tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:/posts The Patriots 2018-10-22T17:11:32Z Patriots News tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1334932 2018-10-22T05:11:00Z 2018-10-22T17:11:32Z Today's Bible Lesson

by Anonymous


In today’s world with President Trump getting hit daily I decided a little Bible Lesson might be
appropriate. Remember what Jesus said: 'Goats on the left, sheep on the right' (Matthew 25:33).

Jesus also told Peter that if he wanted to catch fish do it from the right side of the boat He did and filled the boat with fish.

John 21:6 (NIV) ... He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some."  When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish."

 Origin of Left & Right..

I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the "right" and Liberals are called the "left".

By chance I stumbled upon thisverse in the Bible: Ecclesiastes10:2 (NIV) - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

Thus saith the Lord.

Amen

It surely can't get any simpler than that.

Spelling Lesson: The last four letters in American......... I Can

The last four letters in Republican:....... I Can

The last four letters in Democrats:....... Rats

End of lesson! ...Test to follow on November 6, 2018.

Remember, November 2018 is to be set aside as Rodent Removal month.  

Please share this Bible Lesson with all your friends and email buddies to help achieve that
goal.

Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1333879 2018-10-19T15:05:00Z 2018-10-19T15:12:25Z Winning the Ultimate Lottery

by Gerald Weston


We are hearing this week of a record mega-lottery here in the United States. Some people tweeted the following answers to the question, “What would you do if you won a billion dollars?” One said he would build the wall between Mexico and the U.S. Another said he would rebuild Mexico Beach on the Gulf coast, destroyed by Hurricane Michael. And another said he would give some to charity and spend the rest of his life hunting and fishing.

Perhaps you dream about what you would do with a billion dollars, or a significant fraction of that amount. After all, one hundred million, or even ten million, will go a long way! Many people, when asked the question, say they would give a portion to charity. I’m sure they are sincere in saying this, but would they really build the wall or give it all to rebuild a destroyed city? Maybe, but probably not.

Have you ever considered that, in principle, you have already won the lottery? Let me explain.

Jesus made it plain that His message was not understandable by the majority. For example, Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), repeating this truth to His disciples shortly afterward (v. 65). How few understand this! Consider also, why did Jesus speak in parables? It is not the reason I heard in Sunday school. Jesus’ own disciples asked Him this very question. Here was His answer: “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13:11). A parallel account on this same occasion adds, “But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples” (Mark 4:34).

If you understand these things you are part of a very small group of people. You understand, not because you are more intelligent or better than others, but because God has specially selected you to do His end-time Work. He opened your mind to precious truth not generally understood by billions on earth today! No, it is not a lottery based on chance. It is selection by the Creator of the universe! But as with lotteries, only a precious few win, and you have been called to win!

Jesus’ parables reflect the value of knowledge you receive from Tomorrow’s World and the Living Church of God, the sponsor of Tomorrow’s World. “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had and bought it” (Matthew 13:44–46).

The Apostle Peter wrote an encouraging passage regarding the difficult and painful things we experience in life. “In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:6–7). And Paul wrote, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18).

These passages and parables all point to one great truth: Everything physical will perish, but the choices we make in life and the faith in God that we express by our actions are of far greater value than the things for which most people crave. As John instructs us, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.    And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:15, 17).

We do not like to think about it, but we will all come to the end of this physical existence, and the end of the trail comes sooner than we once thought. Young people may know this academically. Older folks measure the days (Psalm 39:4).

What if you did win the mega-lottery? How long would it last? What would you do with it? What truly lasting value would hunting and fishing give you in the end? Now please understand. Hunting and fishing have worthy recreational value, and I personally try to take off a few days each year to go fishing, but should that be the purpose of one’s life? What happens when the end of the trail comes? Then what?

The fact that you are reading this indicates you are probably one who sees more to life than another fishing trip, a game of golf, or winning the mega-lottery. Your contributions and your prayers show your love for God and your love for others (Matthew 22:35–40).

Our offices around the world receive a continual stream of letters from individuals thanking us for what we give them free of charge. We also receive some not too flattering letters, but that is fine. We know that we are reaching beyond the choir! However,  I want to share a few comments with you, because you make them possible and these people want to thank you. I have embolden a few words for emphasis.

Here is a letter from Colorado from a reader who appreciated our booklet explaining the purpose of life. “Good Day. I just want to thank you for the Booklet: Your Ultimate Destiny! Awesome!!! Really opened my mind! Keep up the Good Work! GOD Bless You All.” If you have not read this booklet, please let us know and we will send you a free copy. It explains the very purpose of life straight from the pages of the Bible. Can there be any more valuable truth?

A writer from South Africa wants you to know how much he appreciates you. “I just want to thank you for the booklet and the Bible Study Course. Thanks for all the People at Tomorrow's World. You are Highly Appreciated! GOD Bless!”

A woman shared her thoughts by e-mail regarding a Tomorrow’s World article. “I read ‘Which Jesus Do You Worship,’ and it left me wondering and wanting to know more. Cause it is my heart’s desire to follow Christ Jesus. Thank you for waking me up.” You make the magazine possible, so we share her thanks with you!

Earlier this year someone from Perth, Australia wrote regarding Dr. Roderick C. Meredith’s series on the Protestant Reformation. “I am in receipt of May-June 2018 T/W magazine, for which as always, I am deeply grateful. . . . May Almighty God through Christ Jesus, continue to Bless each of you in this Wonderful Work that you are doing, and [I] look forward to receiving a copy of Dr. Meredith’s brilliant work.”

A subscriber from Toronto, Ontario wrote to express his appreciation. “Thank you so much for your ministry, you are helping people to understand we are living in the last days, and we have to live a life according to God’s Word. Thank you again. God Bless this Ministry.”

Some of our subscribers are in prison for serious sins committed earlier in life. This man writes from Hunlock, Pennsylvania. “Thank you for your magazine, Tomorrow’s World. . . . I am a life sentence prisoner serving a life without parole sentence. I have 30 years served so far. Your magazine helps me to keep my sanity in a world with so much misinformation and injustice. Your publication keeps me aware of what’s truly important.”

Another prisoner, this one from Marino, Ohio writes regarding Tomorrow’s World, “This magazine has been truly one of the most consistently read pieces of Christian literature in my 13½ years of incarceration. You guys are truly a blessing and exemplary of what a Christian today is to ‘look like’ and ‘sound like.’

There are so many more I could share with you, but I’ll give just one more. This one is from Gatundu, Kenya. “I have been transformed by your magazines. The word of God is real, [and has] become simpler and clearer each day.”

Okay, I cannot resist. Here is one more, from a woman in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. “Other than the Holy Bible itself, I have been searching for a teaching program [that] teaches ‘Sound Christian doctrine.’ I applaud your ‘FREE’ teachings that other programs want to charge a lot of money for. How else would poor people be able to understand this wicked world?

Once again, thank you for your part in making it possible to reach people of all races, nationalities, economic conditions, and ages. I pray that God fully opens your minds and hearts to the very purpose of life and that you will stand before the Son of God upon His return. You are making a difference through your tithes, offerings, and heartfelt prayers! Thank you dear friends!


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1333581 2018-10-18T15:55:39Z 2018-10-18T16:34:09Z Hillary Caught Making Claim About Kavanaugh That Was Already Proven False by Fact-Checkers

by Randy DeSoto

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton doubled down Wednesday on a claim Sen. Kamala Harris made regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s views on birth control that multiple fact-checkers have already determined to be false.

“I want to be sure we’re all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as ‘abortion-inducing drugs,'” Clinton tweeted. “That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.”

“Kavanaugh didn’t use that term because he misunderstands the basic science of birth control—the fact that birth control prevents fertilization of eggs in the first place. He used that term because it’s a dog whistle to the extreme right,” she added.

Hillary Clinton‏Verified account @HillaryClinton Sep 12

I want to be sure we're all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as "abortion-inducing drugs." That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.

20,281 replies 41,031 retweets 137,358 likes

Kavanaugh didn't use that term because he misunderstands the basic science of birth control—the fact that birth control prevents fertilization of eggs in the first place. He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right.

6:14 AM - 12 Sep 2018


The Washington Post awarded Harris with four Pinocchios for sharing a selectively edited video about Kavanaugh while arguing that he is “going after” birth control.

The California Democrat tweeted footage of an exchange Kavanaugh had with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas during the judge’s confirmation hearing last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cruz asked Kavanaugh about his dissent in the 2014 Priests for Life case before the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals involving the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.

The nominee answered by recounting the plaintiff priests’ position in the case regarding filling out a Department of Health and Human Services form to obtain a waiver from the contraception mandate, which, if accepted by HHS, required health insurance providers to offer the coverage free of charge to those who were interested.

Kavanaugh told Cruz, “They said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to.”

Harris’s video omitted Kavanaugh saying, “they said,” making it appear that he was offering a statement about his views on the matter, and even birth control more broadly.

Harris wrote of the exchange in a tweet on Friday.

Kamala Harris‏Verified account @SenKamalaHarris

Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake - this is about punishing women.

11:45 AM - 7 Sep 2018
8,538 replies 15,061 retweets 

Here is Kavanaugh's full answer. There's no question that he uncritically used the term "abortion-inducing drugs," which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control.

Kavanaugh explained to Cruz that the reason he dissented in the case was based on the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores decision, which found business owners have the right not to provide contraception coverage to employees if it runs contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.

It should be noted that Hobby Lobby’s owners did not object to providing birth control coverage, which they were in fact doing, but did object to providing contraceptives they believe cause abortions, including “morning-after pills” and two types of intrauterine devices.

There are 16 other FDA-approved contraception methods that the company did not object to, as they prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.

However, the four methods of contraception at issue in the case “may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus.” Thus, the concern was that by providing these abortifacients, they would be facilitating abortion.

After receiving significant criticism for her misleading tweet, Harris included Kavanaugh’s comments in context in a subsequent post, but argued, “There’s no question that he uncritically used the term ‘abortion-inducing drugs,’ which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control.”

The Washington Post was not buying the senator’s explanation.

“Harris’s decision to snip those crucial words (‘they said’) from her first post on the video is certainly troubling,” wrote Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler.

Regarding her follow up tweet, he added, “But there was no acknowledgment by Harris that the original tweet was misleading.”

Kessler concluded, “She earns Four Pinocchios — and her fellow Democrats should drop this talking point.”

Politifact also found Harris’ Twitter post in error.

“In Harris’ tweet, Kavanaugh appears to define contraception as abortion-inducing. But the video failed to include a crucial qualifier: ‘They said,’” Politifact reported.

“In fact, he was citing the definition of the religious group Priests for Life. He has not expressed his personal view,” the fact-checker added. “We rate this statement False.”


David French‏Verified account @DavidAFrench

David French Retweeted Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton comes barreling back into the conversation with a timely reminder that she’s one of the more prolific liars in modern American politics.

David French added,

Hillary ClintonVerified account @HillaryClinton
I want to be sure we're all clear about something that Brett Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearings last week. He referred to birth-control pills as "abortion-inducing
drugs." That set off a lot of alarm bells for me, and it should for you, too.
Show this thread
7:18 AM - 12 Sep 2018
175 replies 652 retweets 2,373 likes

National Review’s David French chastised Clinton for grabbing onto Harris’ claim against Kavanaugh, which she should have known to be false.

He tweeted, “Hillary Clinton comes barreling back into the conversation with a timely reminder that she’s one of the more prolific liars in modern American politics.”



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1333281 2018-10-17T16:41:00Z 2018-10-17T16:41:17Z A fuel-economy change that protect freedom and saves lives

by H. Sterling Burnett


If finalized the proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to freeze fuel-economy targets at 2020 levels through 2026 is good news for anyone concerned about consumer choice, vehicle affordability, and highway safety.

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s determination freezing fuel-economy standards would benefit the American people should surprise no one, because in April EPA announced it would revoke the Obama-era standards requiring cars and light trucks sold in the United States to achieve an average of more than 50 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025.

President Obama signed off on the 50 mpg standards just before leaving office in December 2016, two years before the previous standards were scheduled to be reviewed. Studies show the 50 mpg standard would substantially increase the price of cars, change the composition of the nation’s automobile and light truck fleet, and put lives at risk.

The “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks” is a culmination of EPA’s consultation with NHTSA to determine how fuel-economy standards can best balance consumers’ concerns about automobile affordability, vehicle safety, and fuel economy. 

“Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less,” Wheeler said. 

“There are compelling reasons for a new rulemaking on fuel economy standards for 2021-2026. More realistic standards will promote a healthy economy by bringing newer, safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles to U.S. roads and we look forward to receiving input from the public,” stated Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

EPA calculates freezing fuel-economy standards at 2020 levels through 2026 will save more than 500 billion dollars in societal costs over the next 50 years and reduce highway fatalities by 12,700 lives. 

Fuel standard mandates began in 1975, when Congress established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to reduce dependence on foreign oil following the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo. The law required car manufacturers to meet mandated fuel-economy targets or else pay a hefty tax on gas-guzzling sedans. What happened? Some people bought smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Others, however, started driving trucks, and new categories of vehicles were born: SUVs and minivans.

Over the years, compact cars have become less popular because of low fuel prices, underpowered engines, and lack of passenger and storage space. Most full-sized cars and trucks can seat five adults, and minivans and many SUVs can seat between seven and nine people. Numerous SUVs, trucks, and minivans offer ample cargo space and are capable of hauling a trailer or boat, which no subcompact can do safely. 

Ironically, the high popularity of trucks, SUVs, and minivans is at least partially a result of environmentalists’ efforts to reduce the appeal of large, powerful cars. EPA’s stringent fuel-economy standards didn’t apply to trucks, SUVs, or minivans, which didn’t then exist. So, to keep the features they liked, millions of people replaced the family sedan or station wagon with an SUV or truck. As fuel efficiency increased and driving became cheaper, people drove more miles — thereby negating the marginal gains of owning more-fuel-efficient vehicles.

CAFE standards did not reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil — it would take the fracking revolution to do that — but they did have deadly unintended consequences. To meet federal fuel-economy guidelines, carmakers reduced vehicle size, weight, and power. By doing so, manufacturers compromised cars’ safety, resulting in tens of thousands of unnecessary injuries and deaths in vehicle crashes. For every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people are killed in auto accidents, amounting to 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per year, according to researchers at Harvard University and the Brookings Institution. As a result, CAFE has resulted in more deaths than all U.S. soldiers lost in the Vietnam War and every U.S. military engagement since then.

The laws of physics will never change. In a vehicle crash, larger and heavier is safer than lighter and smaller. EPA’s fuel-economy freeze will prevent unnecessary deaths while protecting consumer choice.

If fuel economy is the driving force behind your purchasing decisions, nothing changes under EPA’s decision to freeze current fuel-economy standards. You are free to continue buying the electric, hybrid, or clean diesel vehicle of your choice. If, however, comfort, power, vehicle safety, and the ability to haul a boat or ferry a little league team are your goals, EPA’s CAFE freeze ensures you can continue to make that choice as well. 

Ain’t freedom grand!



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1332952 2018-10-16T17:20:59Z 2018-10-18T13:09:51Z Utility Double Whammy as KGS Joins the 2018 Rate Hike Request Bandwagon

by Allen Williams


Kansas Gas Corporation is back for another rate increase in just two years, Docket No.:18-KGSG-560 RTS   The last one having been approved in 2016.  KGS is a subsidiary of ONE Gas.  ONE Gas Inc is another large conglomerate supplying Oklahoma, Eastern Kansas and parts of Texas where guaranteed levels of income are desired regardless of overall consumption.    

Breitbart reports that Electric, Gas, and Water Rates Falling Due to Trump Tax Cuts 

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate rate from 35% to 21%.. Utility companies are passing on the tax savings in the form of lower rates for customers,” – Americans for Tax Reform.

But this phenomenon is apparently not true in Kansas where utility rates continue to rise.  

The ONE Gas financial report at http://investor.onegas.com/news/news-releases/news-details/2018/ONE-Gas-Announces-First-quarter-2018-Financial-Results/default.aspx  shows:

Net margin increased by $0.8 million compared with first quarter 2017, which primarily reflects:

  • A $5.1 million increase from new rates primarily in Texas and Kansas;
  • A $2.5 million increase from the impact of the weather-normalization mechanisms in Kansas and Oklahoma;
  • A $2.5 million increase due primarily to higher transportation volumes;
  • A $1.2 million increase attributed to net residential customer growth in Oklahoma and Texas;
  • A $0.9 million increase due to a compressed natural gas excise tax credit that was enacted in February 2018 and retroactive to 2017; and
  • A $0.8 million increase in rider and surcharge recoveries due to a higher ad-valorem surcharge in Kansas, which is offset with higher regulatory amortization expense; offset by
  • A $12.3 million decrease related to the deferral of potential refund obligations from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

So KGS admits revenues are up from a combined increase in Texas and Kansas but it’s NOT enough! There appears to be no end to KGS rate and new cost factor requests, the latest being the Kansas  Gas System Reliability Surcharge which now is to include Cyber attacks.  Why not include impact from the stock market impact in a cost factor as well?

SOURCE:  http://investor.onegas.com/investors/financial-reporting/earnings-and-guidance/default.aspx

 “ONE Gas 2018 net income is expected to be in the range of $167 million to $178 million, or $3.15 to $3.35 per diluted share. The midpoint for ONE Gas’ 2018 net income guidance is $172 million, or $3.25 per diluted share.”

Requests for Kansas utility rate increases are a revolving door chiefly to guarantee satisfactory dividends to ONE Gas investors.  The current KGS request increase is a 10% rate hike to consumers when inflation currently stands at 2.3%.

Is there ANYTHING the rate payer is NOT being asked to fund?  Where is the promise of lower rates to get the earlier rate increase approvals?  Just lies as the market for gas has improved revenues rather than diminished them. Instead rate payers are asked to pay dividends of $3.35 a share. But why stop there? Why not $5.15 or even $10 a share? 

General Motors a for profit corporation is paying just $0.38 cents per share as of their 1st Quarter 2018 financial report:  http://quote.morningstar.com/stock-filing/Quarterly-Report/2018/3/31/t.aspx?t=:GM&ft=&d=8ba56ee4bdd422dcb28a39f579bc9cda while Kansans are forced to pay dividends in the dollar range. WHY?

Extraneous surcharges mask the true price users pay for gas services and in effect are automatic rate bumpers that increase consumer bills unfairly for such things as weather, reliability etc. It is an effective hedge against conservation.  These charges are designed to keep utility bills from advantaging consumers by being too low.  The KGS COG delivery charge is an example.   In Sept of 2018 the service charge was 0.4 MCF at a stated rate of $3.85 per 1000 ft3. 

Extraneous surcharges mask the true price users pay for gas services and in effect are automatic rate bumpers that increase consumer bills unfairly for such things as weather, reliability etc. It is an effective hedge against conservation.  These charges are designed to keep utility bills from advantaging consumers by being too low.  The KGS COG delivery charge is an example.  In Sept of 2018 the service charge was 0.4 MCF at a stated rate of $3.85 per 1000 ft3. 

This $0.4*1000 ft3 * $3.8523/1000 ft3 = $1.54 COG

So the ratio of gas consumption to the charge for providing it is $16.70/$1.54 or 10.84 nearly 11 times the cost of the gas which illustrates my point.  Now KGS wants to increase the delivery service charge from $16.70 to $22.66 which is $22.66/ $1.54 or 14.7 times the cost of the gas.

The result is that KGS customers will pay nearly 15 times as much for the gas to be delivered to their home as for the actual gas consumed not to mention all the other ‘hedge factors’.  The rest of the bill is local taxes.  When service charges exceed the cost of a product by double digits the company is gouging consumers.

BreitBart continues:  “Thus far, ATR has found 102 utility companies that have lowered rates or ceased rate hikes due to President Trump’s tax cuts.”

Why do ONE Gas/KGS customers have to fund dividends at a higher rate than General Motors, #21 on the 2017 fortune 500 list despite a record federal tax cut?

I seriously question the company’s claim that it has “experienced increases in payroll expenses and supplier costs” to justify their current rate request. These cost claims appear to be creative paper expenses towards the end of providing investor dividends.

102 other utilities have either decreased rates or ceased rate requests but not Kansas?  

Commission Consultants are not tantamount to citizen ratepayer oversight of a regulated monopoly

The KGS rate increase is nothing short of rubber stamp legalized robbery.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1332575 2018-10-15T05:11:00Z 2018-10-15T17:18:59Z Trump Orders Declassification of FISA Docs and Comey Texts

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 17: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in the inaugural meeting of the Presidents National Council for the American Worker in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on September 17, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Oliver Contreras - Pool/Getty Images)


by Randy DeSoto

President Donald Trump ordered the declassification of several documents and texts related to the FBI’s Russia investigation during the 2016 presidential election.

Included among the documents are the 21 pages of the FISA court application used by the FBI to obtain a warrant to surveil Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement on Monday.

Sanders added that the president has also directed the release of all reports by the FBI of interviews with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr in relation to the Russia investigation.

View image on TwitterView image on Twitter
Trump further ordered the public release of all text messages concerning the Russia investigation, “without redaction,” from former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page, and Ohr.

The House Intelligence and House Oversight and Government Reform committees have both been seeking the unredacted FISA applications on Carter Page for months.

Fox News reported sources familiar with the matter do not know how soon the documents will be released, but the release covered “pretty much everything that (House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes) wanted … and the text messages are a bonus.”

Nunes stated on FNC on Sunday, “If the president wants the American people to really understand just how broad and invasive this investigation has been to many Americans and how unfair it has been, he has no choice but to declassify” key documents.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise praised Trump’s decision to release the FISA documents and text messages, tweeting, the president “made the right call. Americans deserve the truth about these egregious actions by government officials.”

Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Mark Meadows tweeted after Trump’s announcement, “Transparency wins.”

“It’s time to get the full truth on the table so the American people can decide for themselves on what happened at the highest levels of their FBI and Justice Department,” he added.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., accused Trump of “ordering the selective disclosure of classified materials he believes helpful to his defense.”

“The DOJ and FBI have previously informed me that release of some of this information would cross a ‘red line,’” he wrote.

On Monday morning, Trump tweeted about a Fox News report concerning Lisa Page’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in July during which she stated the FBI had found no evidence of Russia collusion by May 2017, when special counsel Robert Mueller was named to take over the investigation.

“Therefore, the case should never have been allowed to be brought. It is a totally illegal Witch Hunt!” wrote the president.

In another tweet, he wrote, “Immediately after Comey’s firing Peter Strzok texted to his lover, Lisa Page ‘We need to Open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy (McCabe, also fired) is acting.”

“Page answered, ‘We need to lock in (redacted). In a formal chargeable way. Soon.’ Wow, a conspiracy caught?” Trump wondered.









Senior Staff Writer
Summary More Info Recent Posts
Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book "We Hold These Truths" and screenwriter of the political documentary "I Want Your Money."

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1331583 2018-10-12T16:28:00Z 2018-10-12T16:28:45Z On Gay Adoption, S.E. Cupp is Out to Lunch

by Robert Oscar Lopez


{An excellent 2014 article that exposes the insipidness of gay adoption:  Lopez considers himself a “children’s advocate” in rejecting gay marriage and gay adoption.  In the process he is also addressing one of the greatest threats to the survival of the family in recent history, especially with the global explosion of gay surrogacy and gay adoption.  Some of the dark “underworld” agendas he hints at need more attention -- publicly.  Read his own story at:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065. -- DNI]


S.E. Cupp is one of the latest media figures to make a pitch on gay marriage and adoption.  As is often the case, she throws out so many canards in this cocktail of insipidness, one scarcely knows where to begin

I will say conservatives have got to move on gay marriage....[and] on gay adoption. If abortion is the abhorrent option – and I believe it is – then adoption by any two loving people has got to be the better option. 

First of all, the latest estimates indicate that somewhere between 12-15% of heterosexual couples struggle with infertility.  Currently many of these viable homes, rather than adopting, are being steered to the artificial reproduction market and contributing to the 1.5% (and rising) of live American births tied to in vitro technology.  The alternative to abortion is obviously to get more of these viable straight couples to avoid sperm-banking or surrogacy, and to consider adopting instead.

Anyone who’s lost a birth parent to death, divorce, or a tragedy knows that a kid feels the absence of a father or mother.  This is square one for adoptees, orphans, children of divorce, or children of same-sex couples – someone was there when you were born, and now he or she is not there.  That person is a very real human being, tied to you by flesh and blood.  A kid mourns the missing person, thinks about him, longs to reconnect with him.  It hurts to be cut off from a mother or father.  I was cut off from my dad because he divorced my lesbian mother; I was reared by two women.

It’s not a small thing to make a kid grow up without a father because a bunch of self-centered adults can’t get their acts together.  I’ve had enough of pundits like S.E. Cupp being so glib about things that are incredibly painful for people who are actually in these situations, and powerless about it to boot.  If you haven’t been raised by a gay couple and you haven’t been adopted, it might be hard to understand how offensive it is to hear people on TV talk about fraught transactions like adoption and same-sex parenting with such confident nonchalance.

One of the unnoticed ironies in the debate on gay adoption has to do with David Brock, the chieftain at Media Matters, whose subdivision Equality Matters has gone after me more than once for my views on a child’s right to his mother and father.  Brock spent much of his 2002 memoirs, Blinded by the Right, on the pain he felt about being adopted.  In fact, his adoption weighed on him and complicated his relationship with his father much more than did his gayness. You would think that Brock would understand why it’s not such a simple thing to yank kids from a birth family and toss him into a home with one or two adults unrelated to him.  Ironic self-awareness is apparently lacking on the left.  {And with Child Protective Services who often remove children from their true parents with out sufficient justification. - ED}

The truth is that adoption in the United States is too expensive, and many heterosexual couples find the costs prohibitive, so they are priced out of the market by gay couples, who have much higher incomes and are, 100% of the time, forced to take babies from other people since they cannot conceive them on their own.  In fact, gay adopters have such an insatiable desire to parlay their high incomes into cash-for-kids that they waged a war against Catholic Charities adoption centers, going as far as forcing many such agencies to shut down as punishment for not giving gay couples other people’s abandoned children.

The dirty secret about gay adoption is that most often when homosexual couples adopt, one of their pair is the biological parent.  Usually the child comes from a former heterosexual relationship that broke down.  So when they “adopt,” they typically have to put a bunch of people through the mud fight that my dear friend Janna endured: they have to drag the opposite-sex parent to family court, strip him or her of custody, and then force the poor little kid to submit to the parental authority of a new, sometimes creepy, person who’s sleeping with a biological parent and very likely caused the breakup of that child's original family.

That’s the real-life adoption story that doesn’t make for great gay headlines.  Gay adoption has unfortunate but ineluctable ties to divorce.  In fact, by encouraging gay adoption so much, we are encouraging a whole new generation of homewreckers – gays who want to be parents and figure out that the cheapest way to do it is to seduce someone of the same sex who is currently in a rocky marriage with children.


You will hear, from time to time, about hundreds of thousands of children in foster care who can’t find families to adopt them.  This is a favorite statistic for gay marriage gurus to throw out as a kind of emotional Shock and Awe, a debate-stopper of the first order, especially if you can cough up an example of special-needs children being raised by adorable lesbians in Michigan.  There has never been a backlog of infants, so these holdouts are typically older children who landed in the child protective services system because of a crisis.  Many of them are kids who don’t want to placed with gay couples, or kids whom gay couples don’t want, either.  What people don’t tell you – because they don’t want to and don’t have to, until you push them on it – is that most of those children have living parents, or living kin networks, and the foster care system has to work on reuniting them with their struggling birth families.  Otherwise, the government would merely be an oppressive police state taking people’s kids away and signing them over to rich folks in exchange for cash, as happened in dictatorships like the kind that governed Argentina in the 1970s.

Most people don’t have the time to work through the nuances of foster care versus adoption.  Fewer still are aware of how many people in “Adoption Land” – the community of adoptees and adoptive families – are calling for massive reform in both foster care and adoption.  What gay activists are asking for, on both fronts, would actually be moving in the precisely wrong direction; gay lobbyists want agencies to speed up the process by which foster kids are cut off from their birth mothers and fathers and subordinated permanently to same-sex couples eager to acquire them.  On the international adoption front, even gay adoptive father Frank Ligtvoet has faced the painful reality that adoption systems are overemphasizing the desire of wealthy childless families rather than the needs of impoverished communities that are struggling to provide for their children (in the Huffington Post, no less).

It took a while for brave activists like Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy to apply the same critiques on the domestic fronts, but now, too, people are scrutinizing domestic adoptions and finding much to improve.  (The film Philomena, ironically, humanizes the pain of a birth mother who is pressured to give up her infant who turns out to be gay; despite the film’s sympathy for homosexuals, the gay movement is pushing to create more Philomenas nowadays so they can build their rainbow families.)

Foster care costs the public money, whereas adoption is a huge moneymaker for certain attorneys and even, in the United Kingdom and here, for social service agencies (see this article on the blowback that resulted from rewarding people too handsomely for placing foster kids in adoptive homes).  So the mentality that it’s always best to get kids out of foster care and into adoption is a mixed bag.  On the one hand, we have ample evidence that life in foster care is hard, and we know that many adoptive homes are great places to save suffering children from such instability.

(I should confess: when I was fifteen, there were problems in my home, and my father did not want to take me in, so he drove me to a “boarding school” in Maine, where I stayed while my home situation might improve.  It was very hard to feel abandoned, essentially, at the moment that my dad dropped me off at the main office with a check, but would it have made sense for some couple to adopt me at that point?  In the end I returned to my mothers’ home and finished high school early, going to college as a de facto emancipated minor.)

On the other hand, we have much to worry about when we envision rushing kids out of foster care into gay adoption.  Gay adoptive parents have proved just as capable as straight foster parents of kidnappingmurderabuserapechild pornography, and neglect involving the children they acquire.  So everything that’s painful about foster care with straight people is also painful about gay adoption; the difference is that in a gay adoption, the child loses forever his chance at having a mom and dad.  Whether adopters are gay or straight, it’s not a good idea to incentivize social services agencies’ power to remove children from troubled homes and transfer all parental equivalence to a new home without making a good-faith effort to repair problems with the birth family.

It sounds ominous to be in the position of “aging out” of foster care without having been adopted.  But it’s not necessarily as bad as it sounds.  You can still maintain contact with foster parents, but once you are emancipated, it is your choice to do that (not something forced on you by law), and you also have the choice to rebuild your relationship with your birth kin network, the way I rebuilt a relationship with my father as an adult.  My mother’s lesbian partner never adopted me, and that was probably the right decision.





Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.  [See also his own “bio”: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/ The article first appeared here.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1331226 2018-10-11T16:35:00Z 2018-10-11T16:34:47Z Report: Federal Prosecutors Weighing Criminal Charges Against Former Obama White House Counsel

By Jack Davis

An attorney who served as White House counsel in the Obama administration is under investigation for his role in dealings linked to the case against Paul Manafort, according to a report from CNN, citing sources “familiar with the matter.”

Manafort, who briefly served as Donald Trump’s campaign manager, was the target of an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Manafort pleaded guilty on Friday to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to obstruct justice, both having to do with dealings in Ukraine that took place years before his involvement with the Trump campaign.

CNN reported Friday that attorney Greg Craig, who was White House counsel from 2009 to 2010, is under scrutiny over whether he lobbied for Ukrainian leaders without registering as a foreign agent.

The investigation also touches on the firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where Craig was a partner at the time.

Craig’s actions were taken after he left the White House, according to the report.

Connections between Manafort, the firm and Craig were revealed in filings in the Manafort case.

Craig’s attorney William Taylor III said his client did nothing wrong.

“Greg Craig was not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act,” Taylor said in a statement, Law.com reported.

Craig himself would not comment on the investigation.

This is not the first controversial case for Taylor, who represented Fusion GPS, the firm involved in the production of a dossier of discredited claims against Trump.

NBC News reported that Craig was the supervisor of Alex van der Zwaan, a Skadden lawyer who has pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and about communications concerning the Ukrainian politician for whom Manafort was also working.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office and Justice Department have not yet decided if they will file charges against either Craig or the law firm, CNN reported.

The law firm was paid more than $4.6 million, which Manafort sought to hide, the court filing said.

Bloomberg reported that the law firm is also facing questions of conflict of interest in the issues surrounding former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Skadden lawyers, which would have included Craig,  may have violated their ethical responsibilities through their actions, said Rebecca Roiphe, who provides instruction on legal ethics at New York Law School.

“Skadden could face some problems with disciplinary authorities in D.C., assuming this is as bad and as baseless as described,” she said.




]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1330863 2018-10-10T16:42:00Z 2018-10-10T16:42:09Z The Biggest TAX SCAM in American History
Owen Sullivan
By Owen Sullivan
Derek Walters was stuck in rush hour traffic when he got the call.

“Mr. Walters, this is Officer Rick Selznick of the Department of Treasury.”

The voice on the other end of the line was a gravelly, pack-a-day voice. It sounded serious.

“We need to have a little chat.”

Rick said Derek owed the government $5,000 in back taxes.

Rick said there was a warrant out for Derek’s arrest.

Rick said Derek was in big trouble.

Derek’s heart dropped into his stomach. His mouth went dry.

He couldn’t go to jail. He had a family, two kids in school and a new job to worry about.

He drove straight to the bank.  He was sure there had been a mistake. But now wasn’t the time to argue. He would pay the money to get the warrant squashed and try to get the money back later.  He withdrew $5,000 from his savings account and wired it to a bank account provided by Officer Selznick. All the while, never got off the phone with Rick.

“Thank you very much, Mr. Walters. You did the right thing.”

And just like that, Derek had fell for the biggest tax scam in American history.

Wrong Number

This week in Money & Crisis, we’ve been investigating a bombshell report that claims almost 50% of all phone calls in 2019 will be scam phone calls.  That means that every time you pick up the phone, there’s a 50/50 chance the person on the other end of the line will try to scam you out of your money.

Derek fell for one of the most prevalent scam techniques known as the “back taxes” scam.

“When I was explaining it to my wife, it was obvious it was a scam,” says Derek. “I mean, of course the Treasury Department doesn’t call you up and force you to wire money to them on the spot!  “But they put so much pressure on you, you don’t have time to think. It was like an action movie. ‘Do this NOW and the bomb won’t go off.’ That’s why they keep you on the phone. So you don’t have time to think.”

This is a common thread in reports of phone scams. The thieves will use the fear of jail time or financial ruin to manipulate their marks. But today, their attacks and techniques have become so varied, that it’s getting harder and harder to tell scams apart from legitimate phone calls. Sometimes, even saying one word is enough to get you into heaps of trouble.

Today, we’re going to delve the most common scams people fall for and some strategies for beating them.

The Robot

One of the most common types of scams is known as a robocaller. This is a pre-recorded message — usually that of a pleasant sounding woman — that will try to get you to fork over your credit card information.

They’ll hide their scam behind the pretense of collecting money for emergency relief, local charities and even political parties.

When you hear that pleasant sounding robot’s voice, hang up.

WARNING: Some of these robocallers will give you the “option” to unsubscribe by hitting nine on your keypad. Don’t do it. This just tells the scammers that this is an active phone line to be targeted for more scams.

The Silent Caller

Some scammers have found the best moneymaking strategy is…

Complete silence.

They simply call you up… say nothing… and record anything you say while you’re on the line. The goal is try and get you to say “yes” or anything else that could be used as a verbal contract. They’ll try and use this recording of you saying “yes” to sign you up to expensive subscriptions services.

There are variations on this strategy, where callers will ask you questions to trick you into saying yes, such as “can you hear me?” or “are you a homeowner?”

If you get caught by one of these scammers, know that your “yes” isn’t a valid contract. They will try and intimidate you and manipulate you psychologically into paying up. But you don’t owe these thugs jack.

Too Good to Be True

As a rule, if a stranger calls you to tell you “good news” they’re after your money.

Callers will make wild claims of extravagant prizes and free products. But in reality, these “awesome prizes” are nothing more than bait.

Scammers are just buttering you up to get you to listen to a sales pitch or to trick you into forking over your credit card details.

Common claims to watch out for are:

Foreign Lotteries: The winning ticket was purchased in your name or as a gift. All we need is a “small fee” to transfer the funds.

Free or Low Cost Travel Packages: These travel packages often have sky-high hidden fees. While others don’t exist at all. The scammer just takes your money and disappears.

Credit and Loans: These loans might look good up front. But hidden costs and sky-high interest means you’ll end up paying back far more than you bargained for.

Extended Car Warranties: Scammers will find out what car you drive and try to sell you overpriced, worthless warranties.

Scam Beating Strategies
  1. Don’t answer calls you don’t recognize. If it’s important they’ll leave a message. Some scammers will leave a message. But this will give you time to think and google the phone number. Scam numbers will often be listed online.
  2. If you pick up the phone and suspect someone is impersonating a government employee or legitimate business, say you will call them back and hang up. Instead of using the number they called you from, look up their number online and ask for the person by name. If they protest, it’s a scam.
  3. Download a scam blocker app. Nomorobo catalogues all the scam numbers and blocks them from connecting to your phone. True Caller is a similar app that uses its database of 2 billion numbers to identify incoming calls. True Caller won’t actually block any calls but it will give you the information you need to screen the calls yourself. Both apps are available on Apple and Google Play.
And with that, I’ll leave you with a piece of wisdom from Laissez Faire’s Editorial Director Justin Fritz.

“I knew it wasn’t a scam, because they sent me a letter!”

What about you? Have you had any close calls with a scam caller? What was the lie they told you? When did you realize they weren’t legit?

All the best,






]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1330574 2018-10-09T17:00:00Z 2018-10-09T17:00:41Z EPA’s Non-Politicized Science Benefits Americans

by H. Sterling Burnett


A direct challenge to the hardcore enviros who heretofore controlled and corrupted the agency.

President Donald Trump committed to fundamentally transforming the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from an agency producing politicized science to one instilling sound scientific standards for research. By doing so, Americans should expect improved environmental and health outcomes.

Currently, regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, which amounts to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 less for Americans to pay for health insurance, medical bills, education expenses, groceries, gasoline, or entertainment. Because the economic and social implications of regulations are profound, the science they are built upon must be impeccable.

Over the last few decades — under Republican and Democratic administrations — EPA formed a cozy relationship with radical environmental activists and liberal academic researchers. With the support of environmental lobbyists who despise capitalism (expressed by consumers’ free choices in the marketplace) EPA bureaucrats, in pursuit of more power and expanded budgets for the agency, funded researchers who, because they were largely dependent on government grants for the majority of their funding, were only too happy to produce results claiming industry was destroying the earth.

Of course, the only way to prevent environmental collapse was more government control of the economy. However, these reports were produced despite the fact poverty and hunger have steadily declined and people are living longer and more productive lives than ever before.

As Jay Lehr, a colleague and science director at the Heartland Institute told me once, “For decades, EPA has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the environmental left. Together, radical environmentalists and EPA bureaucrats, including the members of all their advisory panels, have used their considerable power to thwart American business at every turn.

Under Trump, EPA changed how it pursues science to pay greater fealty to the scientific method and remove temptations for scientific self-aggrandizement and corruption.

Not surprisingly, researchers, environmentalists, and bureaucrats, seeing their power curtailed and their gravy train ending, are crying foul saying the Trump administration is undermining science. However, in reality this is simply not true.

EPA’s scientific advisory panels are tasked with ensuring the research the agency uses to develop and justify regulations is rigorous, has integrity, and is based on the best available science.

To better ensure this, EPA ceased automatically renewing the terms of board members on various panels. EPA is now filling its scientific panels and boards on a competitive basis as each board member’s term expires.

This should improve the science EPA uses to inform its decisions, by expanding diversity — diversity of interests, diversity of scientific disciplines, and diversity of backgrounds — thus bringing in a wider array of viewpoints to EPA decision-making.

In addition, to reduce opportunities for corruption, EPA ceased allowing members of its federal advisory committees to apply for EPA research grants and instituted policies to ensure advisory panel members and grant recipients have no other conflicts of interest. It was always a foolish practice to allow those recommending, often determining, who gets EPA grants to also be in the running for those grants. However, this was business as usual at EPA, where grant makers awarded themselves, research teams they were members of, or their friends billions of taxpayer dollars over the years.

In April, then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared “The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end.” Pruitt proposed requiring the data underlying scientific studies used by EPA to craft regulations be available for public inspection, criticism, and independent verification.

For years, EPA bureaucrats have used the results of studies by researchers who would not disclose the data underlying their results to be examined and retested for confirmation or falsification. Fortunately, EPA is finally ending this unjustifiable practice.

Many scientists have objected to EPA’s new secret science policy because they claim the studies EPA uses have undergone “peer review.” However, the peer review process is often nothing more than other researchers, often hand-picked by the scientists whose research is being reviewed, sitting around in their ivory towers reading the reports and saying, “this looks okay or reasonable to me.”


Unless the reviewers are able examine the underlying data and assumptions, and attempt to replicate the results, peer review is unable to ensure the validity of studies used to underpin regulations. Absent transparency and replicability, peer review is hollow.

Another long overdue EPA regulatory reform was the decision to end exclusive use of the “Linearity No Threshold” (LNT) model when assessing the dangers of radiation, carcinogens, and other toxic substances in the environment. Going forward, EPA will incorporate uncertainty into its risk assessments using a variety of other, more realistic models.

The LNT model assumes there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation or exposure to various other chemicals or toxins. Relying on flawed studies from the effect of ionizing radiation on fruit flies from the 1950s, EPA and other regulatory agencies have used LNT as a basis for regulation of environmental clean-ups, setting safety standards for nuclear plants, and limiting low dose radiation treatments for medical patients, a policy that has cost lives and billions of taxpayer dollars.

Although science has progressed phenomenally since the 1950s, with copious amounts of research showing the LNT model is seriously flawed, EPA and other agencies never questioned the LNT standard. That is, until now.

In fact, adverse effects from low dose exposures to radiation and most other chemicals and potential toxins are often non-existent. Indeed, substances that may be harmful in large quantities can be beneficial in small amounts, a process known as hormesis.

In the commonly paraphrased words of Swiss physician and astronomer Paracelsus, “the dose makes the poison.” Vitamins, which are valuable in small quantities, and even water, which is literally necessary for life, can become deadly if too much of either is taken over a short period of time. Or consider sun exposure. While exposure to too much sunlight can contribute to skin cancer, sunlight is required to catalyze the final synthesis of Vitamin D, which strengthens the bones, helping prevent osteoporosis and rickets. There is also ample evidence sunlight can help fight depression and several skin and inflammatory ailments.

Replacing reliance on the untenable LNT model with other models of exposure and response will result in better safety and health protocols, potentially saving billions of dollars and thousands of lives each year.

In service of the American people and the pursuit of continued American greatness, science practices at EPA are improving under President Trump. One can only hope equivalent changes are adopted at other executive agencies so the regulations they produce are grounded in the best available science, free of political corruption and bureaucratic incentives for agency mission creep and growth.




The article first appeared here.]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1330268 2018-10-08T15:44:00Z 2018-10-08T15:44:51Z The Bad Economics of Short-Run Policies
By Richard Ebeling


Bad economics can bring about or grow out of bad politics. But the question is, what are bad economics and bad politics?

Bad economics can bring about or grow out of bad politics. But the question is, what are bad economics and bad politics? Unless this is clearly and correctly identified, a bad situation can be made worse, and a good situation can be turned into a bad one. So sorting this out is crucial to having a free and prosperous society.

British economist, Robert Skidelsky, is confident that he knows the answer. In a recent article on “Good Politics, Bad Economics,” he states that bad economics and bad politics are free markets and limited government along classical liberal lines. How does he know that such economics and politics are “bad” in their effects on the society? The financial crisis of 2008-2009, Skidelsky says, was due to unbridled financial markets combined with “hands-off” economic policies once the downturn set in, in 2009-2010.

Good politics and good economics, in his view, comprise an openness and sensitivity to the concerns of many in the society for social securities and job assurances in a changing and uncertain world. Oh, Adam Smith’s invisible hand of unhampered free markets is fine enough when taking the long view, but, Skidelsky says, they are “also highly disruptive and prone to periodic breakdown,” in the shorter run.

Skidelsky: Populist Demagogues as Good Economists

Adhering to such Smithian free market policies opens the door to “populist” demagogues, such as Victor Orban in Hungary who has instituted illiberal political policies attempting to restrict civil liberties and personal freedom. But, on the other hand, as far as Skidelsky is concerned Orban has a highly redeemable set of good fiscal policies, based on a “sound Keynesian footing.”

This echoes back to the infamous forward that John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) wrote for the German translation of his, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), that “The theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions in a totalitarian state than . . . under conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire . . .”

It is worth recalling that in 1936, the only remaining academic economists to whom the content of Keynes’s book could be addressed in recommending it as a guide for government economic policy were Nazi economists, since all others already had been removed from university and related positions by Hitler’s National Socialist regime.

Following in the footsteps of his intellectual mentor (being the author of a highly regarded three-volume biography of Keynes), Skidelsky points out that illiberal nationalist regimes such as Orban’s find it far easier “to pursue policies of social protection.” Why? They can use the heavy hand of government control to impose such policies on society without the type of resistance or public criticism possible in a more politically open liberal system.

The Bigger the Government, the Better for Keynesians

The smaller the government’s fiscal presence in the economic activities within a country, the less is likely to be the impact from “activist” government spending policies, since government expenditures and taxation would be relatively small to start with. If there is, say, a $1 trillion economy, with government taxing and spending only representing one percent (or $10 billion), a 20 percent increase in government spending in the form of a budget deficit only comes to an additional $2 billion.

But if, on the other hand, out of a $1 trillion economy, government taxing and spending comes to, say, 20 percent that is equal to $200 billion. If, now, the government increases it’s spending by only 5 percent through deficit financing that comes to $10 billion, or five times as much as in the first case.

Keynes’s point, and Skidelsky’s, is that the greater the degree of government influence or control over the economic activities within a country to begin with, including the size of government spending as a percent of the economy as a whole, the larger the impact from any increase in spending by that government. The bigger the government, the more policy-relevant is the introduction or expansion of Keynesian-type fiscal policies.

In fairness, Keynes had no sympathy for the ideology or the politics of the Nazi regime in Germany, and Robert Skidelsky is equally unsympathetic with the political and cultural policies of Orban’s government in Hungary. But Skidelsky believes that the best way to prevent or make less likely the coming to power of a populist, “right-wing” government like Orban’s is for a more liberal and democratic government to introduce “good” Keynesian and other interventionist policies before economic circumstances become so bad in a country that the citizens turn to an Orban-type of leader, due to the affects of “bad” free market policies that limit the size and scope of a government to “fix” and set things right.

Bastiat and Hazlitt: Good Economists Look Beyond the Short Run

Slightly modernizing the insight of the French free market economist, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) in his famous essay, “What is Seen and What is Not Seen,” economic journalist Henry Hazlitt (1894-1993) explained the crucial difference between a “bad” and  “good” economist in his classic, Economics in One Lesson (1946):

“The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group, the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups . . .

“The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg., the flower in the seed . . . The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences not merely for one group but for all groups.”

Now no personal or moral slight is intended by implying that Robert Skidelsky, by Bastiat’s and Hazlitt’s definition, is a “bad” economist. It simply means that it is “bad economics” if the analyst, for whatever reason, exclusively or primarily focuses on the immediate or nearer effects from a government policy while ignoring or downplaying the possible or likely impact of such policies when taking the longer-run perspective on what the consequences of a policy may be.

The reason being, as the old adage says, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is clear from Skidelsky’s argument that he is concerned that if a “good” or well-intentioned government pursues “bad” economic policies, it may create the political conditions in which an authoritarian or populist demagogue may be able to promise “good” interventionist economics, some of which he might even successfully deliver, but at the cost of reduced or lost political and civil liberties.

However, a “good” diagnosis requires a correct judgment concerning the cause and nature of the (social) ailment. Otherwise, the illness may be made worse, or at a minimum recovery may be delayed or prolonged more than otherwise might have been necessary.

Short-Run Policies Created the 2008-2009 Crisis

What Skidelsky interprets as the economic system prevailing in the United States and most other Western countries has little to do with how classical liberals define a “free market.” Financial markets have been and are heavily regulated by government regulatory agencies. The creation of money and credit and the rates of interest they charge to borrowers are not truly market-based. Central banks set the regulatory and loan-creating rules for the member banks within the banking systems.

Governments and their central banks created the financial crisis of 2008-2009. For years the Federal Reserve had been increasing the quantity of loanable funds in the banking system, and when adjusted for price inflation as measured by the consumer price index, some real interest rates were negative. (See my article, “Interest Rates Need to Tell the Truth”.)

In other words, loan money was being handed out for free in terms of real buying power that a borrower was paying back to lenders for the period of their loans. To get the central bank-created money in the banking system out the door, besides the equivalent of negative interest charges on some loans, the banks were induced to extend loans to uncredit-worthy home buyers with the promise that government agencies like Fanny Mae Freddie Mac would pick up the tab if and when the loans went bad – which many eventually did.

Bad Economics and Short-Run Politics Cause Society’s Ills

What had motivated these policies? In the case of the Federal Reserve, a fear in the early years of the 21st century that there might be a tendency for price deflation, which the Fed Board of Governors decided had to be prevented at all costs through counter-acting monetary expansion. The longer run consequence was an unsustainable financial and investment bubble that came crashing down in 2008-2009. (See my article, “Don’t Fear ‘Deflation,’ Unless Caused by Government”.)

In the case of the housing market, pressures by members of Congress were placed on the government’s home loan guaranteed agencies – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – that not enough people were attaining the American dream of having their own home, especially among members of minority communities in the United States. So credit standards were lowered or seemingly almost waved. Banks were told not to worry; just extend home loans to those not meeting the traditional credit-worthy standards of income and work history or not enough of a usual down payment, because if things went wrong those government agencies guaranteed to cover any that went “bad.”

Misplaced fears about possible price deflation and the pressures of politicians looking no further than needing votes from happy home-owning constituents; these were the short-run policy contexts that created the longer run disaster of one of the severest economic downturns of the post-World War II period.

Macroeconomic Mindset Prevents Understanding of Markets

Both factors reflected the bad economics of focusing on the short-run. The Keynesian mindset is to have the monetary central planners try to micro-manage every twist and turn in the financial and economic climate, and frequently turn the money-creation and interest rate dials in an attempt to keep the macro-economy on an even keel, as the defined by the Keynesian-oriented policy makers.

The same applies to using government taxing and spending to try to influence investment, employment and wages in the economy as a whole. But, again, what this mindset summarizes away in the macroeconomic aggregates used as indicators and targets are the complex and interconnected microeconomic relationships in the structure of relative prices and wages, relative profitabilities of directing productions to satisfy multitudes of different consumer demands, and the need for on-going and continuous adaptations and adjustments in prices and wages, and the allocation of resources (including labor) for successful economy-wide coordination of what everyone is doing in the social system of the division of labor. (See my article, “Macro Aggregates Hide the Real Market Processes at Work”.)

The Best Short and Long Run Policy: Limited Government

For a market economy to succeed in this endeavor the only long run set of policies for any government needs to undertake is to protect the individual and private property rights of the citizenry, enforce all contracts and agreements peacefully and voluntarily entered into that are not fraudulent or misrepresentations, and prevent foreign aggressors from invading and plundering the people within a country.

This represents the “good politics” of a (classical) liberal political order that helps secure people’s liberty and assures the economic setting most conducive to prosperity and price-guided market coordination. A stable and healthy market order such as this precludes the likelihood of the disruptions and distortions that are central to Skildelsky’s concerns.

If such disruptions do arise for some external reason, it remains nonetheless the best long run and short run policy for open and competitive markets to be left free to rebalance and recoordinate in the most appropriate and timesaving ways possible. Government planners, regulators and bureaucrats can never know or acquire the needed and necessary microeconomic knowledge of time and circumstance that only the actors within the various sectors of the economy can discover and attempt to utilize in the most effective manner.

Following this type of economic policy approach is most likely to preclude the emergence and attractiveness of the populist demagogues that Skidelsky fears as threats to political freedom and civil liberties. His proposed policies are far more likely to bring about the very “bad politics” about which he is rightly concerned.

[Originally Published at the American Institute for Economic Research]






Dr. Richard M. Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel. Full Bio
rebeling@citadel.edu

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1329333 2018-10-05T16:24:00Z 2018-10-05T16:23:50Z Election 2020: America needs a leader, not a liar like Clinton

by Rich Panessa


Will it be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Several "protest candidates" have sprouted up which usually indicates they don’t have enough money, or they’re in it to try to upset the election results. As a former member of The Spectrum & Daily News
’ Writer’s Group for six years, I prognosticated about the country’s future under an unqualified Barack Obama. His dynamic speeches inspired the nation, but failed to ignite a fire under him. Predictably, his two terms as president doubled our debt and welfare enrollment, sent race relations back to pre-MLK, while his naive "lead-from-behind" foreign policy became a joke to our enemies, and a death knell to our allies. Nice job.

As if his tenure wasn’t destructive enough, Obama highly recommended Hillary Clinton as his successor. Hillary is an unscrupulous politician who has made a fortune on the backs of the taxpayers. As Bill Clinton’s "point woman" during the scandals that plagued them in Arkansas, she skillfully managed to keep him a few steps ahead of the hangman. Her public life (and Bill’s) has been one shameful scandal after another with recent breaches in national security, "pay for play" implications between foreign governments and the State Department, while lying to Congress. Her investment outcomes have been "miraculous," while record books and sometimes "Arkansas bodies" disappeared just like in an old B-movie mystery.

The difference is the Clinton who-doneit never ends ... and they’re never solved. Whitewater, File Gate, Travel Gate, Bi! ll’s impeachment and trial, a fistful of sexual assaults, Monica, Vince Foster, or why they were gifted a million-dollar New York home by none other than the current governor of Virginia. Then there’s the current FBI and IRS investigations into the Clinton Foundation. Move over Bonnie and Clyde. Donald Trump is not a politician but a businessman who turned his father’s $10 million dollar real estate company into a $10 billion empire. In his ascent, he honed his business skills alongside other powerful moguls like Helmsley, Blau, and Bloomberg, et al., not to mention savvy foreign investors from China, Russia and Japan. He has keen management skills and is a top-notch negotiator.

Like him or not, Trump will re-establish America’s financial and production superiority to regain worldwide trade advantages. He’s a staunch supporter of law ! enforcement and is committed to modernize the military. He’ll allow companies with trillions offshore to repatriate that money with minimal penalties as long as the money remains in the U.S., to help pay for infrastructure investments and tax cuts across the board. His leadership and motivational skills will inspire Congress to reach impossible goals with precision, on time, and unlike before, under budget. For these reasons, regardless of his political missteps so far, I believe he’ll lead our nation from political correctness into an era of "Americanism." Most media outlets in their liberal bias criticize Trump for his gaffes and inexperience at campaigning, but admit he’s not a liar or a thief. He’s someone who will get much done, won’t speak in platitudes, and vehemently protect and defend the Constitution of United States, while never placing himself above the welfare and safety of this nation.

Could you make the same claim about Hillary Cl! inton? Rich Panessa is a resident of St. George.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1328923 2018-10-04T16:47:31Z 2018-10-04T16:47:31Z Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report

by Bryan Chai


Few things are sweeter than watching a Democratic plot blow up spectacularly in their faces.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, has been thrust into the public spotlight as a result.

Look, the entire thing is murky.

There is a startling lack of evidence, especially considering the assault allegedly took place over 30 years ago, so it’s unfair to paint Kavanaugh in a negative light. Not that that’s stopped far-left Democrats from trying to do so.

But by that same token, Ford, and all sexual assault victims, should still be given an opportunity to be heard. Sexual assault is never okay, and any allegation is worth looking at.

So let’s pump the brakes on presuming innocence or guilt, and refrain from attacking either Ford or Kavanaugh until due process plays out.

You know who does deserve to be attacked? The Democrats who have weaponized an alleged sexual assault victim’s apparent trauma to attack a Supreme Court nominee whose only sin seems to be that he was nominated by President Donald Trump.

It’s disgusting, reprehensible and deserves to be looked into.

That’s exactly what’s going to happen, according to Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Appearing on CBS’ “Face The Nation” on Sunday, Cotton reamed Democrats for failing to uphold the confidentiality that Ford had requested when she first made her allegations against Kavanaugh.

“They have betrayed her,” Cotton said. “She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh.”

Regardless of the veracity of Ford’s accusations, it’s inarguable that Democrats have opted to use her plight in an attempt to take down Kavanaugh. One of the tactics that Democrats have been accused of is supplying Ford with lawyers who were looking to serve the Democratic Party before their own client.

Mitchell: Were you even told that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to fly out to your home to meet you?

Remember how the Kavanaugh hearing was initially delayed because Ford didn’t want to fly from California to Washington? Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley apparently made it crystal clear that the GOP was willing to bring the hearing to her in California.

Did Ford’s lawyers, supplied by Democrats, intentionally not tell her that important bit of information to drag the process into the mid-terms? I’m not saying they did, but if it smells like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s not an iguana.

Cotton wasn’t about to let that type of behavior fly, however.

“(Democratic leadership) pointed her to lawyers who lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to California to interview her,” Cotton said on “Face The Nation.”

Cotton then dropped some bad news on those lawyers.

“Those lawyers are going to face a D.C. bar investigation into their misconduct,” Cotton said. Ouch.

They should absolutely be investigated if they misled their client in any way, shape or form to help out the Democrats’ attempts to derail the Kavanaugh investigation. That is antithetical to everything the American justice system stands for.

Everything the Democrats have done to stop Kavanaugh from being nominated has had zero repercussions. That may be about to change in massive fashion.

And it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch of people.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1328527 2018-10-03T16:50:00Z 2018-10-03T16:50:12Z Christine Blasey Ford Ran Mass “Hypnotic Inductions” of Psychiatric Subjects as Part of Mind Control Research

by Mike Adams | Natural News 


Funded by foundation linked to ‘computational psychosomatics’ neuro-hijacking


In another stunning bombshell about the hoax accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, we’ve now learned and confirmed
that Christine Blasey Ford co-authored a science paper that involves her carrying out mass “hypnotic inductions” of psychiatric subjects as part of a mind control program that cites methods to “create artificial situations.” 

Internet sleuths are turning up an extraordinary collection of evidence that increasingly points to Christine Blasey Ford being involved in mind control programs at Stanford, which some claim are run by the CIA. We have confirmed that Stanford University, where Ford works, runs a “CIA undergraduate internship program” which is described in full at this Stanford.edu recruitment page for the CIA. The Stanford recruitment page for the CIA explains, “You will be given the opportunity to work with highly-skilled professionals and see first-hand the role the CIA plays in supporting US officials who make our country’s foreign policy.”

We can also now confirm that Ford is listed as a co-author of a study that carried out mass hypnosis and mind control on psychiatric subjects under the banner of “psychoeducation,” covered in more detail below.

A university professor named Margot Cleveland first tweeted the discovery, which is now spreading rapidly across the ‘net:


Christine Blasey Ford confirmed to be a co-author of the mind control study

The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology. The study title, abstract and authors can be confirmed at this link.

Interestingly, the study was funded by the Mental Insight Foundation (see detailed financial records, below) and was overseen by Dr. Lisa Butler of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine. You can confirm these facts at this link.

The full text of the research paper describes methods to “create artificial situations.” Here’s some of the actual language from the paper, which can be viewed in full at this link from Academia.edu.

…assist in the retrieval of important memories,and create artificial situations that would permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner.

[Subjects] were given the Hypnotic Induction Profile (HIP; H. Spiegel & Spiegel, 2004) to evaluate their level of hypnotizability and were asked to complete a baseline packet of psychosocial questionnaires assessing life events, general functioning, satisfaction with life, and aspects of mood (including symptom levels), personality, health, social support, traumatic experience, and spirituality.

Therapist-led groups met once a week in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine to participate in an intervention that included either meditation and yoga exercises or group therapy with formal hypnotic inductions.

From this published paper, co-authored by Christine Blasey Ford, we know she is intimately familiar with mass hypnosis, self-hypnosis and mind alteration processes, all of which are being deployed in this staged “false flag” assault on Brett Kavanaugh. Through carefully crafted leaks, cover-ups and media narratives, almost half the nation has already been mass hypnotized into believing that an innocent man is a deranged serial rapist. Such is the power of CIA mind control, deployed on a nationwide scale. (It also underscores the realization that the entire purpose of the establishment media is not to inform people but to influence minds.)

The Mental Insight Foundation also funded a study on “Interoception” and “neuroimaging” to control the mind through biological intervention

If you venture even deeper down this rabbit hole, you find that the same Mental Insight Foundation that funded the mass hypnosis / mind control study on which Christine Ford work also helped fund another study called “Interoception and Mental Health: A Roadmap.”

This study, completed in June of this year (2018), is available at this ScienceDirect link.

The abstract for this study describes the key focus of the research:

Interoception refers to the process by which the nervous system senses, interprets, and integrates signals originating from within the body, providing a moment-by-moment mapping of the body’s internal landscape across conscious and unconscious levels.

In essence, this research seeks to find ways to control the mind through biological interventions by exploiting the “roadmap” of biology / neuro links. When the full map of how the mind interprets internal biological is understood, it allows a kind of reverse engineering of the mind through interventions in the human subject. If this sounds familiar, recall the recent revelations about the projections of inner voices through sub-audible frequencies that can essentially “plant” voices or even emotional moods into the minds of targeted subjects.

It is well known that U.S. embassy workers in Cuba were recently attacked by secret “sonic weapons” that were widely reported in the media. As The Guardian reports, the level of mind control achieved through such biological interventions can cause targeted subjects to be unable to recall specific words that would otherwise be in their vocabulary. The Guardian says:

At least some of the incidents were confined to certain rooms with laser-like specificity, and some victims now have problems recalling specific words…

The blaring, grinding noise jolted the American diplomat from his bed in a Havana hotel. He moved just a few feet, and there was silence. He climbed back into bed. Inexplicably, the agonizing sound hit him again. It was as if he’d walked through some invisible wall cutting straight through his room.

Soon came the hearing loss, and the speech problems, symptoms both similar and altogether different from others among at least 21 US victims in an astonishing international mystery still unfolding in Cuba.

Some felt vibrations, and heard sounds – loud ringing or a high-pitch chirping similar to crickets or cicadas.

Other symptoms have included brain swelling, dizziness, nausea, severe headaches, balance problems and tinnitus, or prolonged ringing in the ears.

Getting back to Christine Blasey Ford’s work on interoception / neuroimaging, the paper funded by the Mental Insight Foundation openly admits that the neuroimaging “roadmap” can alter decisions, behavior and even consciousness. It explains, “Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest on the topic of interoception due in part to findings highlighting its integral role in emotional experience, self-regulation, decision making, and consciousness. Importantly, interoception is not limited to conscious perception or even unique to the human species.”

Some other interesting text from the study:

While interoception research to date has typically focused on single organ systems, an expanded approach that assesses multiple interoceptive organ systems and/or elements is needed. Examples include targeting numerous interoceptive features simultaneously and employing different tasks that converge on the same feature (e.g., combining top-down assessments of interoceptive attention with bottom-up perturbation approaches in the same individual)…

…a host of novel tools are capable of inhibiting, stimulating, or modulating the activity of interoceptive brain networks. Noninvasive methods include the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (77), transcranial direct and alternating current stimulation (78), low-intensity focused ultrasound (79), temporally interfering electric fields (80), transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (81), presentation of information during different phases of visceral rhythms (e.g., cardiac systole vs. diastole) (82), and assessment of corticocardiac signaling (83).

Take a closer look at these diagrams found in the research, which details methods of “changing the world through exteroactions” and “changing the body through interoactions” in order to create “combined percept of the body in the world.”

“Computational psychosomatics”

The study openly discusses altering behavior and beliefs through the application of neurotechnology “inference-control loops” that “hijack” human anatomy to control minds. In essence, they are modeling the neurology of a human being in terms of firmware / software / hardware, then hacking the system to install their own desired beliefs and behaviors. They even call it “computational psychosomatics,” and they talk about using torture techniques to force the neurological maps out into the open, saying, “the degree of tolerance to being enclosed in a small dark chamber for 10 minutes might provide behavioral evidence verifying tolerance to triggers of interoceptive dysregulation.”

In the language of the science authors:

Eliciting surprise-minimizing (homeostasis-restoring) actions changes the bodily state and thus interosensations. This means that inference and control of bodily states form a closed loop. Inference–control loops that minimize interoceptive surprise can be cast as hierarchical Bayesian models (HBMs). Anatomically, HBMs are plausible candidates given that interoceptive circuitry is structured hierarchically 45, 94. Under general assumptions, HBMs employ a small set of computational quantities—predictions, prediction errors, and precisions 37, 95. These quantities can support surprise minimization in two ways: by adjusting beliefs (probability distributions) throughout the hierarchy [predictive coding (95)] or engaging actions that fulfill beliefs about bodily states [active inference (96)]

Additional details about the Mental Insight Foundation

We are not alleging any nefarious, unethical or illegal activities on the part of the Mental Insight Foundation. However, to help other internet researchers follow the many leads now uncovered in all this, we’re publishing public information about this foundation that’s readily available in online public tax documents.

The Mental Insight Foundation took in a whopping $18+ million in 2015, according to tax records. Its address is 538 BROADWAY STE A, SONOMA, CA 95476-6602, which appears to be a single family house.

That address is the exact same address listed by Virginia Hubbell Associates, a small firm that says it offers “consulting services for family foundations.” Its client list, found here, includes not only the Mental Insight Foundation but also:

Codding Enterprises
Levi Strauss Foundation
McKesson Foundation
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.
The Public Affairs Council
Sparkletts/Alhambra Water Company
Science Alliance

Most of the clients appear to be genuinely helpful organizations for society, but they’re probably worth a second look from internet researchers. Notably, the Levi Strauss company recently came out in favor of destroying the Second Amendment by pushing gun control.

What’s especially interesting is that Virginia Hubbell Associates was paid $341,375 in just one year for “foundation management” services, according to this form 990-PF for 2015.

“Statement 11” of the document lists the officers, directors, trustees and key employees of the Mental Insight Foundation. Notably, they are all paid nothing except for the treasurer. In other words, most of the directors are paid nothing, but the management consultant is paid $341K. We are not alleging any unscrupulous activities among these individuals. They are public officers of a public foundation, listed in a public document. These individuals are:

David Herskovits of Brooklyn, NY
Robert P. Bunje of Foster City, CA
Isabelle Kimpton of Incline Village, NV
Graham Kimpton of Fairfax, CA
Barry Bunshoft of San Francisco, CA
Len Dell’Amico of Fairfax, CA
Jennifer Catherine Egan of Brooklyn, NY
Laura Kimpton of Vineburg, CA
Kay Kimpton Walker of San Francisco, CA

If you’re noticing a lot of “Kimpton” names in this list, that’s probably because one of the primary sources of income for the Mental Insight Foundation is the Kimpton Hotel Group, LLC, which generated $2.3 million in revenue for the foundation in 2015. There’s nothing illegal about that. It’s just an interesting note.

The foundation donated money to the following groups. We’re not alleging anything nefarious in this list, by the way. Rather, these are leads for other internet researchers to follow. Many of the groups this foundation donates to appear to be related to offering support for veterans, the homeless and integrative medicine:

Hoffman Institute, San Anselmo, CA
Amazon Watch, San Francisco, CA
Center for Mind Body Medicine, Washington, DC
Institute for Integrative Health, Baltimore, MD
Jericho Project, Brisbane, CA
Spirit Rock Meditation Center, Woodacre, CA

More research under way… check back for more stories each morning and evening.

Is The FBI Investigation A Set Up Of Judge Kavanaugh


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1326515 2018-09-27T17:55:00Z 2018-09-27T17:55:50Z It's What You Scatter

by Anonymous


I was at the corner grocery store buying some early potatoes... I noticed a small boy, delicate of bone and feature, ragged but clean, hungrily apprising a basket of freshly picked green peas.
 
I paid for my potatoes but was also drawn to the display of fresh green peas. I am a pushover for creamed peas and new potatoes.
 
Pondering the peas, I couldn't help overhearing the conversation between Mr. Miller (the store owner) and the ragged boy next to me.
 
'Hello Barry, how are you today?'
 
'H'lo, Mr. Miller. Fine, thank ya. Jus' admirin' them peas. They sure look good'
'They are good, Barry. How's your Ma?'

'Fine. Gittin' stronger alla' time.'
 
'Good. Anything I can help you with?'
 
'No, Sir. Jus' admirin' them peas.' 
 
'Would you like to take some home?' asked Mr. Miller.
 
'No, Sir. Got nuthin' to pay for 'em with.'
 
'Well, what have you to trade me for some of those peas?'
 
'All I got's my prize marble here.'
 
'Is that right? Let me see it', said Miller.
 
'Here 'tis. She's a dandy.'
 
'I can see that. Hmm mmm, only thing is this one is blue and I sort of go for red. Do you have a red one like this at home?' the store owner asked.

'Not zackley but almost.'
 
'Tell you what. Take this sack of peas home with you and next trip this way let me look at that red marble'. Mr. Miller told the boy.
 
'Sure will. Thanks Mr. Miller.'
 
Mrs. Miller, who had been standing nearby, came over to help me.
 
With a smile she said, 'There are two other boys like him in our community, all three are in very poor circumstances. Jim just loves to bargain with them for peas, apples, tomatoes, or whatever.
 
When they come back with their red marbles, and they always do, he decides he doesn't like red after all and he sends them home with a bag of produce for a green marble or an orange one, when they come on their next trip to the store.'
 
I left the store smiling to myself, impressed with this man.  A short time later I moved to Colorado, but I never forgot the story of this man, the boys, and their bartering for marbles.
 
Several years went by, each more rapid than the previous one. Just recently I had occasion to visit some old friends in that Idaho community and while I was there learned that Mr. Miller had died. They were having his visitation that evening and knowing my friends wanted to go, I agreed to accompany them. Upon arrival at the mortuary we fell into line to meet the relatives of the deceased and to offer whatever words of comfort we could.

Ahead of us in line were three young men. One was in an army uniform and the other two wore nice haircuts, dark suits and white shirts...all very professional looking. They approached Mrs. Miller, standing composed and smiling by her husband's casket. Each of the young men hugged her, kissed her on the cheek, spoke briefly with her and moved on to the casket. Her misty light blue eyes followed them as, one by one; each young man stopped briefly and placed his own warm hand over the cold pale hand in the casket. Each left the mortuary awkwardly, wiping his eyes.
 
Our turn came to meet Mrs. Miller. I told her who I was and reminded her of the story from those many years ago and what she had told me about her husband's bartering for marbles. With her eyes glistening, she took my hand and led me to the casket.
 
'Those three young men who just left were the boys I told you about.  They just told me how they appreciated the things Jim 'traded' them.  Now, at last, when Jim could not change his mind about color or size....they came to pay their debt.'

'We've never had a great deal of the wealth of this world,' she confided, 'but right now, Jim would consider himself the richest man in Idaho ....'
 
With loving gentleness she lifted the lifeless fingers of her deceased husband. Resting underneath were three exquisitely shined red marbles.
 
The Moral: We will not be remembered by our words, but by our kind deeds. Life is not measured by the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath.
 
Your keys found right where you left them.
I
 
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU GATHER, BUT WHAT YOU SCATTER THAT TELLS WHAT KIND OF LIFE YOU HAVE LIVED!



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1325867 2018-09-26T13:20:59Z 2018-09-26T13:20:59Z Not a Single Named ‘Witness’ Agrees with Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story Christine Blasey Ford head shot

MSNBC screen shot of Christine Blasey Ford, the Palo Alto University professor who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. (MSNBC screen shot)

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s bombshell sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have taken yet another turn after the last named witness came forward with what they knew.

Based on what the witness had to say, the current narrative doesn’t bode particularly well for Ford.

Leland Ingham Keyser, the last named witness, is also “a longtime friend of Ford” according to CNN.

Advertisement - story continues below

CNN had learned that Republican staffers were attempting to interview anyone who could contribute information regarding the alleged incident. Keyser, by being a named witness, was an obvious choice to ask.

Keyser’s lawyer, Howard Walsh, issued a statement Saturday night addressing the allegations.

TRENDING: Alert: Ted Cruz, Wife Attacked — Escape After Staff Struggle With Door

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” Walsh said.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, promptly issued a response to Walsh’s statement.

Advertisement - story continues below

“It’s not surprising that Ms. Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it,” Katz said in a statement. “It’s also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford, of course, will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there.”

Despite the explanation from Katz, this is still a notable blow against Ford’s accusations, especially considering what the other named witnesses had to say about the alleged incident.

Will Democrats be successful in derailing Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

First and foremost, Kavanaugh has vociferously denied the allegations.

“This is a completely and totally false allegation,” Kavanaugh said when the accusations first surfaced. “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone.”

Besides Kavanaugh and Keyser, Mark Judge and Patrick J. Smith were also named as witnesses. Their statements reflect Keyser’s.

Advertisement - story continues below

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said Mark Judge in a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Smith issued an even stronger statement than his other named witnesses.

RELATED: Panicking NYT Deletes Source Name, Caught Hiding Game-Changing Facts on Kavanaugh

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in his statement. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth then went on to defend Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh toward women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

For the record, every named witness in Ford’s accusations has now categorically denied ever attending such a party or witnessing sexual assault.

Whether your believe Ford or not, you can’t deny that these latest developments do not bode well for her claims.




]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1325601 2018-09-25T21:41:00Z 2018-09-25T21:41:51Z Have you Ever Seen A Muslim Charity

by Anonymous


by Anonymous


Charity Hospital run by the sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn company developed the plasma system in the 1930's that saved so many lives in WWII, Korea, Vietnam and in the middle east
now.  During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns. 
 
Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening: 
 
When the Catholic Church was  founded, there were no schools. Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic Colleges and Universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic High Schools and in its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools. 
 
Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world. 
 
The Obama Health Mandate could have ended all this and the tax payers would have had to make up the loss. 
 
Also, all Catholic adoption services would come to an end... a human disaster. 
 
There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country. It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president. 

Former president Obama said, "The USA  is not a Christian Nation". He is wrong – we are a Christian Nation founded on Judaeo-Christian values allowing all religions in America to  worship and practice freely....something that Islam will never do.
 
Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE IN America ....Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl  Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?

I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2018 and be united in replacing all Senators and Congressional Representatives with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all Religions.   
 
One more note most every church or synagogue I have ever been in in the United States, I have always seen an American flag. No mosque in the United States carries an American flag.

Have you ever  seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of
life?


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1324076 2018-09-21T17:41:00Z 2018-09-21T17:41:20Z Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

by Jack Davis


A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

View image on Twitter

There's a well-established legal term of art for what Cristina King Miranda is peddling today: HEARSAY. http://archive.is/xz6AN 


“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading


Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

— Cristina King Miranda (@reinabori) September 19, 2018

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Chris Costlow @TheChrisCostlow

Well, SOMEONE'S lying. Ford said she told NO ONE about it until 2012. Seems you shot yourself in the foot with a tweet and I'm guessing your name isn't going to go away from the news cycle any time soon. You go girl! You've done more to ruin Ford's cred than the Republicans.


Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

Politics US News

Classmate Deletes Tweet That Supported Ford’s Claim Against Kavanaugh

By Jack Davis
September 19, 2018 at 11:17am
Share Tweet Email Print

A woman who said the 35-year-old alleged sexual misconduct incident Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denies ever happened was all the buzz at school has deleted her tweet making that claim.

On Tuesday, Christina King Miranda entered the fray over allegations that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward Christine Blasey Ford at a party in the 1980s.

“I graduated from Holton Arms, and knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me, I remember her. I signed this letter. The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying, own up to it and apologize,” she tweeted.

The tweet was seized upon as corroboration of Ford’s allegation, but it raised questions because it offered details not mentioned in, or conflicting with, Ford’s version of events.

Do you believe Christina King Miranda?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

TRENDING: Franklin Graham Calls Out ‘Socialist-Leaning Dems’ in Wake of Kavanaugh Accusations

For example, Lisa Banks, Ford’s lawyer, said the incident took place over the summer, NPR reported. Miranda’s now-deleted post placed the party during the school year.

Also, Ford indicated in her interview with The Washington Post that she did not discuss the incident until 2012, while Miranda’s tweet indicates it was common knowledge at their school — Holton-Arms in Bethesda, Maryland — in the 1980s.

The questions raised by her comment might never be answered. Miranda deleted her tweet Wednesday.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading,” she tweeted.

Miranda then followed up that tweet with another making it clear she won’t be saying anything more.

“To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That’s it. I don’t have more to say on the subject,” she tweeted.

The tweet was perceived by some as an effort to avoid dealing with a story that was full of holes.

Miranda’s actions came as Patrick J. Smyth, another high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s, denied ever seeing inappropriate conduct from Kavanaugh and said that if Ford has identified him as being at a party where the alleged incident took place, she is wrong.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth said in a statement, CNN reported. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

Mark Judge, who was mentioned in Miranda’s deleted tweet, said in a letter to senators that he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”










]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1323614 2018-09-20T15:20:00Z 2018-09-20T15:19:50Z Fox Bombshell: Peter Strzok’s FBI Mistress Lisa Page Worked for Clinton, According to Text Messages

by Cillian Zeal


According to Fox News, a newly uncovered text message chain seems to confirm that FBI lawyer Lisa Page — one of the two lovebirds whose texts have cast doubt on the objectivity of the Department of Justice’s investigations surrounding the 2016 election — claims that she interned for one of the Clintons.

“Get inspired and depressing reading that article about how Obama approached the mail room,” Page said in a text to Strzok on Jan. 19, 2017 — the last full day of the Obama administration.

Needless to say, it was very different when I interned there under Clinton.”

The article she was discussing was a New York Times piece that described the kind of mail the outgoing president would receive.

“At the beginning of his first term, President (Barack) Obama said he wanted to read his mail. He said he would like to see 10 letters a day. After that, the 10LADs, as they came to be called, were put in a purple folder and added to the back of the briefing book he took with him to the residence on the second floor of the White House each night,” the article, titled “To Obama With Love, and Hate, and Desperation,” read.

“Choosing which letters made it to the president started here in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, in the ‘hard-mail room,’ which had the tired, unkempt look of a college study hall during finals — paper everywhere, files stacked along walls, bundles under tables, boxes propping up computer monitors dotted with Post-its, cables hanging.”

Page is 39 and graduated American University in 2000. It’s unclear which Clinton she would have interned under; President Bill Clinton was leaving office as she was graduating and Hillary Clinton was taking her role as the junior senator from New York in 2001.

Page declined to comment on the latest text.

While the text messages that received the most attention this week involved ones which plotted leaks to the press, the Clinton message — assuming it’s accurate and Page is telling the truth — would also present a conflict of interest.

Both Page and Strzok were involved in the FBI’s Midyear Exam investigation — the codename for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified email on a private server during her time at the State Department.

That wasn’t all, though.

“Strzok and Page both served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election. Page served on the special counsel’s team on a short detail, returning back to the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in July 2017,” Fox News reported.

“Page, during her time at the FBI, was a deputy of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was long criticized by Trump and congressional Republicans for his ties to the Democratic Party. McCabe’s wife received donations during a failed 2015 Virginia Senate run from a group tied to a Clinton ally, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — all while the Clinton email probe was underway.”

So, is this a conflict of interest? More evidence of just how much of a morass the swamp really is? Overthinking a text message? Or none of the above?

Well, the simple answer is that we don’t know, inasmuch as Strzok, Page and everyone else around them have tried to denude these text messages of all context. Strzok’s appearance before Congress certainly didn’t elucidate much, although it may have inspired plenty of GIFs.

However, if this is true, Page was compromised from the beginning — and that’s a serious problem for anyone trying to push this as mere Jim Garrison-esque conspiracy theorizing. Time for answers, folks.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1322940 2018-09-18T16:18:00Z 2018-09-18T16:17:58Z Nurses and Midwives in Nazi Germany: The Euthanasia Programs

Edited by Susan Benedict and Linda Shields

The ethics of nursing and midwifery, and how these were abrogated during the Nazi era. Nurses and midwives actively killed their patients, many of whom were disabled children and infants and patients with mental (and other) illnesses or intellectual disabilities. The book for the first time, explains the role of one of the world's most historically prominent midwifery leaders in the Nazi crimes... "a groundbreaking and chilling historical analysis of a medical system in which death becomes a medical cure and nursing professionals view their allegiance to the state, their superiors and society above that of individual patients."


Introduction


The role of physicians in the crimes of the Nazi era in Europe has been extensively studied, but nurses and midwives have been largely ignored. Many of the crimes for which doctors were charged and punished occurred in hospitals, and nurses make up the main work force in any hospital; ergo, they, too, were at least complicit in, and often primarily responsible for,
many of the same crimes. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the so-called "euthanasia" programs, where people, including children, were systematically killed because they were considered "life unworthy of life" or "useless feeders". (It is worth noting here that the term "euthanasia" is a misnomer. While the word means "a good death" there was nothing
good about how these people died. However, it continues to be used in the context of these crimes.)

Midwives were mandated to report infants born with deformities so they could be killed, and the midwives were paid per capita to do so. Psychiatric hospitals were cleared of their patients and used for barracks to house soldiers. Killing took place in the hospitals, and often a crematorium was built on site to dispose of the dead. A telling film exists-now held by and publicly available from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum-which shows a nurse in uniform helping naked men and
boys into a gas chamber. The care she takes to put a blanket around their shoulders makes us wonder how a nurse, who is educated and trained to think that caring is the platform on which her/his work is based, can regard killing as a legitimate part of that caring. This is the essence of this book. 

While there is a large literature about the roles of the medical profession in the Third Reich, the reason that nursing and midwifery have been largely ignored until recently is open to supposition. Two authors have been dominant in the area (apart from the contributors to this book). A German nurse, Hilde Steppe (1947-1999), first published reports of the role of German nurses in the Nazi era in the early 1980s in German and then in the 1990s in English. Historian Bronwyn McFarland- Icke published a book about psychiatric nurses in Nazi Germany in 1999. Other investigations in the area have been piecemeal, and a conference held in Limerick in Irelandin 2004 highlighted the dearth of scholarship in this area of nursing and midwifery history. Perhaps this deficit relates to the fact that females have traditionally dominated these professions, and it has been assumed that women would not commit such crimes. It could be due to the fact that
people hold nursing and midwifery in high regard, and believe (as we have been told on several occasions) that "nurses would not do those things". Such unenlightened thinking inhibits full and proper examination of a dark side of the history of nursing and midwifery. Unless this is addressed, we cannot develop the professions to their full potential.

This book has eleven chapters. This first introductory chapter, called "Setting the Scene", does just that, with explanations of the primary political theories of fascism and Nazism, how the Nazis came to power, the role of propaganda in influencing the lives of the German people, and a description of the "T4" programs, which were the planned and systematic killing
of people with a range of illnesses and disabilities.

Chapter 2 examines the role played by eugenics in the development of the racially motivated killings in which nurses were complicit.

Chapter 3 discusses nursing in Nazi Germany, describing how the profession developed and was structured in that era.

Chapter 4 explains how psychiatric nursing was structured in Nazi Germany, and how it was the main specialty of nursing under which the killings were done.

Chapter 5 discusses the "euthanasia" programs in detail.

Chapter 6 explains the actions of nurses at Meseritz-Obrawalde, one of the psychiatric hospitals that were killing centers, and, using trial transcripts, examines the nurses' justifications for their roles in murder.

Chapter 7 includes more detail from another institution and testimonies
of the nurses who killed.

Chapter 8 describes the role of midwives

Chapter 9 is a discussion on how the lessons learned from the euthanasia
program can be taught to nurses and midwives today.

In Chapter 10, there is a discussion of the philosophical and sociological theories that could
account for the nurses' and midwives' actions, while

Chapter 11 rounds off the discussion with some questions as to whether this could happen again,
and some reflections on how similar things are happening in twenty-first century nursing and midwifery practice.

The book is available for download on online reading here.


Susan Benedict is Professor of Nursing, Director of Global Health, and Co­Director of the Campus-WideEthics Program
at the University of Texas Health Science Center School of Nursing in Houston.

Linda Shields is Professor of Nursing-Tropical Health at James Cook Uni­versity, Townsville,Queensland,and Honorary
Professor, School of Medi­cine,The University of Queensland.

[Yep.  All over again.  I guess I am particularly sensitive to these seemingly separate issues because as a biochemistry major, and having already published research, my thesis director suggested that I so something more broadly relevant to research ethics.  Bottom line, I finally did my biochemistry thesis on the Nazi medical war crimes, finally narrowing the topic to Mengele's twin (TWIN  TWIN  TWIN) experiments.  It wasn't an "ethical" analysis, but a scientific analysis of his researcher evaluating his scientific method, procedures, data and conclusions.  Spend a year and a half at the Library of Congress researching it.  It has stayed with me all these years, and I finally wrote an article for people who kept wondering why I chose to do the doctoral dissertation I did:  “Me and Mengele” (October 18, 2003), at:  http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_136meandmengele.html  (also attached to this email).  Very worrisome. -DNI]


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1322628 2018-09-17T16:35:08Z 2018-09-17T16:35:08Z US News Immigrants Jump Off Government Assistance, After Trump Admin Threatens to Cut Green Card
by Randy DeSoto

Latino children in California (Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock)


Significant numbers of immigrants, in the United States legally and illegally, are reportedly leaving federal assistance programs out of fear it could hurt their chances of obtaining permanent legal status.

Politico reports that 18 states have noticed a decline of up to 20 percent in the number of people applying for the WIC federal nutritional program for pregnant women and infants.

The decline has been attributed not just to a robust economy, but a rumored federal rule change by the Trump administration regarding eligibility to obtain green cards based on prior use of government assistance programs.

“Under a provision known as public charge, U.S. immigration law has for more than a century allowed officials to reject admission to the country on the grounds that potential immigrants or visitors might become overly reliant on the government,” according to Politico. “But until now, officials have looked narrowly at whether someone would need cash benefits such as welfare or long-term institutional care.”

The news outlet claimed there is a move within the Trump administration to include a larger array of services such as programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or commonly known as food stamps), Head Start, Medicaid and WIC.

WIC, first launched in 1974, has traditionally been for the most part immigration status-blind regarding eligibility.

When Trump took office, there were 7.4 million women and children enrolled in WIC. As of May, the most recent data available, the number had dropped to 6.8 million.

Similarly, there were 42.7 million enrolled in SNAP in Jan. 2017, which has declined to 39.3 million as of May, or a difference of 3.4 million.

The evidence the Politico piece offers that part of the decline is due to the possible Trump administration rule change is anecdotal. Any change to federal regulations regarding the programs would have to go through a public comment period before being adopted, and would likely be challenged in court before taking effect, meaning a final determination could take several months or years.

“It’s a stealth regulation,” said Kathleen Campbell Walker, an immigration attorney at Dickinson Wright in El Paso, Texas regarding the possible change to WIC. “It doesn’t really exist, but it’s being applied subliminally.”

Jennifer Mejias-Martinez, who works with the WIC program in Topeka, Kansas, recalled receiving a panicked call from an immigrant family wanting to unenroll after hearing a report on Univision that receiving government benefits could hurt their chances in immigration proceedings.

“They were very, very scared,” Mejias-Martinez said. She tried to reassure them that the policy had not changed, but they dropped from WIC anyway.

“It made me very sad, and quite frankly upset,” she said.

A WIC administering agency in Longview, Texas reported losing an estimated 75 to 90 participants per month to public charge fears, according to Politico.

The Trump administration has argued that it is not trying to alter immigration law, but clarify and enforce existing statutes.

“The goal is not to reduce immigration or in some diabolical fashion shut the door on people, family-based immigration, anything like that,” said Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, at the National Press Club earlier this month.

The Department of Agriculture, which oversees WIC, is conducting multiple studies looking into why eligible families are not participating in, or choosing to drop their enrollment from, the program.

“The USDA is committed to the health and well-being of all WIC eligible mothers, infants and children and supports families seeking assistance,” the agency said.





]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1321703 2018-09-14T17:31:00Z 2018-09-14T17:30:19Z Inmate Admits Sex Assaults at Women’s Prison… ‘She’ Used to Be Named Steve

by Malachi Bailey


An inmate in a British female prison sexually assaulted multiple fellow inmates, and it turns out the predator is actually a man, formerly known as Steve, who “identifies” as a lesbian woman.

These days, according to The Telegraph, the 52-year-old is officially known as Karen White, but was born with the name Stephen Wood. At the time of the assaults, White was undergoing sex reassignment, but had not had surgery, The Telegraph reported.

White didn’t hesitate to prey on the female inmates. Within weeks of arriving in prison, he began making lewd comments toward another inmate before he forced himself on her, according to the Telegraph.

That was not White’s only victim. He was accused of four sexual assaults in total between September and November last year, according to The Guardian. He confessed to at least two of the attacks.

He was finally moved to an all-male prison, according to PJ Media.

It’s good that he won’t be able to assault any more women in his new prison, but he should have been in the all-male prison to begin with.

The female prison where White committed his assaults did not only have female prisoners. It also had children. The prison contains a mother-and-baby unit that can accommodate up to 10 infants aged under 2, according to The Times.

This fact becomes even more shocking considering White’s past convictions.

White is a convicted pedophile who was previously jailed in 2001 for an attack on a child, according to PJ Media.

Putting a convicted male pedophile into an all-female prison with infants and toddlers is not just a simple mistake. This is an example of negligence in the name of being “progressive.”

Social media users were disgusted at the news.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1321335 2018-09-13T15:42:00Z 2018-09-13T16:32:54Z Kansas Voters Do Not Want Tax Hike to Satisfy Judge's Ruling for more School Money


{And so we will shortly enter 2019 or phase infinity of the worthless Kansas legislature still having no concept of the separation of powers, a band of Beau Brummels and thespian lawyers. The public education system is a complete failure, a white elephant but the ruling judicial junta has commanded more money.  Thus the courts dictate to the erstwhile state assembly how much of the people's money must be allocated for public schools. But why stop there? Shouldn't the courts handle the whole budget and legislative process themselves? After all, they have decades of experience legislating from the bench so just deep six the legislature, it's a pathetic joke anyway. - ED}

by  Kansas Policy Institute


Legislators heading to Topeka are going to have to find a way to address a 3 billion-dollar shortfall due to a massive school funding increase brought about by the Kansas Supreme Court. However, a newly released poll, conducted on behalf of Kansas Policy Institute by SurveyUSA, found that 51% of Kansas voters do not want their legislators to add another $365 million dollars to comply with the court’s demand; only 39 percent said funding should be further increased.

James Franko, vice president, and policy director of Kansas Policy Institute remarked, “Low-income kids are more than two years’ worth of learning behind their more affluent peers and overall achievement in Kansas is depressingly stagnant. These achievement trends are especially discouraging because the Department of Education says we’re on track to soon spend over $15,000 per pupil on education. Voters clearly want that level of investment to improve achievement with accountable and efficient schools.”


Kansas voters are growing increasingly concerned about high education administration costs at the local level. A survey last year found that 78 percent of voters believe spending on out-of-the-classroom costs (administration, building operations, transportation, etc.) should be provided more efficiently on a regionalized basis, with the savings put into the classroom.  In the poll released today, the number jumped to 89 percent of Kansas voters who would like to see more efficiency within their school system. 

Franko observed, “The more voters seem to understand the reality of our achievement crisis and the increasing costs of education in Kansas the more they seem to rethink how education decisions are made.”

Calculations by Kansas Legislative Research Department show $3.7 billion revenue shortfall exists over the next four years to pay for approved and proposed school funding increases. [emphasis mine] With many assurances being made throughout the campaign cycle about school funding being met without raising taxes, legislators will be forced to specifically identify how this massive shortfall will be met. According to the newly released data, only 37% of Kansas voters are willing to pay higher taxes to close the $3 billion shortfall caused by school funding.

The latest polling data revealed that a startling number of Kansans voters are in the dark about education spending trends in Kansas. According to the SurveyUSA data, only 10% of Kansas voters understand what our Kansas school districts currently receive from taxpayer sources per student, and that has a major impact on their opinions.  For example, 93 percent of those who oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent courts from setting funding levels either don’t know how much schools receive or they believe it’s less than $10,000 per-pupil; only 7 percent of the opposition comes from voters who think funding is over $10,000 per-pupil. Similar disparities exist within voters' willingness to pay higher taxes and whether additional funding should be provided. [Why is this a surprise to anyone? A majority of college students can't name one Supreme Court justice, can't formulate a simple sentence where subject does action through a verb to an object and have no knowledge of the Constitution or it's bill of rights. What passes for education in Kansas is nothing but a PAC that gives its votes to the candidate(s) delivering the most largess. - ED}

Franko concludes, “Just like last year, roughly 60% of Kansas voters say they want to revisit how education funding decisions are made in the state. The Kansas Constitution vests all political power in citizens and those citizens seemingly understand that they, and their elected representatives, are best-suited to decide state spending priorities.”

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1321005 2018-09-12T14:11:00Z 2018-09-12T14:11:45Z Tavistock The Best Kept Secret in America - Part II 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.

Tavistock Institutions In The United States

Flow Laboratories Gets contracts from the National Institutes of Health.

Merle Thomas Corporation Gets contracts from the U.S. Navy, analyzes data from satellites.

Walden Research Does work in the field of pollution control.

Planning Research Corporation, Arthur D. Little, G.E. "TEMPO", Operations Research Inc. Part of approximately 350 firms who conduct research and conduct surveys, make recommendations to government. They are part of what President Eisenhower called "a possible danger to public policy that could itself become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Brookings Institution Dedicates its work to what it calls a "national agenda." Wrote President Hoover's program, President Roosevelt's "New Deal", the Kennedy Administration's "New Frontiers" program (deviation from it may have cost John F. Kennedy his life), and President Johnson's "Great Society." Brookings has been telling the United States Government how to conduct its affairs for the past 70 years and is still doing so.

Hudson Institute This institution has done more to shape the way Americans react to political and social events, think, vote and generally conduct themselves than perhaps any except the BIG FIVE. Hudson specializes in defense policy research and relations with the USSR. Most of its military work is classified as SECRET. (One idea during the Vietnam War was to build a moat around Saigon.) Hudson may be properly classified as one of the Committee of 300's BRAINWASHING establishments. One of its largest clients is the U.S. Department of Defense which includes matters of civil defense, national security, military policy and arms control.

[Editor, Tim Aho: This is the same <https://archive.is/HduBc> Hudson Institute which gave us GOALS 2000 and authored the Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, which became the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This law required the creation of a federal commission to monitor religion chaired by a presidentially-appointed Ambassador-at-Large on International Religious Freedom under the mandates of the United Nations' covenants and authority of the International Criminal Court.]

National Training Laboratories One of the key institutions established for this purpose in the United States was the National Training Laboratories (NTL). Founded in 1947 by members of the Tavistock network in the United States and located originally on an estate in Bethel, Maine, NTL had as its explicit purpose the brainwashing of leaders of the government, educational institutions, and corporate bureaucracies in the Tavistock method, and then using these "leaders" to either themselves run Tavistock group sessions in their organizations or to hire other similarly trained group leaders to do the job. The "nuts and bolts" of the NTL operation revolves around the particular form of Tavistock degenerate psychology known as "group dynamics," developed by German Tavistock operative Kurt Lewin, who emigrated to the United States in the 1930s and whose students founded NTL.

In a Lewinite brainwashing group, a number of individuals from varying backgrounds and personalities, are manipulated by a "group leader" to form a "consensus" of opinion, achieving a new "group identity." The key to the process is the creation of a controlled environment, in which stress is introduced (sometimes called dissonance) to crack an individual's belief structure. Using the peer pressure of other group members, the individual is "cracked," and a new personality emerges with new values. The degrading experience causes the person to deny that any change has taken place. In that way, an individual is brainwashed without the victim knowing what has taken place.

This method is the same, with some minor modification, used in all so-called "sensitivity groups" or "T-groups," or in the more extreme rock-drug-sex counterculture form, "touchy-feely groups," such as the kind popularized from the 1960s onward by the Esalen Institute, which was set up with the help of NTL.

From the mid-1950s onward, NTL put the majority of the nation's corporate leaderships through such brainwashing programs, while running similar programs for the State Department, the Navy, the Department of Education, and other sections of the federal bureaucracy. There is no firm estimate of the number of Americans who have been put through this process in last 40 years at either NTL, or as it is now known the NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences, which is based in Rosslyn, Virginia, or its West Coast base of operations, the Western Training Laboratories in Group Development, or in various satellite institutions. The most reliable estimate is in the several millions.

One of the groups that went through the NTL mill in the 1950s was the leadership of the National Education Association, the largest organization of teachers in the United States. Thus, the NEA's outlook has been "shaped" by Tavistock, through the NTL. In 1964, the NTL Institute became a direct part of the NEA, with the NTL setting up "group sessions" for all its affiliates. With funding from the Department of Education, the NTL Institute drafted the programs for the training of the nation's primary and secondary school teachers, and has a hand as well in developing the content of educational "reforms," including OBE [Outcome Based Education].

Also known as the International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. This institute is a brainwashing center in artificial stress training whereby participants suddenly find themselves immersed in defending themselves against vicious accusations. NTL takes in the National Education Association, the largest teacher group in the United States. While officially decrying "racism", it is interesting to note that NTL, working with NEA, produced a paper proposing education vouchers which would separate the hard-to-teach children from the brighter ones, and funding would be allocated according to the number of difficult children who would be separated from those who progressed at a normal rate. The proposal was not taken up.

University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance & Commerce Founded by Eric Trist. One of the "brain trusts" of Tavistock, Wharton has become one of the more important Tavistock in so far as "Behavioral Research" is concerned. Wharton attracts clients such as the U.S. Department of Labor [USDL]---which teaches how to produce "cooked" statistics at the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates Incorporated. This method was very much in demand as we came to the close of 1991 with millions more out of work than was reflected in USDL statistics. Wharton's Econometric Modeling is used by every major Committee of 300 company in the United States, Western Europe, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Bank. Institute for Social Research Among its clients are The Ford Foundation, U.S.Department of Defense, U.S.Postal Service and the U.S. Department of Justice. Among its studies are "The Human Meaning Of Social Change", "Youth in Transition" and "How Americans View Their Mental Health".

Institute For The Future This is not a typical Tavistock institution in that it is funded by the Ford Foundation, yet it draws its long-range forecasting from the mother of all think tanks. Institute for the Future projects what it believes to be changes that will be taking place in time frames of fifty years. So called "DELPHI PANELS" decide what is normal and what is not, and prepare position papers to "steer" government in the right direction to head off such groups as "people creating civil disorder." (This could be patriotic groups demanding abolition of graduated taxes, or demanding that their right to bear arms is not infringed.) This institute recommends action such as liberalizing abortion laws, drug usage and that cars entering an urban area pay tolls, teaching birth control in public schools, requiring registration of firearms, making use of drugs a non-criminal offense, legalizing homosexuality, paying students for scholastic achievements, making zoning controls a preserve of the state, offering bonuses for family planning and last, but most frightening, a Pol Pot Cambodia-style proposal that new communities be established in rural areas, (concentration camp compounds). As can be observed, many of their goals have already been more than fully realized.

INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES (IPS)

One of the "Big Three", IPS has shaped and reshaped United States policies, foreign and domestic, since it was founded by James P. Warburg and the Rothschild entities in the United States. Its networks in America include the League for Industrial Democracy. Lead players in the League for Industrial Democracy have included Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Irwin Suall of the ADL, Eugene Rostow, Arms control negotiator, Lane Kirkland, Labor Leader, and Albert Shanker. IPS was incorporated in 1963 by Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnett, both highly trained Tavistock Institute graduates. The objectives of IPS came from an agenda laid down for it by the Tavistock Institute, one of the most notable being to create the "New Left" as a grass roots movement in the U.S. Its been said that Barnett and Raskin controlled such diverse elements as the Black Panthers, Daniel Ellsberg, National Security Council staff member Halprin, The Weathermen Underground, the Venceramos and the campaign staff of candidate George McGovern. No scheme was too big for IFS and its controllers to take on and manage.

Through its many powerful lobbing groups on Capitol Hill, IPS relentlessly used its "Big Stick" to beat Congress. IPS has a network of lobbyists, all supposedly operating independently but in actual fact acting cohesively, so that Congressmen are pummeled from all sides by seemingly different and varied lobbyists, In this way, IPS was, and is still, able to successfully sway individual Representatives and Senators to vote for "the trend, the way things are going." By using key pointmen on Capitol Hill, IPS was able to break into the very infrastructure of our legislative system and the way it works.

IPS became, and remains to this day, one of the most prestigious "think tanks" controlling foreign policy decisions, which we, the people, foolishly believe are those of our law makers. By sponsoring militant activism at home and with links to revolutionaries abroad, by engineering such victories as "The Pentagon Papers," besieging the corporate structure, bridging the credibility gap between underground movements and acceptable political activism, by penetrating religious organizations and using them to sow discord in America, such as radical racial policies under the guise of religion, using establishment media to spread IPS ideas, and then supporting them, IPS has lived up to the role which it was founded to play.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report on <https://archive.is/ZSGs9> Freedom House: "Grants (for the IPS) came from the Samuel Rubin Foundation and the Stern Family Fund. Samuel Rubin was himself a member of the elite Comintern of the Communist Party, founded by none other than Lenin himself. Billionaire Armand Hammer assisted Rubin in making the fortunes which helped launch IPS. Philip Stern, an IPS trustee, was the president of Stern Fund. The executive director of the Stern Fund, David R. Hunter, was previously an official of The National Council and the World Council Of Churches. (Dr. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances, p.125)]

STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Jesse Hobson, the first president of Stanford Research Institute, in a 1952 speech made it clear what lines the institute was to follow. Stanford can be described as one of the "jewels" in Tavistock's Crown in its rule over the United States. Founded in 1946 immediately after the close of WWII, it was presided over by Charles A. Anderson, with emphasis on mind control research and "future sciences." Included under the Stanford umbrella was Charles F. Kettering Foundation which developed the "Changing Images of Man" upon which the Aquarian Conspiracy rests.

Some of Stanford's major clients and contracts were at first centered around the defense establishment but, as Stanford grew, so, did the diversity of its services:

Applications of Behavioral Sciences to Research Management Office of Science and Technology

SRI Business Intelligence Program

U.S. Department of Defense Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense Office of Aerospace Research

Among corporations seeking Stanford's services were Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Blyth, Eastman Dillon and TRW Company. One of Stanford's more secret projects was extensive work on chemical and bacteriological warfare (CAB) weapons.

Stanford Research is plugged into at least 200 smaller "think tanks" doing research into every facet of life in America. This is ARPA [today called DARPA] networking and represents the emergence of probably the most far reaching effort to control the environment of every individual in the country. At present, Stanford's computers are linked with 2500 "sister" research consoles which include the CIA, Bell Telephone Laboratories, U.S. Army Intelligence, The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Rand, MIT, Harvard and UCLA. Stanford plays a key role in that it is the "library", cataloging all ARPA documentation.

"Other agencies".....one can use one's imagination here, are allowed to search through SRI's "library" for key words, phrases, look through sources and update their own master files with those of Stanford Research Center. The Pentagon uses SRI's master files extensively, and there is little doubt that other U.S. Government agencies do the same. Pentagon "command and control" problems are worked out by Stanford.

While ostensibly these apply only to weapons and soldiers, there is absolutely no guarantee that the same research could not , and will not be turned to civilian applications. Stanford is known to be willing to do anything for anyone.

[Editor, Tim Aho: See Watch Unto Prayer report <https://archive.is/Oxb3r> Lambert Dolphin & the Great Sphinx, which documents the connections of SRI's Lambert Dolphin with the Edgar Cayce Foundation and The Discernment Ministries.]


MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT),
  ALFRED P. SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

This major institute is not generally recognized as being a part of Tavistock U.S.A. Most people look upon it as being a purely American institution, but that is far from the truth. MIT- Alfred Sloan can be roughly divided into the following groups:

Contemporary Technology Industrial Relations NASA-ERC Computer Research Laboratories Office of Naval Research Group, Psychology Systems Dynamics

Some of MIT's clients are:

American Management Association
Committee for Economic Development
GTE
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA)
NASA
National Academy of Sciences
National Council of Churches
Sylvania
TRW
U.S. Army
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Navy
U.S. Treasury
Volkswagen Company

RAND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Without a doubt, RAND is THE think tank most beholden to Tavistock Institute and certainly the RIIA's most prestigious vehicle for control of United States policies at every level. Specific RAND policies that became operative include our ICBM program, prime analyses for U.S. foreign policy making, instigator of space programs, U.S. nuclear policies, corporate analyses, hundreds of projects for the military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to the use of mind altering drugs like peyote, LSD (the covert MK-ULTRA operation which lasted for 20 years).

[Editor, Tim Aho's note: The founder of the Rand Corporation, Herman Kahn, also founded the Hudson Institute in 1961. In Educating for the New World Order, B.K. Eakman tells of a training manual for "change agents" developed for the U.S. government by Rand Corporation: ". . . a how-to manual with a 1971 U.S. Office of Education contract number on it entitled 'Training for Change Agents'; seven volumes of 'change agent studies' commissioned by the U.S. Office of Education to the Rand Corporation in 1973-74; scores of other papers submitted by behaviorist researchers who had obtained grants from the U.S. Office of Education for the purpose of exploring ways to 'freeze' and 'unfreeze' values, 'to implement change,' and to turn potentially hostile groups and committees into acquiescent, rubber-stamp bodies by means of such strategies as the 'Delphi Technique.'" (p. 118)]

Some of RAND's clients include:

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)
Chase Manhattan Bank
International Business Machines (IBM)
National Science Foundation
Republican Party
TRW
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Department of Health
U.S. Department of Energy

There are literally THOUSANDS of highly important companies, government institutions and organizations that make use of RANDS's services. To list them all would be impossible. Among RAND's specialities is a study group that predicts the timing and the direction of a thermonuclear war, plus working out the many scenarios based upon its findings. RAND was once accused of being commissioned by the USSR to work out terms of surrender of the United States Government, an accusation that went all the way to the United States Senate, where it was taken up by Senator Symington and subsequently fell victim to scorn poured out by the establishment press. BRAINWASHING remains the primary function of RAND.

These institutions are among those that fund The Uniform Law Foundation, whose function is to ensure that the Uniform Commercial Code remains the instrument for conducting business in the United States.


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1320688 2018-09-11T15:18:00Z 2018-09-11T15:17:48Z Climate Alarmists Get Two Strikes In Court — They Should Be Out

by  H. Sterling Burnett


In July, federal Judge John F. Keenan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed New York City's lawsuit against five major oil companies. The lawsuit sought to force the oil companies to help pay NYC's alleged costs associated with climate change.

Keenan's ruling was the second victory against municipal governments seeking to use the judiciary to address problems purportedly caused by climate change. The first triumph came in June, when Judge William H. Alsup of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco threw out a similar lawsuit against the same five companies — BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — in a case brought by Oakland and San Francisco.

In the 23-page decision dismissing New York City's lawsuit, Keenan wrote climate change must be addressed by the executive branch and Congress, not by the courts. Although climate change "is a fact of life," Keenan wrote, "the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government."

Keenan ruled New York's state and federal common law claims were prohibited under the Clean Air Act. He stated it would be "illogical" and would violate U.S. Supreme Court precedent to allow the claims under state common law "when courts have found that these matters are areas of federal concern that have been delegated to the executive branch as they require a uniform, national solution … (and) the Clean Air Act displaces the City's claims seeking damages for past and future domestic greenhouse gas emissions brought under federal common law."

In addition, Keenan determined NYC's lawsuit is unjustified because the city contributed carbon dioxide emissions and benefited from fossil-fuel use.

"(I)t is not clear that Defendants' fossil fuel production and the emissions created therefrom have been an 'unlawful invasion' in New York City, as the City benefits from and participates in the use of fossil fuels as a source of power, and has done so for many decades," wrote Keenan.

Climate policy is solely within the domain of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as two federal judges have amply demonstrated in their written decisions.

However, states and cities seem intent on banging their heads up against this legal brick wall.

On July 2, just a week after Alsup threw out a climate lawsuit brought by Oakland and San Francisco, Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against oil companies to recover the costs from supposed climate change. On July 20, just a day after Keenan dismissed NYC's lawsuit, Baltimore sued oil companies for climate change expenses in Maryland. Furthermore, New York City, Oakland, and San Francisco plan to appeal their cases' dismissals.

Climate Change Lawsuits: A Waste

Apparently, these cities and states have no serious problems — such as crime, budget shortfalls, and education woes — for which the resources devoted to these lawsuits might be better used, or their leaders just don't care if they waste taxpayers' money on frivolous lawsuits. It seems as though the several attorneys general pursuing these pointless lawsuits are so caught up in the grip of climate mania, they just can't let go, the law be damned.

Or perhaps the lawsuits are simply an attempted shakedown of an industry with deep pockets. These cities and states desperately hope oil companies will ultimately settle out of court, agreeing to pay billions of dollars and promising not to fight climate change legislation in the future.

Furthermore, these out-of-touch environmental zealots want to force oil companies to shift their investments from fossil fuels to politically connected, highly subsidized green-energy power sources. Oil companies have not succumbed to these outrageous demands yet, and it seems unlikely they will any time soon, with their continued profitability and their very existence at stake — as well as two legal wins under their belt.

It is long past time to end this game of legal whack-a-mole. Alsup and Keenan should require cities to pay the court costs, attorney fees, and other expenses incurred by oil companies thus warning municipal and state climate zealots seeking big paydays there is a price to pay for wasting courts' time.



Burnett, Ph.D. is a senior fellow on energy and the environment at The Heartland Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research center headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1319974 2018-09-10T13:00:02Z 2018-09-16T01:33:35Z 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.

Abridged from http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwotavistockbestkeptsecret.shtml

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


]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1319329 2018-09-07T15:00:00Z 2018-09-07T15:00:01Z 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.

]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1319009 2018-09-06T15:34:00Z 2018-09-06T15:38:17Z 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]

 





]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1318630 2018-09-05T14:09:38Z 2018-09-05T14:22:20Z 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.



]]>
tag:newpatriotsblog.com,2013:Post/1318279 2018-09-04T15:25:00Z 2018-09-04T22:54:52Z 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






]]>