from their parents?

A University of Florida study reported by Science Daily looked at the babies of babies taken from mothers who use cocaine, comparing those who were taken from their mothers with those who were not taken.

They found that those in foster care were much “less likely to smile, reach, roll over or sit up” than babies who stayed with their mothers.

The most striking difference was among the babies who were taken as newborns. Dr. Indrani Sinha, pediatric resident at UF involved in the study, said:

But it was the babies who were immediately placed in foster care after birth that were at greatest risk for lowered motor development.

See:

Study: Children from Poor Parents, Even if they have a Drug Problem, do Worse if Put into Foster Care

It is clear that babies simply need their own mothers, even if the mother has issues.

Bonding and Attachment

Psychologists tell us that basic trust is established within the first year of life. Bonding and attachment are essential to the child’s development, and children who are not able to bond with their parents suffer great emotional and psychological harm.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges that:

A large body of evidence demonstrates that the mother’s sensitivity in responding appropriately to her baby’s needs is a principal determinant of the baby’s attachment pattern. (Source).

A person’s ability to trust is formed within the first year of life, and it is directly connected to specifically the mother meeting the needs of her baby.

Lori Ibrahim’s newborn was taken after she screened positive for properly prescribed medication. Story here/

The field of pre and perinatal psychology tells us that the “primal period,” the period of the baby growing in the womb, the birth, and the early days, weeks, and months after birth have a profound impact on our growth and development as a human being.

A groundbreaking documentary called, “What Babies Want” was produced several years ago that discussed this early period of the life of a baby and the importance of the baby bonding with the parents. Many recognized members of the Association of Pre and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH) lent their insights to the film.

The baby has been inside the mother’s womb for about 9 months, and has been able to hear her voice since at least 5 months. Baby is born recognizing her voice and expecting to see her face. If the father has been present, the newborn will recognize his voice as well.

Birth psychologist Ray Castellino says in the film:

Baby knows mom from inside. Meeting mom from outside is a different experience. The way they come into contact – that sets the pattern.

Marti Glenn, PhD, is the founding President of Santa Barbara Graduate Institute which offers degrees in prenatal -perinatal, somatic, and clinical psychology. She specializes in the studies of affective neuroscience with attachment, early development, and trauma. She says:

From the very beginning, we’re building the capacity to trust, and if the baby isn’t held and treated gently, if the baby is taken away and mom and baby are separated, the very first impression that the baby has is “Where’s my mom?”

The late Dr. David Chamberlain was a psychologist and author of “The Mind of Your Newborn Baby.” He wrote often of the way that society treats babies as though they are less than real people:

We were not treating [their cries] as genuine communication, because obstetrics – medicine in general has this idea that the baby could not be having a real experience, so whatever you did to it was ok.

He was one of the first to raise the alarm that newborns could indeed feel real pain in a time when doctors routinely operated on newborns without the benefit of anesthesia.

Oxytocin and Trust

Biologically, when a baby breastfeeds or is held skin-to-skin, a hormone called oxytocin is released. French Obstetrician Dr. Michelle Odent refers to oxytocin as “the love hormone.” Swiss researchers studied the relationship between oxytocin and trust. They found that the oxytocin hormone literally increases the level of trust in humans. (Source).

The Bible talks about this connection. Psalm 22:9 says:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. (NIV)

The word for “trust” in the original Hebrew language is “batach” (982 Strongs). It literally means to attach oneself, to trust, feel safe, secure, or be confident. In the King James Version, the word is “hope.” The basic idea of this is firmness or solidity.

It is learned at the mother’s breast and through skin-to-skin contact.

Baby Braeton was seized from the hospital without a court order or warrant. The family has since been exonerated for thecharges that DHR knew from the beginning were bogus. Story here.

The Hebrew word batach is linked to the New Testament Greek word for hope – elpis/elpizo (1679/1680 Strongs).  The literal definition of this Greek word is:

the desire of something good with the expectation of receiving it.

Every single time the word hope is used in the King James Version, it is this word, as in Hebrews 11:1 –

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It is this trust, this hope, the Psalmist says that is learned at the mother’s breast.

Science and Scripture confirm what psychologists tell us: Babies are born with the innate need to bond with their mothers and fathers.

Basic Trust Sabotaged by CPS

What harm are we doing to babies when social workers are allowed to literally snatch 1 and 2 day old infants from their mothers’ breasts?

Dr. Jay Gordon is a pediatrician who values babies and specializes in breastfeeding. His philosophy on his website is:

No one knows your child better than you do.

He believes that even a hospital separation causes harm. In “What Babies Want,” Dr. Gordon says:

My medical intuition would tell me that there are lasting consequences to being hurt when you’r a newborn baby or to being separated from your parents when you’re a newborn baby. It really is a big deal.

The statistics on the failures of the foster care system bear out the devastating effects of this separation. Children in foster care have higher rates of PTSD, more teen pregnancies, higher risk of being a victim of sex trafficking, more eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia, more chance of being incarcerated or homeless, and are more likely to wind up on death row than children who were not in foster care.

Repeated studies show that they are safer in their own homes than in foster care even if that home is a troubled home. They are at least 6 times more likely to be molested, raped, abused, or killed in foster care than if they had remained home.

Those who cannot remain with their parents should be placed with relatives as a priority over strangers so that they can maintain some connection to their own identity and history.

It is a big deal that happens in hospitals all across America. Health Impact News has covered several stories of medical kidnappings of 1 and 2-day-old newborns, and we regularly hear from readers whose newborns were taken.

The numbers from the Department of Health and Human Services tell us that most of these newborns and babies under a year old who are taken by social workers will not be returned quickly, or at all.

Newborns are frequently taken from mothers who have previously had a child taken for any reason, whether the allegations were substantiated or not, and whether or not the previous case was based on false allegations.

There is a significant market for babies of people who want to adopt. There are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies available. It is a multi-billion dollar industry with children as the commodity.

The Cartee family’s newborn was taken from the hospital. The other children were taken after their autistic son escaped from the house. The baby went to a woman in the market to adopt a baby girl. She was 2 before they came home. Story here.

Arizona Poised to Steal More Babies

The conclusions reached by those who truly understand the needs of babies for their biological family vary drastically from those of social workers and the governor of Arizona, the state which takes more children than any other state.

Governor Doug Ducey just signed Senate Bill 1473 into law. According to the City Journal, the bill gives “foster families the same legal standing as blood relatives when it comes to adopting kids under age three.”

The author of the article acknowledges the importance of infancy and early childhood, but fails to recognize the deep need that babies have for their own parents. They criticize policies, such as the one in the recent Family First law signed by President Trump, which aim to keep children with their own relatives. The author closes with a statement that is baffling in its self-contradiction:

Given the importance of the first three years for babies’ emotional and intellectual development, it’s hard to understand how child-welfare workers can justify their family policies [of placing children with family before strangers].

See stories of newborns taken from their parents, many from breastfeeding mothers:

Alabama Child Protective Services Steals New-born Breast-feeding Baby from Rape Victim While Still at the Hospital

Florida Mom Seeks 2nd Opinion on Dying Newborn After Car Accident – Loses Custody of All Three Children and Baby Dies in State Care

1-Hour Old Newborn Baby Kidnapped at Kentucky Hospital because Parents Refused to Take Parenting Classes

Tennessee Children with Brittle Bones Suffer in State Care as Mom Charged with SBS

Alabama Newborn Baby Kidnapped at Hospital with No Warrant, No Court Order, No Emergency Circumstances

Breastfeeding 2-day Old Newborn Seized From Parents Because Mother Has Disability

Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother

Alabama DHR Seizes Newborn Baby with No Court Order, No Trial, and No Evidence

Homebirthed Newborn Medically Kidnapped at Illinois Children’s Hospital

Missouri Hospital Refuses Transfer of Sick Baby – Kidnaps Kansas Couple’s Newborn Child

Newborn Baby Kidnapped from Alabama Hospital After Parents Decline Birth Certificate and SSN

Enraged Idaho Community Acts to Help Young Couple Who Refused Vaccine for Newborn – Baby Back Home for Now

California Mom Fights to Get Child Back Removed from Hospital at Birth






NY Post Bombshell Report Means Rosenstein Massively Rigged Cohen Trial

by Lisa Payne-Naeger


Sometimes I wonder if Donald Trump knew what he was really getting himself into when he decided to run for president and drain the swamp.

Everywhere he’s turned he has met roadblocks, opposition and betrayal as he tries to infuse policy he thinks will make America great again.

And ever since he was accused of colluding with Russia to sway the 2016 election, the constant turn of events have played out like a bad daytime drama. The latest twist in the plot centers around Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and if reports are true, he could be in a heap of trouble.

On Saturday, Michael Goodwin wrote in the New York Post that Rosenstein ordered United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman to recuse himself from the investigation into the Michael Cohen case, which in turn would leave his office staffed with Obama administration holdovers from Preet Bharara’s tenure as Berman’s predecessor.

Berman was appointed to the Southern District of New York position by President Trump after he fired Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee.

Since his firing, Preet has made his feelings known that he is not a Trump supporter. The bias is clear. Looks like the president made a good call on that one. Chris Strohm of Bloomberg reports the significance of this move as they allege the strings of this case are being pulled not by the Justice Department, but by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

“Cohen’s guilty plea was secured as part of an investigation led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, not by Special Counsel Mueller or Justice Department headquarters, another frequent target of the president’s derision. Instead, the deal was made by Robert Khuzami, deputy U.S. attorney for the New York office,” he wrote.

“But neither Rosenstein nor Mueller is calling the shots for the investigation in New York, according to two people familiar with the matter. The U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, commonly known as SDNY, has the independence to take investigative steps and charge people without approval from Rosenstein, one of the people said.

So while Rosenstein was consulted about Cohen’s plea, which implicated Trump in campaign finance crimes, he didn’t sign off on it or approve it, the person said. It’s not clear whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s recusal from Mueller’s probe extends to the investigation in Manhattan.”

To sum up the significance of this move, let’s just say that the SDNY is now driving the bus on any developing investigation into the Cohen case. While the Justice Department still holds oversight as all U.S attorneys still answer to Rosenstein, previously the SDNY has enjoyed independence of operation outside the U.S. Attorney’s office.

And the lines of communication are open and free between SDNY prosecutors and investigators in Robert Mueller’s office.

Bloomberg also states: “Rosenstein made the decision to give the Cohen case to SDNY following a referral from Mueller. That also ensured the investigation could continue even if Trump somehow managed to fire the special counsel, a politically dangerous move that many Republicans have warned the president to avoid.”

So, if it is true that Rosenstein intentionally moved the trial to SDNY, it might be more than a suspicious coincidence that a Trump-appointed attorney was ordered to recuse himself from the case leaving it to less-unbiased attorneys general.

What a mess and an endless saga of betrayal. Trump appointed Jeff Sessions as Attorney General in February of 2017, only to have Sessions recuse himself from the Russia investigations in the beginning of March of that year.

This left Rod Rosenstein in charge of overseeing the Russia investigations and he appointed Robert Mueller as Special Prosecutor in May of 2017. Since that time there has been no evidence of Russian collusion, but the Mueller team has bull dogged members of Trumps inner circle and charged them with various unrelated crimes.

You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These latest allegations are almost a kin to jumping the shark for television sweeps week.

I guess we will see who wins in the ratings race in November.



Report: Liberal News Outlets Dominate Google Search Results with 96 Percent of ‘Trump’ Stories

by Jack Davis


New evidence that technology’s giants are muzzling conservatives has emerged after the web site PJ Media wanted to find out if Google did in fact lurch to the left when users wanted the latest information on President Donald Trump.

Writer Paula Bolyard on Saturday reported on the results of her experiment, which the site was fully upfront about admitting was not scientific.

The headline of her article said it all: “96 Percent of Google Search Results for ‘Trump’ News Are from Liberal Media Outlets.”

The concept was simple. Bolyard typed “Trump” using Google’s “News” tab and let Google do the rest. “I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets,” she wrote, noting that no single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results, and that CNN, dubbed by Trump as “Fake News” for its coverage of him, is far and away the leading site listed

She then looked at the first 100 items, and the trend continued. There were 21 articles from CNN, 11 each from The Washington Post and NBC, and 8 from CNBC. Other sites at the top of the list included The New York Times, Atlantic, Politico, Vox, CBS and the Wall Street Journal.

Fox News was listed twice.

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said that tech giants are trying to influence the midterm elections.

“This is their great offensive to try to silence differing opinion,” he said Monday on “Fox & Friends,” Fox News reported. “And make no mistake, it’s not because the conservative voices are offensive. It’s because they are effective.”

Kirk said conservatives must fight the tech giants.

“We need to push back because it could be a huge, huge problem moving forward,” he said.

“The very bottom line is the left hates the idea that there are other ideas. And they control these public forums or these vehicles of conversation. They’re going to use every piece of power and influence they can to try to suppress our voice. And we cannot stand for it,” he added.

Bolward was hardly the first to suggest that Google buries the right while promoting the left.

A 2017 study by the website “Can I Rank” said that the bias in Google was clear.

“Among our key findings were that top search results were almost 40% more likely to contain pages with a “Left” or “Far Left” slant than they were pages from the right. Moreover, 16% of political keywords contained no right-leaning pages at all within the first page of results,” the study said.

“Our analysis of the algorithmic metrics underpinning those rankings suggests that factors within the Google algorithm itself may make it easier for sites with a left-leaning or centrist viewpoint to rank higher in Google search results compared to sites with a politically conservative viewpoint,” it added.

Google denies doing anything to skew the results.

“Google does not manipulate results,” said Google spokeswoman Maggie Shiels. “There are more than 200 signals taken into account when someone does a search which include freshness of results.”

Bolyard’s conclusion was that Americans need to be aware that their searches are being manipulated.

“With all the talk and hand-wringing about fake news and bad foreign actors using social media outlets to attempt to manipulate election results, far too little attention has been paid to power brokers like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube and their ability —  and perhaps even desire — to manipulate public opinion and shape the world into their own Silicon Valley image,” she wrote.




Kansans in for another Sizeable Rate Increase from KCPL (Updated)

by Allen Williams



I received a card several days ago from KCPL notifying customers of another pending rate increase (Docket No 18-KCPE- -480-RTS) before the Kansas Corporate Commission (KCC). What is proposed for those using 1.366 kilowatt-hours in summer months or 833 Kilowatt-hours in winter will see a $7.29 per month increase excluding property tax rebasing and $9.19 per month including property tax rebasing.  It’s approximately a 4.5 percent increase while inflation is only 2.9% that will go into effect Dec 2018. The KCPL 'justification' lists the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as a reason for a decrease in KCPL's revenue requirement."  The rate proposal sounds like an opportunity for the utility to cash in on the Trump tax cut and recover lost revenue from not being able to hire illegal aliens. 

Ratepayers should keep in mind that KCPL is part of not only Westar but Great Plains Energy also.  Retirees and low income people will be hard pressed to pay the higher rates which should work well for cities like Overland Park who have the desire for upward development.

What was promised from the first KCPL merger?

Fox4KC reports:  “They moved out right at the time KCP&L was changing its billing, aimed at improving the amount customers on budget billing paid per month.  So the Dehnckes got hit with a higher monthly amount plus the yearly adjustment for what their past payments hadn't covered. The result was a whopping $900 bill. "I never had an electricity bill that high. I thought that was a misunderstanding," Dehncke said.”

KCPL already gets additional rate surcharges from ECA Energy cost Adjustment) for FUEL expenses between Billing Cycles, EER (Energy Efficiency Rider you Pay for inefficiencies KCPLdoesn't), PTS (property tax surcharge),TDC (time of day power usage between months). And lest we forget, local government also profits from KCPL rate increases with Overland Park Franchise fee, Overland Park Sales Tax (1.125%) and Johnson County Sales tax (1.475%)

KCPL has forced acceptance of their Smart meters which feature two way communications that would allow them to adjust their cost factors like ECA, EER at will.  According to the Daily Telegraph Smart energy meters are giving readings up to six times too high, a study finds.  You won’t get any credit from the utility, 5000 Utility Customers Class Action Lawsuit Claiming Overbilled 30% to 582%, you will have to sue.

According to the Topeka Capitol Journal: “Officials at Westar Energy and KCP&L say the two companies' merger will provide 15 years of rate stability, and they reject the idea that lawmakers are confused by the complexities of utility regulations.”

That promise didn’t take long to break, just nine years later they’re looking for another major increase. Don't think you can cut electric usage and save money, it just spurs further KCPL rate requests.

The Topeka Capitol Journal further notes; “[Kansas Industrial Consumers Group, which represents large-scale energy users are] ..some of the biggest users of electricity in this state. And their rates, overall, are about 40 percent less than what you and I pay and other businesses pay as consumers. And those dollars, that rate decrease for them, comes directly out of our pockets. Somebody pays for the cost of the system."

Please, utilities aren’t benefiting this industrial conglomerate out of their own pockets. The industrial group has negotiated a better deal based on the large quantities of power consumed.  Lawsuit threats also help to swing a better deal which means the residential consumer is going to wind up paying.

What was promised in the second KCPL merger?

The goal of any energy conglomerate is to control supply as a regulated monopoly and to generate profits as stated in the MERGER TO FORM LEADING ENERGY COMPANY, January 2018 Investor Update.  Great Plains is part of the Sustainable Energy program which includes the UN’s sustainable development program.  The sustainability includes expensive wind power turbine purchase and use at KCPL’s Spearville location as a condition of not being sued by the Sierra club. By the way, KCPL has to pay the people who add power to the grid with their wind turbines which means consumers have to reimburse KCPL.

“the expected financial and operational benefits of the merger to the companies and their shareholders (including cost savings, operational efficiencies and the impact of the anticipated merger on earnings per share..”

Projected net savings from the investor update for the Great Plains Energy conglomerate were stated as 27.8 million in 2018, 110.3 million in 2019 and 143.5 million in 20120.

But these saving were never intended to benefit consumers, they were promises made to the utility investors.  So consumers will have to make good on those promises of investor returns as a condition of being a KCPL customer.  It boils down to the ratepayer being on the hook for company ROI with the full blessings of the utility oversight board.

The 3 member KCC board is made up of political appointments by the Kansas Governor.  It’s a cozy opportunity for various consultants to make their way on to the commission as in the case of Michael C. Moffet, a Lawrence Kansas communications consultant appointed by then Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Consultants are not tantamount to citizen ratepayer oversight of a regulated monopoly and what do communications consultants know about utility management?

The commission makeup is therefore less inclined to regard the complaints of ordinary citizens as in “the Kansas Corporation Commission denied a request to offer public comment [regarding injection wells in Douglas County at that hearing from a Mission Hills woman who has argued that the permitting process being used does not comply with federal rules under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

No public comment is necessary even if federal laws are violated. You can ‘trust’ the respective companies to provide all the ‘necessary’ evidence.

Comments on the proposed KCPL rate hike will be accepted through Oct 17, 2018 up to 5:00pm

Correspondence may be addressed to KCC Commission, Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, 1500 SW Arrowhead Road, Topeka, KS  66604-4027 or call at 1-800-662-0027 or the commissions website at www.kcc.ks.gov

There is a petition for an independent audit to verify KCPL numbers claimed for the rate increase.  For those of you who have had enough as I have please sign the online petition at online petition.










Report: Comey Misled Congress. His FBI Examined Less Than 1% of Hillary Emails

by Cillian Zeal


When he appeared before Congress to explain his investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, former FBI Director James Comey assured America that his wizards had worked day and night to make sure that most of Hillary Clinton’s emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop had been scrutinized before Election Day to make sure voters knew the facts.

“And then they worked night after night after night, and they found thousands of new emails, they found classified information on Anthony Weiner,” Comey said.

“Somehow, her emails are being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. And so they found thousands of new emails and then called me the Saturday night before the election and said thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we’ve only had to personally read 6,000. We think we can finish tomorrow morning, Sunday.”

And so they found that most of it was “duplicates” and nothing new was being found. He assured us all that he had “reviewed all of the communications” and everything was kosher. Or as kosher as it was in the summer, when it wasn’t terribly kosher but you know, whatever. Case closed, right?

Well, not so much. On Thursday, RealClearInvestigations published a piece which revealed “virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.”

I mean, that could be said about so much that’s Comey-related, but this is particularly interesting.

So, firstly, as for that wizardry stuff: “a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information.” That’s less than 1 percent.

Or that whole thing about them working shifts like Bullitt protecting Johnny Ross: “Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.”

The day before? That’s not coincidental at all. It’s almost as if they were rushing to reach a predetermined conclusion which would never happen because James Comey is a man of honor.

“Most of the emails were never examined, even though they made up potentially 10 times the evidence” that had been examined in the case which had originally “exonerated” Clinton, an official with knowledge of the investigation said.

“Yet even the ‘extremely narrow’ search that was finally conducted, after more than a month of delay, uncovered more classified material sent and/or received by Clinton through her unauthorized basement server, the official said,” RealClearInvestigations revealed.

“Contradicting Comey’s testimony, this included highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.”

It’s almost like Comey was convinced Hillary would win and didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize it. But it’s not like an FBI official would do something because he was convinced someone would win. No one of his stature would do that, though, right?

“Even though the unique classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated ‘damage assessment’ directive,” RCI noted.

“The newly discovered classified material ‘was never previously sent out to the relevant original classification authorities for security review,’ the official, who spoke to RealClearInvestigations on the condition of anonymity, said.

“Other key parts of the investigation remained open when the embattled director announced to Congress he was buttoning the case back up for good just ahead of Election Day,” they noted. “One career FBI special agent involved in the case complained to New York colleagues that officials in Washington tried to ‘bury’ the new trove of evidence, which he believed contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails — including long-sought missing messages from her first months at the State Department.”

There’s a long list of Comey mistakes in RCI’s investigation, and it’s worth pointing out that RCI is one of the more objective sources that there is. What they point out is that Comey either misled Congress about the extent of the problem, was misled by his own staff or outright lied.

This appears to come dangerously close to perjury, considering what we now know about the matter. What they did was simply disregard the investigation because they wanted it closed before the election, lest they be accused of negatively affecting Clinton’s chances for election.

Whoops.



Colorado Ignores Supreme Court Ruling to Continue Persecution of Jack Phillips

by Gerald Weston


The assault against the Bible and anyone who believes and lives by its directives continues. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop is under attack once again for refusing to celebrate an anti-biblical behavior, this time by refusing to bake a specially designed cake (pink in the middle and blue on the outside) for an attorney intending to celebrate and do the impossible—“transition” from male to female.

According to a National Religious Broadcasters newsletter, “Apparently undeterred by the strong rebuke they received from seven U.S. Supreme Court justices in June, Colorado authorities are renewing their assault against the religious convictions of one of their state’s citizens. In fact, they are targeting the same citizen, Jack Phillips.”

The newsletter quotes Phillips, “The state is doubling down on its hostility against my beliefs, even though that’s what the Supreme Court said they couldn’t do. . . . It seems I’m the only person in the state of Colorado who can’t live out my beliefs.”

This is clearly a deliberate attack to tear down biblical values. There are, no doubt, many cake-makers who would happily bake such a cake, but liberal activists, aided by leftist politicians, cannot stand for freedom of expression if it is different from their own. This should not surprise us at a time when God is so openly rejected. The Apostle Paul explains why: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be” (Romans 8:7) [emphasis editorial staff]

Yes, these physically minded activists have a hostility toward God and His law. Many people passively reject Divine Law by ignoring it, even while they profess to believe in God. But, these activists are openly and militantly against it and cannot stand anyone who chooses to live by its dictates.

One mistake to avoid is to think that “secular” means “neutral.” Nothing can be further from the truth. Secularism is opposed to godliness. An example is abortion. The secular view is that religion must stay out of the discussion, because religion is a private matter that should not influence public debate. But to remove religion is to reject Divine Authority, and the result is the belief that it is okay to kill one’s baby. Political correctness frames the debate as “a woman’s right to choose,” when the real question is whether it is right to kill the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

I do not write these things to condemn anyone for past mistakes. We have all made decisions in the past that we would like to change, but that is not possible, and that is why Christ had to die that we might live. I write these things, because we must not allow satanic influence through secular humanists and anarchists to sway our thinking.

The LGBT movement from time to time adds other letters to its acronym. For example, I have seen all of these letters strung together to describe various perversions: LGBTTIPQQ2SA+. The + at the end leaves the door open so that newly minted perversions can be added. In a government directive to all schools (public, private, and charter), in Alberta, Canada, there is a list of eight expressions of sexual deviation. “Trans” is one of the eight, but the list includes this footnote regarding this word: “Some individuals identify with terms such as transgender, transsexual, gender fluid, gender diverse, and agender. We have chosen to use the word trans in these guidelines as an inclusive, continually evolving, umbrella term commonly used to describe individuals whose gender identity and gender expression differ in some way from the sex they were assigned at birth” (Guidelines for Best Practices, 2016).

A number of points may be drawn from this, but here are two. Note the expression, “continually evolving.” Even these activists do not have a clue where this may end. This assault against biblical values will continue to evolve. Next, note the words, “the sex they were assigned at birth.” This is political correctness framing the discussion, and you should not fall for it. An XY-chromosome male is not changed into an XX female by mutilating his body.

The acronyms describing these behaviors sometimes contain the letter “A,” and it is important that we understand what it stands for—allies. There are relatively few people, certainly a minority of individuals, who fall into these categories, even when we add all of them together. In order to be the majority opinion, and therefore wield the power of the courts and laws, they rely on gullible allies. These are people who buy their lies.

By way of example, to convince Americans that they should accept permissive abortion, false numbers were passed along to the press to generate sympathy. Famous abortionist turned anti-abortionist Bernard Nathanson confessed that he and Lawrence Lader simply added zeros to the numbers of estimated “back alley” abortions and deaths that supposedly resulted (The Marketing of Evil, Kupelian, p. 191).

Now comes a movement to indoctrinate very young children to accept something that God calls an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5). From their own website: “Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real” (www.dragqueenstoryhour.org). The DQSH website lists 27 chapters across the United States and invites other cities to form chapters.

Jesus warned us: “And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man. . . . Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot” (Luke 17:26, 28). How much worse can it get? And how much longer do we have to accomplish this Work?

Do you see the big picture of what is happening? Or are you, without realizing it, being persuaded by the very clever god of this age, who directs its course and is bringing about a new dark age similar to that of Noah’s day, turning whole nations into Sodoms and Gomorrahs (2 Corinthians 4:3–4; Ephesians 2:1–2)? I pray that God will give each of us courage to stand up for our beliefs, as Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop has, at appropriate times and in appropriate ways (not carnal ways) against the forces of darkness (2 Corinthians 10:3–5).

We know that in the end we shall win, if we remain faithful. The last book of what is called the Old Testament contains this encouraging passage: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who meditate on His name. ‘They shall be Mine,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘On the day that I make them My jewels. And I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.’ Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:16–18).

Thank you for your sacrifices and your courage to stand firm against the forces of darkness.