The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon




Global Research, March 27, 2013

Over 1.8 million people are currently behind bars in the United States. This represents the highest per capita incarceration rate in the history of the world. In 1995 alone, 150 new U.S. prisons were built and filled.

This monumental commitment to lock up a sizeable percentage of the population is an integral part of the globalization of capital. Several strands converge — the end of the Cold War, changing relations between labor and capital on an international scale, domestic economic decline, racism, the U.S. role as policeman of the world, and growth of the international drug economy — creating a booming prison/industrial complex. And the prison/industrial complex is rapidly becoming an essential component of the U.S. economy.

Prisons are Big Business

Like the military/industrial complex, the prison/industrial complex is an interweaving of private business and government interests. Its twofold purpose is profit and social control. Its public rationale is the fight against crime.

Not so long ago, communism was “the enemy” and communists were demonized as a way of justifying gargantuan military expenditures. Now, fear of crime and the demonization of criminals serve a similar ideological purpose: to justify the use of tax dollars for the repression and incarceration of a growing percentage of our population. The omnipresent media blitz about serial killers, missing children, and “random violence” feeds our fear. In reality, however, most of the “criminals” we lock up are poor people who commit nonviolent crimes out of economic need. Violence occurs in less than 14% of all reported crime, and injuries occur in just 3%. In California, the top three charges for those entering prison are: possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and robbery. Violent crimes like murder, rape, manslaughter and kidnapping don’t even make the top ten.

Like fear of communism during the Cold War, fear of crime is a great selling tool for a dubious product.

As with the building and maintenance of weapons and armies, the building and maintenance of prisons are big business. Investment houses, construction companies, architects, and support services such as food, medical, transportation and furniture, all stand to profit by prison expansion. A burgeoning “specialty item” industry sells fencing, handcuffs, drug detectors, protective vests, and other security devices to prisons.

As the Cold War winds down and the Crime War heats up, defense industry giants like Westinghouse are re-tooling and lobbying Washington for their share of the domestic law enforcement market. “Night Enforcer” goggles used in the Gulf War, electronic “Hot Wire” fencing (“so hot NATO chose it for high-risk installations”), and other equipment once used by the military, are now being marketed to the criminal justice system.

Communication companies like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI are getting into the act as well — gouging prisoners with exorbitant phone calling rates, often six times the normal long distance charge. Smaller firms like Correctional Communications Corp., dedicated solely to the prison phone business, provide computerized prison phone systems — fully equipped for systematic surveillance. They win government contracts by offering to “kick back” some of the profits to the government agency awarding the contract. These companies are reaping huge profits at the expense of prisoners and their families; prisoners are often effectively cut off from communication due to the excessive cost of phone calls.

One of the fastest growing sectors of the prison/industrial complex is private corrections companies. Investment firm Smith Barney is a part owner of a prison in Florida. American Express and General Electric have invested in private prison construction in Oklahoma and Tennessee. Correctional Corporation Of America, one of the largest private prison owners, already operates internationally, with 48 facilities in 11 states, Puerto Rico, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Under contract by government to run jails and prisons, and paid a fixed sum per prisoner, the profit motive mandates that these firms operate as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This means lower wages for staff, no unions, and fewer services for prisoners. Private contracts also mean less public scrutiny. Prison owners are raking in billions by cutting corners which harm prisoners. Substandard diets, extreme overcrowding, and abuses by poorly trained personnel have all been documented and can be expected in these institutions which are unabashedly about making money.

Prisons are also a leading rural growth industry. With traditional agriculture being pushed aside by agribusiness, many rural American communities are facing hard times. Economically depressed areas are falling over each other to secure a prison facility of their own. Prisons are seen as a source of jobs — in construction, local vendors and prison staff — as well as a source of tax revenues. An average prison has a staff of several hundred employees and an annual payroll of several million dollars.

Like any industry, the prison economy needs raw materials. In this case the raw materials are prisoners. The prison/industrial complex can grow only if more and more people are incarcerated — even if crime rates drop. “Three Strikes” and Mandatory Minimums (harsh, fixed sentences without parole) are two examples of the legal superstructure quickly being put in place to guarantee that the prison population will grow and grow and grow.

Labor And the Flight of Capital

The growth of the prison/industrial complex is inextricably tied to the fortunes of labor. Ever since the onset of the Reagan-Bush years in 1980, workers in the United States have been under siege. Aggressive union busting, corporate deregulation, and especially the flight of capital in search of cheaper labor markets, have been crucial factors in the downward plight of American workers.

One wave of capital flight occurred in the 1970s. Manufacturing such as textiles in the Northeast moved south to South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama non-union states where wages were low. During the 1980s, many more industries (steel, auto, etc.) closed up shop moving on to the “more competitive atmospheres” of Mexico, Brazil, or Taiwan where wages were a mere fraction of those in the U.S., and environmental, health and safety standards were much lower. Most seriously hurt by these plant closures and layoffs were African-Americans and other semiskilled workers in urban centers who lost their decent paying industrial jobs.

Into the gaping economic hole left by the exodus of jobs from U.S. cities has rushed another economy — the drug economy.

The War on Drugs

The “War on Drugs,” launched by President Reagan in the mid-eighties, has been fought on interlocking international and domestic fronts.

At the international level, the war on drugs has been both a cynical cover-up of U.S. government involvement in the drug trade, as well as justification for U.S. military intervention and control in the Third World.

Over the last 50 years, the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy (and the military/industrial complex) has been to fight communism and protect corporate interests. To this end, the U.S. government has, with regularity, formed strategic alliances with drug dealers throughout the world. At the conclusion of World War II, the OSS (precursor to the CIA) allied itself with heroin traders on the docks of Marseille in an effort to wrest power away from communist dock workers. During the Vietnam war, the CIA aided the heroin producing Hmong tribesmen in the Golden Triangle area. In return for cooperation with the U.S. government’s war against the Vietcong and other national liberation forces, the CIA flew local heroin out of Southeast Asia and into America. It’s no accident that heroin addiction in the U.S. rose exponentially in the 1960s.

Nor is it an accident that cocaine began to proliferate in the United States during the 1980s. Central America is the strategic halfway point for air travel between Colombia and the United States. The Contra War against Sandinista Nicaragua, as well as the war against the national liberation forces in El Salvador, was largely about control of this critical area. When Congress cut off support for the Contras, Oliver North and friends found other ways to fund the Contra re-supply operations — in part through drug dealing. Planes loaded with arms for the Contras took-off from the southern United States, offloaded their weapons on private landing strips in Honduras, then loaded up with cocaine for the return trip.

A 1996 exposé by the San Jose Mercury News documented CIA involvement in a Nicaraguan drug ring which poured thousands of kilos of cocaine into Los Angeles’ African-American neighborhoods in the 1980s. Drug boss, Danilo Blandon, now an informant for the DEA, acknowledged under oath the drugs- for-weapons deals with the CIA-sponsored Contras.

U.S. military presence in Central and Latin America has not stopped drug traffic. But it has influenced aspects of the drug trade, and is a powerful force of social control in the region. U.S. military intervention — whether in propping up dictators or squashing peasant uprisings — now operates under cover of the righteous war against drugs and “narco-terrorism.”

In Mexico, for example, U.S. military aid supposedly earmarked for the drug war is being used to arm Mexican troops in the southern part of the country. The drug trade, however (production, transfer, and distribution points) is all in the north. The “drug war money” is being used primarily to fight against the Zapatista rebels in the southern state of Chiapas who are demanding land reform and economic policy changes which are diametrically opposed to the transnational corporate agenda.

In the Colombian jungles of Cartagena de Chaira, coca has become the only viable commercial crop. In 1996, 30,000 farmers blocked roads and airstrips to prevent crop spraying from aircraft. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) one of the oldest guerrilla organizations in Latin America, held 60 government soldiers hostage for nine months — demanding that the military leave the jungle, that social services be increased, and that alternative crops be made available to farmers. And given the notorious involvement of Colombia’s highest officials with the powerful drug cartels, it is not surprising that most U.S. “drug war” military aid actually goes to fighting the guerrillas.

One result of the international war on drugs has been the internationalization of the U.S. prison population. For the most part, it’s the low level “mules” carrying drugs into this country who are captured and incarcerated in ever-increasing numbers. At least 25% of inmates in the federal prison system today will be subject to deportation when their sentences are completed.

Here at home, the war on drugs has been a war on poor people. Particularly poor, urban, African-American men and women. It’s well documented that police enforcement of the new, harsh drug laws have been focused on low- level dealers in communities of color. Arrests of African-Americans have been about five times higher than arrests of whites, although whites and African- Americans use drugs at about the same rate. And, African-Americans have been imprisoned in numbers even more disproportionate than their relative arrest rates. It is estimated that in 1994, on any given day, one out of every 128 U.S. adults was incarcerated, while one out of every 17 African-American adult males was incarcerated.

The differential in sentencing for powder and crack cocaine is one glaring example of institutionalized racism. About 90% of crack arrests are of African-Americans, while 75% of powder cocaine arrests are of whites. Under federal law, it takes only five grams of crack cocaine to trigger a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. But it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine — 100 times as much — to trigger this same sentence. This flagrant injustice was highlighted by a 1996 nationwide federal prison rebellion when Congress refused to enact changes in sentencing laws that would equalize penalties.

Statistics show that police repression and mass incarceration are not curbing the drug trade. Dealers are forced to move, turf is reshuffled, already vulnerable families are broken up. But the demand for drugs still exists, as do huge profits for high-level dealers in this fifty billion-dollar international industry.

>From one point of view, the war on drugs could actually be seen as a pre- emptive strike. The state’s repressive apparatus working overtime. Put poor people away before they get angry. Incarcerate those at the bottom, the helpless, the hopeless, before they demand change. What drugs don’t damage — in terms of intact communities, the ability to take action, to organize — the war on drugs and mass imprisonment will surely destroy.

The crack down on drugs has not stopped drug use. But it has taken thousands of unemployed (and potentially angry and rebellious) young men and women off the streets. And it has created a mushrooming prison population.

Prison Labor

An American worker who once upon a time made $8/hour, loses his job when the company relocates to Thailand where workers are paid only $2/day. Unemployed, and alienated from a society indifferent to his needs, he becomes involved in the drug economy or some other outlawed means of survival. He is arrested, put in prison, and put to work. His new salary: 22 cents/hour.

>From worker to unemployed to criminal to convict laborer, the cycle has come full circle. And the only victor is big business.

For private business, prison labor is like a pot of gold. No strikes. No union organizing. No unemployment insurance or workers’ compensation to pay. No language problem, as in a foreign country. New leviathan prisons are being built with thousands of eerie acres of factories inside the walls. Prisoners do data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for TWA, raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, waterbeds, and lingerie for Victoria’s Secret. All at a fraction of the cost of “free labor.”

Prisoners can be forced to work for pennies because they have no rights. Even the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery, excludes prisoners from its protections.

And, more and more, prisons are charging inmates for basic necessities from medical care, to toilet paper, to use of the law library. Many states are now charging “room and board.” Berks County prison in Pennsylvania is charging inmates $10 per day to be there. California has similar legislation pending. So, while government cannot (yet) actually require inmates to work at private industry jobs for less than minimum wage, they are forced to by necessity.

Some prison enterprises are state run. Inmates working at UNICOR (the federal prison industry corporation) make recycled furniture and work 40 hours a week for about $40 per month. The Oregon Prison Industries produces a line of “Prison Blues” blue jeans. An ad in their catalogue shows a handsome prison inmate saying, “I say we should make bell-bottoms. They say I’ve been in here too long.”

Bizarre, but true…

Prison industries are often directly competing with private industry. Small furniture manufacturers around the country complain that they are being driven out of business by UNICOR which pays 23 cents/hour and has the inside track on government contracts. In another case, U.S. Technologies sold its electronics plant in Austin, Texas, leaving its 150 workers unemployed. Six week later, the electronics plant reopened in a nearby prison.

Welcome to the New World Order

The proliferation of prisons in the United States is one piece of a puzzle called the globalization of capital.

Since the end of the Cold War, capitalism has gone on an international business offensive. No longer impeded by an alternative socialist economy or the threat of national liberation movements supported by the Soviet Union or China, transnational corporations see the world as their oyster. Agencies such as the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, bolstered by agreements like NAFTA and GATT are putting more and more power into the hands of transnational corporations by putting the squeeze on national governments. The primary mechanism of control is debt. For decades, developing countries have depended on foreign loans, resulting in increasing vulnerability to the transnational corporate strategy for the global economy. Access to international credit and aid is given only if governments agree to certain conditions known as “structural adjustment.”

In a nutshell, structural adjustment requires cuts in social services, privatization of state-run industry, repeal of agreements with labor about working conditions and minimum wage, conversion of multi-use farm lands into cash crop agriculture for export, and the dismantling of trade laws which protect local economies. Under structural adjustment, police and military expenditures are the only government spending that is encouraged. The sovereignty of nations is compromised when, as in the case of Vietnam, trade sanctions are threatened unless the government allows Camel cigarettes to litter the countryside with billboards, or promises to spend millions in the U.S.- orchestrated crackdown on drugs.

The basic transnational corporate philosophy is this: the world is a single market; natural resources are to be exploited; people are consumers; anything which hinders profit is to be routed out and destroyed. The results of this philosophy in action are that while economies are growing, so is poverty, so is ecological destruction, so are sweatshops and child labor. Across the globe, wages are plummeting, indigenous people are being forced off their lands, rivers are becoming industrial dumping grounds, and forests are being obliterated. Massive regional starvation and “World Bank riots” are becoming more frequent throughout the Third World.

All over the world, more and more people are being forced into illegal activity for their own survival as traditional cultures and social structures are destroyed. Inevitably, crime and imprisonment rates are on the rise. And the United States law enforcement establishment is in the forefront, domestically and internationally, in providing state-of-the-art repression.

Within the United States, structural adjustment (sometimes known as Contract With America) takes the form of welfare and social service cuts, continued massive military spending, and skyrocketing prison spending. Walk through any poor urban neighborhood: school systems are crumbling, after school programs, libraries, parks and drug treatment centers are closed. But you will see more police stations and more cops. Often, the only “social service” available to poor young people is jail.

The dismantling of social programs, and the growing dominance of the right- wing agenda in U.S. politics has been made possible, at least in part, by the successful repression of the civil rights and liberation movements of the 1960s and 70s. Many of the leaders — Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and many others — were assassinated. Others, like Geronimo ji Jaga Pratt, Leonard Peltier, and Mumia Abu-Jamal, have been locked up. Over 150 political leaders from the black liberation struggle, the Puerto Rican independence movement, and other resistence efforts are still in prison. Many are serving sentences ranging from 40 to 90 years. Oppressed communities have been robbed of radical political leadership which might have led an opposition movement. We are reaping the results.

The number of people in U.S. prisons has more than tripled in the past 17 years — from 500,000 in 1980 to 1.8 million in 1997. Today, more than five million people are behind bars, on parole, probation, or under other supervision by the criminal justice system. The state of California now spends more on prisons than on higher education, and over the past decade has built 19 prisons and only one branch university.

Add to this, the fact that increasing numbers of women are being locked up. Between 1980 and 1994, the number of women in prison increased five-fold. Many of these women are mothers — leaving future generations growing up in foster homes or on the streets.

What is to be done?

Prisons are not reducing crime. But they are fracturing already vulnerable families and communities.

Poor people of color are being locked up in grossly disproportionate numbers, primarily for non-violent crimes. But Americans are not feeling safer.

As “criminals” become scapegoats for our floundering economy and our deteriorating social structure, even the guise of rehabilitation is quickly disappearing from our penal philosophy. After all: rehabilitate for what? To go back into an economy which has no jobs? To go back into a community which has no hope? As education and other prison programs are cut back, or in most cases eliminated altogether, prisons are becoming vast, over-crowded, holding tanks. Or worse: factories behind bars.

And, prison labor is undercutting wages –something which hurts all working and poor Americans. It’s a situation which can only occur because organized labor is divided and weak and has not kept step with organized capital.

While capital has globalized, labor has not. While the transnationals truly are fashioning our planet into a global village, there is still little communication or cooperation between workers around the world. Only an internationally linked labor movement can effectively challenge the power of the transnational corporations.

There have been some wonderful, shining instances of international worker solidarity. In the early 1980s, 3M workers in South Africa walked out in support of striking 3M workers in New Jersey. Recently, longshore workers in Denmark, Spain, Sweden and several other countries closed down ports around the world in solidarity with striking Liverpool dockers. The company was forced to negotiate. When Renault closed its plant in Belgium, 100,000 demonstrated in Brussels, pressuring the French and Belgium governments to condemn the plant closure and compel its reopening.

Here in the U.S., there is a glimmer of hope as the AFL-CIO has voted in some new, more progressive leadership. We’ll see how that shapes up, and whether the last 50 years of anti-communist, bread-and-butter American unionism is really a thing of the past.

What is certain is that resistance to the transnational corporate agenda is growing around the globe:

In 1996, the people of Bougainville, a small New Guinea island, organized a secessionist rebellion, protesting the dislocations and ecological destruction caused by corporate mining on the island. When the government hired mercenaries from South Africa to train local troops in counterinsurgency warfare, the army rebelled, threw out the mercenaries, and deposed the Prime Minister.

A one day General Strike shut down Haiti in January 1997. Strikers demanded the suspension of negotiations between the Prime Minister and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank. They protested the austerity measures imposed by the IMF and WB which would mean laying off 7,000 government workers and the privatization of the electric and telephone companies.

In Nigeria, the Ogoni people conducted a protracted eight year struggle against Shell Oil. Acid rain, and hundreds of oil spills and gas flares were turning the once fertile countryside into a near wasteland. Their peaceful demonstrations, election boycotts, and pleas for international solidarity were met with violent government repression and the eventual execution of Ogoni writer-leader Ken Saro Wiwa.

In France, a month-long General Strike united millions of workers who protested privatization, a government worker pay freeze, and cutbacks in social services. Telephone, airline, power, postal, education, health care and metal workers all joined together, bringing business to a standstill. The right-wing Chirac government was forced to make minor concessions before being voted out for a new “socialist” administration.

At the Oak Park Heights Correctional Facility in Minnesota, 150 prisoners went on strike in March 1997, demanding to be paid the minimum wage. Although they lost a litigation battle to attain this right, their strike gained attention and support from several local labor unions.

Just as the prison/industrial complex is becoming increasingly central to the growth of the U.S. economy, prisoners are a crucial part of building effective opposition to the transnational corporate agenda. Because of their enforced invisibility, powerlessness, and isolation, it’s far too common for prisoners to be left out of the equation of international solidarity. Yet, opposing the expansion of the prison/industrial complex, and supporting the rights and basic humanity of prisoners, may be the only way we can stave off the consolidation of a police state that represses us all — where you or a friend or family member may yourself end up behind bars.

Clearly, the only alternative that will match the power of global of capital is an internationalization of human solidarity. Because, truly, we are all in this together.

“International solidarity is not an act of charity. It is an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objective. The foremost of these objectives is to aid the development of humanity to the highest level possible.”

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


By: Jefferey Jaxen

Modern medicine and the world community currently find themselves at a moral, ethical, and legal crossroads. The recent public admittance of Dr. William Thompson as well as other information being forced to the surface has brought to light very ugly truths that will never go away or be ignored. Communities have now been mobilized. Nurses and doctors are now free to come forward and speak of the vaccine induced damage they witnessed. It is unwritten protocol to fire or relieve such dissenters of their positions for showing a soul and voicing disagreement among the medical community. The flood gates have opened as mothers and fathers across the world are pouring endless videos of heartbreaking protests directly against the vaccine industry and the CDC for damage to their children. The silence of the vaccine damaged children has erupted into one solitary voice for justice that is not to be silenced until trials are underway. William Thompson, Dr. Colleen Boyle, Dr. Frank DeStefano, and all other CDC staff that willfully withheld information or simply said nothing and followed orders will face justice. History has served us a precedent to follow in the name of the Nuremberg Trials and there simply is no excuse for drawing this out any longer. During these trials that took place in 1948, the world tried and convicted many Nazi’s responsible for war crimes and unethical medical experiments. Out of those trials came the establishment of the Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Principles as a safeguard against any such future atrocities. Swift justice will be served and the people will not be silent until modern day Medical Nuremberg hearings are on every channel in the country/world.

Although brave to come forward, let us not forget that Dr. William Thompson, Dr. Colleen Boyle, Dr. Frank DeStefano and others are now legitimate, international criminals awaiting hearing. It matters not what they say from here on out, humanity has enough evidence for proceedings to go forward with a Medical Nuremberg 2.0. The fact that Dr. William Thompson, Dr. Colleen Boyle, and Dr. Frank DeStefano are not in custody is another sad, historically documented example of the failure of our justice system to show teeth towards the crimes of the medical industry. Dr. William Thompson and perhaps the entire CDC have admitted to clear violations of the Nuremberg Principles laid out in 1948. To compound the urgency of this matter to be acted upon, many other international treatise and United Nations doctrines have been breached making this vaccine fraud prosecutable by any nation/country that wishes to side step the apathy of the United States for the good of the world. Sadly, by the lack of any action from medical oversight committees in the United States, we have sent a clear message to the world that we are the bad guys that either refuse to clean up our own back yard or willfully are criminals like the Nazi’s that sat on the stands in Nuremberg 66 years ago.

Here is a short list of international violations to be further investigated in relation to the willful vaccine induced damages during the research conducted in 2004 by Dr. William Thompson:

Nuremburg Principles:

  • Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
  • Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
  • Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
  • Principle VII states, “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

Nuremburg Code:

  • 5.) No experiment should be conducted where there is a prior reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  • 6.) The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  • 7.) Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  • 10.) During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Decleration of Geneva:

  • The health of my patient will be my first consideration
  • I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity
  • I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat
  • I will maintain the utmost respect for human life
  • I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient

Declaration of Halsinki:-Operational Principles

  • Article 13: subject to independent ethical review and oversight by a properly convened committee
  • Article 17: Studies should be discontinued if the available information indicates that the original considerations are no longer satisfied
  • Article 16: Information regarding the study should be publicly available
  • Article 27: Ethical publications extend to publication of the results and consideration of any potential conflict of interest
  • Article 30: The interests of the subject after the study is completed should be part of the overall ethical assessment, including assuring their access to the best proven care

International Treatise under the United Nations United Nations Universal Doctrine of Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child

  • Article 19: of the Convention states that state parties must “take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence”

The system of Medical Ethics is purposely omitted due to its definition as a system of moral principles that apply values and judgements to the practice of medicine. This does not apply to the case of the CDC and others responsible because they have clearly shown by their actions that they have not morals and principles.


TLB recommends you visit Jeffery’s Blog for more great/pertinent articles and information. See featured article HERE


bilderberg[1]By: Roger Landry (TLB)

In reality modern nations and free societies are but an illusion. There are those among us who consider themselves the Elite of humanity. These would be emperors feel it is their right and destiny to control and rule (not govern) this country and indeed the world.

This Oligarchical Elite literally owns our military, our leaders, our country and the mainstream media. The preoccupation, misdirection and constant propaganda provided by the MSM makes their actions and agenda almost impossible to ferret out … almost. All this is made possible by the divisiveness they instill in us through a constant barrage of  fear, hatred and prejudice from birth.

This Elite controls the ebb and flow of capital across the globe and can control or deeply manipulate Nations through central banking, especially if they are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain that extremely valuable (in terms of power and money) control. Bribery, Extortion and Murder are their tools and mechanisms of manipulation. We Are not talking about your local bank or the Bank of America here, we are talking about the banking powers that tell them when where and how high to jump, and when they can come down, and that they better not dare repeat what really goes on behind the veil of public perception.

Humanity is in iminent danger and our failure to recognize this and push back against it only emboldens their actions! Genocide or the culling of the herd is much easier today with tools like GMO’s, vaccinations, engineered disease, chemtrails, pesticides, fluoridated water, global warfare and many other mechanisms at their disposal and under their complete control.

When you try to picture this Elite, the Ruling Oligarchy or those who consider themselves to occupy a caste so far above the rest of humanity, that they would refer to the rest of us as cattle, to be thought of and treated as such, there is one, the granddaddy of all these tyrants, that should stand above all on the list being responsible for the rise and fall of kings, queens, emperors and nations.

Lets start off with the Emperor of the Elites himself …

In 1790 Mayer Amschel Rothschild states “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

In 1791 the Rothschilds get, “control of a nation’s money,” through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George Washington’s cabinet) when they set up the first central bank in the USA called the First Bank of the United States. This is established with a 20 year charter. Although not a permenent entity, it facilitates the infestation of the US government from that point on.

What follows is just a few quotes from more recent self proclaimed rulers and their puppets along with applicable references (I wish to have no lack of credibility on this matter) because when you openly accuse an individual of being evil and an enemy to a vast majority of humanity (I am) … you should come prepared to back up your accusations!

Curtis Dall, (FDR’s son-in-law): The depression was the calculated ‘shearing’ of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market. The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

Reference: Curtis Dall, FDR’s son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government – a bureaucratic elite.

Reference: Senator William Jenner, 1954 –

Zbigniew Brzezinski: The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. (Sound familiar)

Reference: Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Published 1970

David Rockefeller: Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history (with almost 100,000,000 dead as a result).

Reference: 1973, August 10th New York Times.

Henry Kissinger: I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.

Reference: Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, about Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvadore Allende in 1973

Henry Kissinger: Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government. (OUCH … Yup this one is almost complete)

Reference: Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderberg meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

Strobe Talbot: In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.

Reference: Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.

David Rockefeller: We are on the verge of a Global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order. (9/11)

Reference: 1994, September 23rd, Statement to the United Nations Business Council.

David Rockefeller: We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, now that the world is more sophisticated, it is prepared to march towards a world government and accept the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual and financial elite, which is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries… (Still trust the MSM?)

Reference: Excerpt from a speech given at Bilderberg annual meeting, Essen, West Germany, on 8th June 1991. Source: Pierre, Danièle De Villemarest, and William Wolf. Facts and Chronicles Denied to the Public. Vol. 1. Slough, Berkshire, UK: Aquilion, 2004. ISBN 1-904-99700-7.

David Rockefeller: Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. (And proud of it!)

Reference: David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It used to be so much easier to control a million people than to kill them, but today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control them.

Reference: On November 17th, 2008, Zbignew Brzezinski, a New World Order architect and a founder of the Rockefeller-controlled Trilateral Commission, addressed Chatham House, (the British counterpart of the American Council on Foreign Relations) –

There is a virtual cornacopia of additional quotes available but as you can see by those provided here, these individuals display no allegiance to any nation, We The People, or to the masses of humanity, and serve only their aspirations and goals, or those of their puppet masters. We are but an impediment standing in their path to be dealt with in any fashion deemed necessary to achieve those goals. In their minds this country, and indeed this planet is not our domain or that of humanity, but their realm to be fashioned or exploited to suit their wishes and needs.

This plan is not a year, decade, or generation old, but has been choreographed and instituted over centuries … and is nearing completion. All that stands between them and global domination is seven billion people …

Its time to push back or be the cattle they deem us and walk passively and ignorantly into the slaughter house, because these are our only two options, and if you believe anything less … then you my friends are in for a very rude awakening, and soon …




Source:Ron Paul
November 24, 2014

It will not shock readers to hear that quite often legislation on Capitol Hill is not as advertised. When Congress wants to do something particularly objectionable, they tend give it a fine-sounding name. The PATRIOT Act is perhaps the best-known example. The legislation had been drafted well before 9/11 but was going nowhere. Then the 9/11 attacks gave it a new lease on life. Politicians exploited the surge in patriotism following the attack to reintroduce the bill and call it the PATRIOT Act. To oppose it at that time was, by design, to seem unpatriotic.

At the time, 62 Democrats voted against the Act. On the Republican side there were only three no votes: former Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), former Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID), and myself.

The abuses of the Constitution in the PATRIOT Act do not need to be fully recounted here, but Presidents Bush and Obama both claimed authority based on it to gut the Fourth Amendment. The PATRIOT Act ushered in the era of warrantless wiretapping, monitoring of our Internet behavior, watering down of probable cause, and much more. After the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, we know how the NSA viewed constitutional restraints on surveillance of American people during the PATRIOT Act period.

After several re-authorizations of the PATRIOT Act, including some cosmetic reforms, Congress last October unveiled the USA FREEDOM Act. This was advertised as the first wholesale PATRIOT Act Reform bill. In fact, the House version was watered down to the point of meaninglessness and the Senate version was not much better. The final straw was the bill’s extension of key elements of the PATRIOT Act until 2017.

Fortunately, last week the USA FREEDOM Act was blocked from further consideration in the US Senate. The procedural vote was significant and important, but it caused some confusion as well. While some well-meaning pro-privacy groups endorsed the FREEDOM Act as a first step to reform, some anti-liberty neoconservatives opposed the legislation because even its anemic reforms were unacceptable. The truth is, Americans should not accept one more extension of the PATRIOT Act and should not endorse its continued dismemberment of our constitutional liberties. If that means some Senators vote with anti-liberty colleagues to kill the extension, we should still consider it a victory.

As the PATRIOT Act first faced a sunset in 2005, I had this to say in the debate over whether it should be re-authorized:

“When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time?”

Reform is often meant to preserve, not repeal bad legislation. When the public is strongly opposed to a particular policy you will almost never hear politicians say “let’s repeal the law.” It is always a pledge to reform the policy or law. The USA FREEDOM Act was no different.

With the failure of the FREEDOM Act to move ahead in the Senate last week, several of the most egregious sections of the PATRIOT Act are set to sunset next June absent a new authorization. Congress will no doubt be under great pressure to extend these measures. We must do our very best to make sure they are unsuccessful!

Read article here:

TLB  highly recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity 

obama-angry 1

By TLB Contributor: Robin Koerner

“The promise of America is one immigration policy for all who seek to enter our shores… there must be one set of rules for everybody.” – Al Sharpton

November 21, 2014—In his recent speech on immigration, Obama told us that, “mass deportation is contrary to our character.”

Embracing his new standard for executive action, I have a few questions.

If mass deportations are against our character, is locking up 1 percent of Americans—disproportionately black men—for hurting no one, consistent with our character? No, so what are you doing about the war on drugs, Mr. President?

If mass deportations are against our character, is recording the most intimate communications of our people consistent with our character? No, so what are you doing about the NDAA, the NSA, and the Patriot Act, Mr. President?

If mass deportations are against our character, is the killing of innocent people in foreign countries, and labeling them energy combatants just because they are adult males, so that we do not have to take moral responsibility for what we are doing—is all of that consistent with our character? No, so what are you doing about the drones and the killing of innocent people in undeclared wars, Mr. President?

Yet, the irony of Obama’s statement about our national character was trumped entirely by his quoting scripture: “We shall not oppress a stranger.”

Whatever is the best way forward on immigration, are we really going to equate extreme discomfort with rewarding law-breakers with oppression? That is insulting, I am sure, to many Americans. Enforcing reasonable laws concerning borders—which, at least in our century, are part of the basic identity of a country—is not really oppression, is it? Rather, it’s the natural democratic inclination of a people: the means by which the demos (people) geographically delimits the exercise of its kratos (power). Isn’t it a kind of common sense, evident in every single country in the world?

Let me help my President out with the meaning of the word, “oppression”. Locking people up for choosing what they ingest is oppression. Come to think of it, locking people up for any victimless crime is oppression. Seizing the property of people who have not been found guilty of crime is oppression. Killing innocent people in foreign countries with drones, when your country is not immediately and imminently threatened, is oppression. Giving secret state agencies the ability and permission secretly to read and watch the intimate communications of citizens is oppression.

Enough of English vocabulary. What about American immigration?

The current American legal immigration system is a Kafkaesque system with which I am, unfortunately, all too familiar. Several times going through the legal immigration process, I noted that it would have been easier for me as a legal immigrant to have just given up and become illegal. And if that sounds hyperbolic, realize that (based on data from a few years ago), two thirds of legal Mexican immigrants, were once here illegally—so the system has for a long time been telling would-be immigrants that one of the best ways to legal status in this country is to break the law. No illegal immigrant is to blame for that fact.

It took me more than five years and thousands and thousands of dollars—on top of all the taxes I paid along the way- to get a green card. Supporters of amnesty claim their plans are “fair” because they require the payment of taxes, a criminal background check, a fine, and “the going to the back of the line”. In other words, their proposal is that illegal immigrants should get exactly the same deal as a legal immigrant—but with the bonus that the fine will be less than the legal costs that most immigrants have to bear. And don’t think that legal immigrants have a significantly easier time during their journey to permanent residency. During the time it took me to get my green card, contributing to the economy and paying my taxes all the time, on four occasions I had to make repeated applications, each with inches of paperwork, for permission to stay, under threat of having my legal status revoked and being immediately required to leave within a month or two. In terms of practical and emotional stability, it is no easier to be a legal immigrant for business in the USA than an illegal immigrant.

It seems that under Obama’s amnesty plan, I could have gotten my residency status, including the right to work with any employer, in less time and at much less cost than it took me to do it legally. Moreover, the fact that the illegal immigrant who shall benefit from amnesty will not receive citizenship is no detriment to the formerly illegal immigrant: unless expressly forbidden, this will be a step on the path to full citizenship, putting the illegal immigrant in the same position as the legal immigrant, again at less cost. As a legal immigrant, after the brutal five years of engagement with the legal immigration system to receive my green card, I have to wait another five years before I can apply for citizenship. So the minimum time it takes a legal immigrant, here for business, to become a citizen is ten years. That’s the line to the back of which legal immigrants go—and of course, legal immigrants start at the back of the line like everyone else.

The proposed normalization of status of those who have entered under the legal radar seems all the more inconsistent when one considers that we are actually killing people overseas because, Obama tells us, our national security is threatened. You always get more of what you incentivize, so shouldn’t this amnesty be part of a package that at least undoes the obvious incentive to more illegal immigration and enhances border security in a way that allows us to actually monitor who is entering our nation?

Those who are uncomfortable with rewarding illegal activity are not oppressors. They are genuinely concerned citizens, who feel that illegal immigration offends their basic sense of fairness, and they are scared because, if their country cannot even control its borders, with serious consequences in some border states, then what can it control?

This debate is not simply one of compassion vs. oppression. It is one of balancing compassion, fairness (justice) and the democratic right of citizens.

If, as Obama, seems to suggest, our country needs to take a sharp turn toward compassion—a turn that I would support fervently—then let’s do it. Let’s have “amnesty” for the innocent victims of American drones; for the men who, with a Federal conviction for a non-violent crime, lose years of their lives in a cell, only to come out and be unable to find work; for the families who’ve had their assets seized because they have violated some outrageous EPA rule, harming no one; for the victims of state surveillance who are suspected of no crime at all, and so on and so on.

And then, if as part of all of that, we implement this immigration amnesty—if the American people decide that is indeed true to our character—then let’s again be consistent by changing the immigration law so those who would come to America to work are incentivized to follow the rules, rather than break them.

And if you need help designing such a system, ask the one group of people in America who know the most about the immigration system but are listened to the least—the legal immigrants who know the rules because they played by them.

Perhaps Obama is right that this is about oppression, but not for the reason he thinks. The resistance he is meeting on this issue can be largely understood by realizing that many Americans feel oppressed—by a political class that is doing things to them, rather than for them. And immigration, because of the issues of fairness and control mentioned above, is just one area where that feeling is strong.

You see, Mr. President, creating a whole new legal status for millions of people is—by definition—a legislative act, and by legislating in an executive office, ignoring one of the most profound protections of the rights of all Americans, you are perpetrating a very serious oppression indeed.


The USA Has a Monarchy. Let It Have a Glorious Revolution.


Robin-KoernerRobin Koerner is Publisher,, Founder, Blue Republican (TLB partner), Contributor to The Liberty Beacon project and Contributor to the Huffington Post, Daily Paul , Moderate Voice and Ben Follow Robin on Twitter:


By: John Vibes

Nodaway County, Missouri – Last week, Jason and Laura Hagan, of New Hampton, Missouri filed a lawsuit against the Nodaway County Police for a SWAT team raid against their family, where tasers and pepper spray were used by the invading officers. The lawsuit is the newest fight in the family’s lengthy legal battle with the county over the raid, which took place in 2011.

The case began years ago when Child Protection Services (CPS) agents were sent to the home because they were homeschooling their children and they reportedly had a “messy house.”

According to the complaint filed last week, the family was harassed by CPS agents on multiple occasions and one day, they refused to let the agents inside their home. The agent then called Chief Sheriff’s Deputy David Glidden and Sheriff Darren White of the Nodaway County police department.

When the officers arrived at the home they were told by Jason Hagan that they were not allowed to enter his property without a court order. Glidden responded by forcing his way into the home and spraying both Jason and Laura in the face with pepper spray.

Next, Glidden uses his taser on Jason, shooting him in the back with the weapon. Horrified, Laura shut the door to separate herself and her husband from the officer, who triggered the taser 3 more times through the closed door, as the barbs were still stuck inside of Jason.

Officer White then helped Glidden force open the door again and found the couple both laying on the floor in pain. The officers then pepper-spayed the couple as they laid on the floor. With the couple subdued, the officers turned to the family dog and sprayed it with a chemical agent, and then threatened to shoot it if it did not stop barking.

At the end of the raid the couple was arrested and both of them were charged with resisting arrest and child endangerment. In court, the cases against Jason and Laura were both dismissed, with the judge ruling that their 4th amendment rights had been violated in the raid.

Now with the criminal cases behind them, the family is taking the fight against the county. Sadly the only people who will have to pay for the incompetence and abuse of these officers and local officials are the tax payers of Nodaway County.

John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he is also the owner of a successful music promotion company. In 2013, he became one of the organizers of the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at


TLB recommends you visit The Free Thought Project for more great pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


Preface by: Roger Landry (TLB)

What has happened to parental rights in America? Why is this government overstepping their boundaries to mandate vaccines against a parents wishes, and without their knowledge? And why does the word of a professional outweigh the wants and wishes of said parents?

The family unit is under attack in America in a fashion none of us would ever have guessed a scant generation ago. Children are being removed from the family unit at an astounding rate today for something as minor as a parent disagreeing with a doctors recommendation, or for simply asking for a second opinion, something we as a society were encouraged to do not so long ago.

Today if a child suffers an adverse reaction, or dies shortly after a round of vaccinations, it is the parents who suffer the scrutiny or wrath of the state, with minimal to no credence being afforded to the possibility of vaccine injury. This persists even if the vaccine has a long and documented history of such occurrences. It is now up to the parents to fight for the truth with every fiber of their love and compassion for that child and (in a lot of cases) every penny in their pocket … WHY?

In a country vaccinated more than any nation on this planet, why are the vaccine manufacturers never the first point of contention or investigation? Why does a state instantly pounce on parental abuse or neglect? Have we not seen the plethora of studies and historical papers written on the documented cases of adverse reactions to these very vaccines? Why does Big Pharmaceutical always get a free pass, and parents, the scrutiny and accusations? If this does not scream complicity … what does?

Once again TLB Staff Writer Christina England gives you the answers, the facts and the history on a level you will never get from a corrupt or complicit state. It is due to outstanding and caring authors and researchers like Christina that we are afforded both sides of these heart wrenching stories. Please read more …


Vaccine-Injured Child Stolen by the State and Her Caring Mother Accused of Child Abuse

By TLB Staff Writer: Christina England

On November 4, 2014, the website Medical Kidnap told the tragic story of four month-old Kathryn Hughes, who was stolen by Child Protective Services (CPS) after she suffered an adverse reaction to a vaccine.

Kathryn was a fragile baby, suffering from a wide range of complex medical needs. Born with Pierre Robin Sequence, a condition in which an infant has a smaller-than-normal lower jaw, a tongue that falls back in the throat and breathing difficulties, Kathryn certainly has had her fair share of problems.

Despite her daughter’s problems, Lorie, her mother, had always trusted the doctors and tried to do the best that she could for her daughter.

Baby is Vaccinated Without Her Mother’s Permission

Due to her own problems with vaccinations, Lorie requested when Kathryn was born that her daughter would only receive the vitamin K injection. Sadly, her requests were ignored and Kathryn was vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine. A few weeks later, Kathryn began suffering seizures, a common side effect of the vaccine. [1]

Medical Kidnap reported:

“On September 4, baby Kathryn had an ALTE (acute life threatening event) where she stopped breathing. Her family took her to the local hospital, where they airlifted her to UMC in Lubbock. That is where mother and baby would spend the next two weeks. It was determined that they would do surgery to insert a gbutton in order to insert a long-term feeding tube into her stomach. It would remain until she could have surgery to correct the cleft palate.” [2]

(Note: G-button or Gastrostomy Button is a tube placed directly into the stomach of a child who needs supplemental feeding or who has difficulty swallowing. This allows feeding to be given directly into the stomach.) [3]

The surgery went well, and despite the many tests, medications and wires, Kathryn remained a happy and secure little girl. However, despite her apparently happy disposition and the constant love and attention given to her by her mother, the reasons behind her seizures remained a mystery.

Before leaving the hospital, the nurses instructed Lorie how to give Kathryn the correct dosage of medications, via the G-button, and they returned home on Thursday, September 18.

Sadly, their happiness was short lived and just two days after returning home from the hospital Kathryn seizures returned and she was rushed back to the UMC.

Medical Kidnap stated:

“The next day, CPS and the staff at UMC informed Lorie that they were taking custody of Kathryn over the medical condition. She was only out of the hospital’s care for two days between September 4th and the 21st. Her mother had to beg to be able to at least say goodbye.

Lorie was stunned and devastated as they literally took baby Kathryn out of her arms, accusing her of not giving her the medications. She insists that she followed their instructions on how to give it to a T, detailing every step of the complicated process to me. The basis for the accusation was simply a test that showed that the level of phenobarbital in her bloodstream was 9.5 mg, but it should have been at least 10 mg.”

Since her kidnap by the CPS, the state of Texas has been trying to terminate all parental rights and they have reduced Lorie’s contact to just twice a month.

Lorie is reported to be distraught by their decision. On October 19, 2014, she wrote this heart-wrenching post on Facebook:

“Can’t sleep. Everyone is asleep but me and all I can think about is my baby girl. Just have this gut wrenching heart twisting feeling something is wrong … don’t know why but I just do. And I know she is crying extremely bad I can feel it in my breasts … still every cry and severity of cry I feel … and feel milk fill up … Even though there is very little milk left …

Miss her and love her so much and would do anything to comfort her and hold her skin to skin on my chest and let her listen and relax to my scent my touch the sound of my heartbeat!!!!

Please pray that she is okay! That God keeps his protecting arms wrapped around her and heals her!!!!!”

Sadly, Kathryn is now a ward of court and that doctors have asked the judge in her case to grant permission to vaccinate her fully, against her parents’ wishes, which, as we understand, also includes participation in an experimental ebola vaccine trial.

Given her medical conditions, I feel that her life is now in danger.

Did Kathryn’s mother fail to care for her daughter by failing to give her the medications prescribed as suggested, or was there something else behind Kathryn’s continued ill health and seizures?

What Really Happened to Baby Kathryn?

If we look at the history of this case, there is one detail that jumps out and that is the fact that Kathryn was vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine against her mother’s wishes. The hepatitis B vaccine can cause seizures.

In a lengthy report on the hepatitis B vaccination and possible adverse reactions, the Vaccination Liberation Army wrote:

“After many newborns died or suffered seizures, brain swelling and permanent brain damage following their hepatitis B injections, the dangers of the vaccine were brought to public attention by a documentary on ABC’s 20/20. Finally in July, 1999, the CDC reversed its ill-advised mandate on giving the hepatitis B vaccine to newborns.. Nevertheless, despite a decade of problems, and virtually no clinical control studies proving safety or efficacy, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices once again recommends in its 2002 immunization schedule that newborns be injected with the hepatitis B vaccine.” [3]

Their paper is full of facts and includes information written by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

In 2000, the AAPS became concerned that children were being vaccinated with too many mandated vaccines that they felt were unnecessary. One of the vaccines mentioned in their report was the hepatitis B vaccine. They wrote:

“’Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that aren’t necessary or that have very limited benefits,’ said Jane M. Orient, MD, AAPS Executive Director.

‘This is not a vote against vaccines,’ said Dr. Orient. ‘This resolution only attempts to halt blanket vaccine mandates by government agencies and school districts that give no consideration for the rights of the parents or the individual medical condition of the child.’

Forty-two states have mandatory vaccine policies, and many children are required to have 22 shots before first grade. On top of that, as a condition for school attendance, many school districts require vaccination for diseases such as hepatitis B — primarily an adult disease, usually spread by multiple sex partners, drug abuse or an occupation with exposure to blood.”

They continued:

“And yet, children under the age of 14 are three times more likely to suffer adverse effects — including death — following the hepatitis b vaccine than to catch the disease itself.” [4]

Their report had little effect.

CDC Called Liars For Stating That the Hepatitis B Vaccine is Safe

In 1999, obviously shocked by what he had discovered, Michael Belkin, a former quantitative strategist at Salomon Brothers and Director of the Hepatitis B Vaccine Project of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) wrote:

“The NVIC has studied Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act covering the last nine years on hepatitis B vaccine adverse events — and in 1996 there were more than three times as many reported serious adverse reactions as reported cases of the disease in the 0 to 14 age group. Of the total 2,424 adverse event reports made between 1990 and October 1998 in children under age 14 who only received hepatitis B vaccine, there were 1,209 serious events and 73 deaths. Thus, one half of the reports for children under age 14 who received only hepatitis B vaccine were for serious events that required an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or caused life-threatening health problems or permanent disabilities.

As a UC Berkeley graduate and advisor to some of the largest financial institutions in the world, I am qualified to analyze and make conclusions about statistics. Based on that experience, I am astonished that the scientists on this Committee would disregard or cover up data showing the number and severity of adverse reactions to this vaccine. Science is observing and learning from what is observed. The assertions of the CDC that the many reported adverse reactions to this vaccine do not exist or are a coincidence violates the basic principle of science, which is rooted in the observation and analysis of data.”

Mr. Belkin concluded by stating:

“At the NVIC, we are overwhelmed following up constant new reports of deaths, seizures and autoimmune reactions following hepatitis B vaccination. Because the CDC refuses to acknowledge this large number of serious adverse reactions, hospitals and doctors who have been misled about the risks continue to administer the vaccine and then deny any vaccine connection when children die, get ill or have seizures within hours or days. CDC officials tell parents they have never heard of hepatitis B vaccine reactions.

That is a lie. For this government to continue to insist that hepatitis B vaccine adverse reaction reports do not exist is negligent, unethical — and is a crime against the children of America. It is a sad day for the US when the nation’s children need protection from the official medical authorities who are charged with protecting them from disease.” [5]

Yet Another Professional Speaks Out

Registered nurse Patti White became so concerned over the growing number of babies and young children being damaged by the hepatitis B vaccination, she wrote a letter to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, asking them to reconsider their decision to vaccinate newborns with the hepatitis B vaccine. She wrote:

“For the past three or four years our school district has noted a significant increase in the number of children entering school with developmental disorders, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders and/or serious chronic illness such as diabetes, asthma and seizure disorders. Each of the past four years has been worse than the year before. There is only one common thread we have been able to identify in these children: they are the children who received the first trial hepatitis B injections as newborns in the early 1990s.”

She continued by adding the following two very powerful and worrying paragraphs:

“As the hepatitis B compliance rate in newborns has gone up in our community, so has the percentage of damaged children. This is very alarming. Because of having so many damaged children we have tried to find the long-term clinical trials that ruled this vaccine “safe and effective”. We discovered through an exhaustive Medline search that the FDA based its decision to approve hepatitis B vaccine for administration in the first hours of a newborn baby’s life upon clinical trials and upon post-marketing surveillance studies in which patients and their doctors were asked to report any adverse effects they noticed within 4-5 days after each injection [4 days for SmithKline, 5 days for Merck].

The problems being reported in increasing numbers as occurring after hepatitis B vaccination appear to be autoimmune and neurological in origin. Such problems take weeks to months to produce noticeable symptoms, and cannot be spotted in a 4-5 day observation period. These are the only clinical studies that have been done by Merck or SmithKline. There is not one long-term study that we could find.”

In other words, she believed that the vaccine damage suffered by these children fell into two categories: it was either autoimmune or neurological in origin, and, through its very nature, was unlikely to show up for several weeks or months after the vaccination.

Nurse White continued with possibly one of most damning and worrying paragraphs in her letter. She wrote:

“The CDC and FDA have no idea what the long-term effects will be on the newly developing neurological and immune systems of the infants who are injected with this vaccine. They seem to only be concerned with denying the connection between these damaged children and the hepatitis B shot they received within a few hours of birth. The CDC even admits the lack of study and states they do not even know how long the vaccine will be effective. We found this amazing since the vaccine was developed for a population at risk for hepatitis B: IV drug users, high-risk medical professionals and those who are involved in high risk sexual practices.” [6]

If White’s statement is true, and there is no reason to suggest that it is not, there is evidence to suggest that new born babies are being vaccinated with a vaccine that has not been fully tested for its safety or its long-term efficacy.
Looking back at the number of professionals raising concerns over this vaccine, one has to wonder whether or not Kathryn should have been vaccinated in the first place. After all, Kathryn had already had her fair share of medical problems and a mother who had reacted adversely to vaccinations.


For many years, I have been writing about such cases. There are now a growing number of parents who have been falsely accused of harming their vaccine-damaged children. Sadly, this case is yet another example.

Loving, caring parents are having their children taken away from them because the majority of health care professionals and social workers are burying their heads in the sand and choosing to ignore the fact that no vaccine or medication is one hundred percent safe. All vaccines have the potential to cause adverse reactions.

When you have such groups as the AAPS stating, “And yet, children under the age of 14 are three times more likely to suffer adverse effects — including death — following the hepatitis b vaccine than to catch the disease itself,” you have to wonder what on earth is going on.

This story highlights the need for reform and the need for change. It is highly unlikely that this mother harmed her baby, and in my opinion, this baby should be returned to her mother as soon as possible.

If readers would like to help Baby Kathryn be returned to her mother, her family has found a competent lawyer and they need to raise $20,000. Please see the GoFundMe campaign titled Bring Baby Kathryn Home and consider giving as generously as you are able.You can also like and share the Facebook page Bring Baby Kathryn Home or follow Kathryn’s story on Twitter.Please sign the petition asking Governor Rick Perry and Governor-Elect Greg Abbott to intervene on Baby Kathryn’s behalf.



“I care that too much power gets in one place,” Paul said in a speech in Lexington at the Kentucky Association of Counties conference.

By: Dean Garrison

Yesterday Rand Paul was sounding off on Barack Obama’s Executive Amnesty when he suddenly went down a curious path. Soon his warning of too much power being in the hands of one individual became a sobering historical reminder, and possibly a future warning, of American Internment Camps.

Would Barack Obama put his political enemies in Internment Camps?

Does that question really need to be asked?

Steve Watson provides this partial transcript and commentary of Paul’s comments:

“Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people ‘we’re going to put you in a camp. We’re going to take away all your rights and liberties and we’re going to intern you in a camp.’” Paul continued, citing then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order authorizing the internments.

“We shouldn’t allow that much power to gravitate to one individual. We need to separate the power.”Paul urged.

The Senator, who has expressed support for a potential lawsuit against the immigration order, asked the audience to consider the bigger picture of Obama’s actions and the precedent he is now setting by so openly bypassing Congress and the political system put into place by the founders.

“The danger of what the president is doing on immigration isn’t necessarily the details of what he’s doing now,” Paul said. “The danger is allowing so much power to gravitate to one person.”

Is Rand Paul speaking hypothetically or does he know more than he cares to tell us?

Do you ever get the feeling that there are still some semi-good people in government that might be trying to warn us? They can’t or won’t come out and say things in plain words because they fear they would jeopardize everything they have worked for, and maybe even their lives, but they want to say something to speak to those who might be able to “decode” what they are saying, because deep down they still have some semblance of human decency.

Is there such an animal as a decent politician?

Am I crazy?


But I believe these subtle warnings are present for those who might be able to recognize them.

If you want a perfect example of that, watch Congressman Thomas Massie’s video about the secret 9/11 documents. He talks about the 28 redacted pages from the 9/11 report and calls for the truth to be told to America.

Most who follow the Truthful Media already know what those 28 pages likely contain.

Massie doesn’t really believe the government will tell the truth, but he can still, however, let the American people know that the government is lying.

Sometimes you have to interpret what these people say because saying too much can and will get them killed.

Is Rand Paul trying to do the same thing with his comments on Internment Camps?

Is it a warning?

Is he simply bound by how much he can actually tell us?

I would say the answer to all of the above questions is very likely “yes.”

Rand Paul is not the first key public figure to travel down this road. Earlier this year we received another warning about what may be coming in the form of a Supreme Court Justice.

Rand Paul isn’t the only one talking about Internment Camps

Back in February Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued statements quite similar to those of Rand Paul that might be considered a warning as well.

On Tuesday Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was quoted, in a Washington Examiner article, discussing the possible return of World War II style “internment camps”:

Justice Antonin Scalia predicts that the Supreme Court will eventually authorize another wartime abuse of civil rights such as the internment camps for Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“You are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again,” Scalia told the University of Hawaii law school while discussing Korematsu v. United States, the ruling in which the court gave its imprimatur to the internment camps.

So a respected Senator and Supreme Court Justice are talking about the possibility of Internment camps on U.S. soil…

Should that serve as a warning of what is coming?

Or is it simply reminding us that it could happen here?

Does it really matter?

Either way it is cause for concern and FEMA Camps are not a conspiracy. Any government worth its salt is going to have a contingency plan for a “just in case” scenario. Of course there are plans to incarcerate large numbers of people, should it be deemed necessary. A form of that plan likely exists, in some fashion, with every national government on Planet Earth.

In case you are ready to open your eyes, click here to learn about REX-84 and a plan for mass incarceration that was written 30 years ago by a very familiar American historical figure. Because, whether Paul and Scalia are trying to warn us, or just reminding us that things might someday get bad, FEMA Camps are real and every American needs to know that.


TLB recommends you visit D.C. Clothesline for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:

Follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter.


By: Cassius Methyl

Earlier this year, we reported on Jacob Lavoro of Round Rock, Texas’ story; at the time, he was being charged with a first degree felony for selling hash oil brownies. He was set to receive an absolutely insane possible sentence of life in prison for weed brownies.

He is now officially on 7 years deferred probation, and he did not have to serve any time in prison. He believes it’s because of the extensive alternative media coverage of the amount of time he was set to face.

In an interview for The Anti-Media, I asked him to just say whatever he wanted about his case and how he feels about the charges being reduced so drastically, and he said this:

“I feel good about not going to prison. I think all the media pressure I had on my side helped me tremendously. I think if I didn’t have that kinda pressure that they would have been successful in putting me behind bars for quite a while.

I also still think as a first time offender the verdict is still pretty harsh.

I’ve seen rapists get off with less probation. I fully agree with legalization, so this so called justice system can stop ruining young peoples and older peoples lives over something so harmless as weed. Because this is proven so far to continue to hold me back from getting approved in any apartment complex and a lot of private houses even including some jobs.

His charges were reduced to just one second degree felony of 1-4 grams of hash with intent to sell, as opposed to the original charge, where the entire weight of his brownies were counted as pure hash.

This is a victory for Jacob Lavoro, for cannabis and anti-drug war activists all over America. This is also a victory for the Independent Media’s power to influence things as seemingly concrete as legal cases by publicizing injustice to an extreme degree.

We have the power to stand up against injustices like this one, and truly change the outcome by spreading around info, and getting masses of people to comprehend the immorality of a situation.

From Ferguson, to Round Rock Texas, 2014 has proven itself to be a year of empowerment for the people, a year of collectively standing strong in the face of injustice with success.

Please share this good news with as many people as possible, because it’s just such a positive thing. If you shared the articles about Jacob facing up to life in prison before, you made your contribution to his freedom from incarceration, and what you did made a significant difference.


This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons License with attribution to Cassius Methyl and Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to receive our latest articles. Image credit:

November 22, 2014
By Katherine Smith

On the anniversary of JFK’s birthday, an edited video of the April 27, 1961 speech “that got John F. Kennedy Killed” was making its way around the Internet:

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed.” [1]

It was hard to miss JFK’s veiled reference to the Skull and Bones society at Yale University, a branch of the Bavarian Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, CFR and the other secret societies that rule the world from behind the scenes, The Powers That Be (TPTB).

G. William Domhoff, a Research Professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz first coined the non-conspiracy acronym TPTB. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Miami. He has been teaching at the University of California, Santa Cruz, since 1965. Four of his books are among the top 50 best sellers in sociology for the years 1950 to 1995: Who Rules America? (1967); The Higher Circles (1970); Who Rules America Now? (1983); and the non-”conspiracy” critique and theory of the U.S. power structure, The Powers That Be (TPTB) in 1979.

[Excerpt from “Bones” in the Money Pit

Our consumer society didn’t just happen; it was planned. Not in 1910, or 1954, but in the year 1832, the year William Huntington Russell and fellow classmate Alphonso Taft founded the Skull and Bones society at Yale University, a branch of the Bavarian Illuminati.

Members, known as “Bonesmen,” include Rockefeller, Kuhn, Loeb and Morgan all connected to the House of Rothschild’s global financial empire. They are founders of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, France, and Germany or, for that matter, any central bank anywhere in the world. In theory, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, one of the most important domestic acts in the nation’s history, took the power to create money from the people and gave it to the Bonesmen for profit.

Russ Baker’s new book, “Family of Secrets: the Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, And What Their Influence Means for America,” is about George H. W. Bush’s secret intelligence work with the CIA many years before he became the Agency’s director. Bush Sr. had played a powerful but hidden role in determining the direction of the U.S. government.

It’s common knowledge that the Bushes sit at the intersection of America’s business and intelligence communities, but it not so common knowledge that the Bush Family, Bush Sr., Jr. and grandfather Prescott Bush, were all Bonesmen. Prescott Bush’s initiation in 1918 is said to have included robbing the grave of the Native American warrior, Geronimo. Prescott Bush helped Henry Ford, Averell Harriman and others finance Adolph Hitler.

Russ Baker suggests the strong possibility that Bush Sr. was connected to the assassination of President Kennedy because “Lyndon Johnson would be more obedient to Texas oil men. [2]

A more plausible connection is Abraham Lincoln was killed for the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and Kennedy for Executive Order 11110 (the CIA has been exonerated [3]).

Lincoln’s “greenbacks” would have prevented the Federal Reserve from creating $500 trillion of money out of thin air, money that Warren Buffett and Market watch say financed our global consumer society.

And, JFK’s “United States notes” backed by silver, which were withdrawn the day he was shot, would have put the Federal Reserve out of business and returned to the Treasury Department the Constitutional power to create and issue a debt-free currency.

Anyone who spoke against the “Creature from Jekyll Island” (Federal Reserve banking cartel exposed by G. Edward Griffin) was silenced. Presidents Garfield and McKinley, outspoken champions of “sound” money and a central bank, were silenced permanently.

John Sherman, a Rothschild protégé in a letter sent to New York bankers on June 25, 1863 in support of the then proposed National Banking Act, wrote:

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages…will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.”

Directly and indirectly, the Bonesmen orchestrated the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970’s and the dot-com and the housing market bubbles.

One of the more absurd notions that has found its way into the history books and the writings of economic experts is that somehow these men were made wealthier from the Monopoly money they printed, the same money that enabled consumers to buy houses, second houses, cars, RVs, TVs and DVDs, i.e., the cheap “stuff” we use on a daily basis. Let’s not forget the fact that in 1910 these men already controlled one-sixth of the world’s wealth. And that was real wealth—gold, silver and raw materials—not the fiat currency we call money. Don’t forget the world they owned and controlled in 1910 had a mostly balanced ecology.

The Skull and Bones society and the Federal Reserve were critical to the growth of our industrial and consumer society, but responsible for much of the financial and environmental damage done to the planet.

We perceive our Country as a constitutional republic, a government representative of the people and accountable to them; but it now seems that premise is nothing more than an illusionary, sentimental belief. [End of excerpt]

Consider Another Assassination Conspiracy Theory

Few would deny JFK was talking about TPTB when he used the words, “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy.”

What if, after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, his investigation uncovered the “secret” that TPTB are in a metaphysical struggle with Mother-Earth (Gaea) and the environmental damage and pollution was the goal and not the unintended consequences of the Industrial Revolution and our consumer society?

And it is conceivable when in 1961 JFK spoke about a:

“System which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, and no secret is revealed.”

He was referring to a system that wasn’t about money. Instead he understood that the resources of the planet were about to be consumed – as in “used up” because he understood the metaphysical struggle.

Then when he realized we were about to be ”conned,” into shopping for stuff to trash the planet, he signed Executive Order 11110 as a first step to put us on the road to sustainability.

An earlier part of the speech edited out of the video, “that got John F. Kennedy Killed” and evoked laughter from the audience and could have a double meaning:

“If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him (Karl Marx) more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different.”

What would a different history look like?

The United States, in its first decades, was a land of small farms and nearby towns with few cities of any consequence. The young nation seemed far more interested in becoming a successful experiment in democracy, rather than an economic power. The Bank of the Fed is Closed…Forever

“Bones in the Money Pit” ends with a reference to the country, the despot and ideology that some claim is the reason he was assassinated, Cuba, Castro and Communism. [4]


[1] A full transcription of the speech that President John F. Kennedy gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961 and an analysis of the edited version on the net that contains the secret society portion can be found at:

[2] “Give Us the ANWAR and Keep Shopping”-They Found They Can’t Have Both

[3] Mortal Enemies? Did President Kennedy Plan on Splintering the CIA? By Craig Frizzell and Magen Knuth has put Don and Oliver Stone’s conspiracy to bed.

“Days after the Bay of Pigs failure, Robert Kennedy began to emerge as the President’s principal advisor. Robert quickly turned to the CIA to devise a plan to overthrow the Castro regime. A little over 6 months after the Bay of Pigs, the President approved Operation Mongoose. According to CIA notes, Robert Kennedy told the planners of the operation, “the Cuban problem today carried top priority in U.S. Govt. No time, money, effort-or manpower to be spared.”

[4] Cuba’s sustainable agriculture has been lauded by the United Nations as a model for other countries (Global Exchange 2003), that because the goal of TPTB was not to accumulate the money they created out of “thin air,” but, according to a massive United Nations report by the GEO4, put all of humanity at serious risk due to “the dangers of climate change, water scarcity, dwindling fish stocks and the pressures on the land and the extinction of species.”

Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here: