Archive | November 26, 2016

Water Protectors Expose Moles in Their Ranks, Infiltrating DAPL Protests, Provoking Police*

Water Protectors Expose Moles in Their Ranks, Infiltrating DAPL Protests, Provoking Police*

By Claire Bernish

In a recent interview, Indigenous Environmental Network coordinator and activist, Dallas Goldtooth, revealed startling information about unwelcome people present in the encampments supporting the Standing Rock Sioux in their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline — infiltrators.

And not just typical government moles, either — though undoubtedly, as was the case with Occupy, they have also staked a claim in the Oceti Sakowin, Sacred Stone, and other camps. As Goldtooth explained, Energy Transfer Partners, the company constructing the pipeline, has deployed infiltrators to the camps to purposely heighten tensions with police and ruin the water protectors’ established policy of nonviolence.

Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman originally interviewed Goldtooth a few weeks ago, but did not publish the full interview until yesterday — and the information would be good to keep handy when someone claims water protectors have been violent and thus deserve brutality wrought by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department and the other law enforcement agencies guarding the pipeline.

Goldtooth began his discussion about agitators in the context of a troubling incident which occurred in late October — in the exact location, Highway 1806’s Backwater Bridge, where a number of confrontations between water protectors and police have taken place.

Although some details remain sketchy, on October 27, water protectors spotted a man in a Chevy Silverado with an AR-15 rifle in the passenger seat speeding down Highway 1806 toward one of the camps. Worried for people’s safety, tribal members and other water protectors jumped in their vehicles, chased the man down, and forced the Silverado from the road near Backwater Bridge.

Multiple eyewitnesses said the man, later identified as Kyle Thompson, got out of his vehicle, brandishing the rifle and a 9mm pistol — and aimed the AR-15 at the head of one of the people who had chased him down.

“You can’t kill all of us,” one person told Thompson.

“You’re just going to make things worse.”

Thompson wore clothing mimicking a water protector — as if he intended ultimately to infiltrate the camp to cause violence and make it appear as if the water protectors weren’t peaceful opposition to the pipeline.

After exiting his vehicle, Thompson waded into the water and refused to hand over his weapons — but the tribal members managed to keep him at bay for half an hour until Bureau of Indian Affairs police arrived to make the arrest.

Once Thompson was taken into custody, water protectors scoured his vehicle for information — and discovered a DAPL (Dakota Access Pipeline) security badge with his picture and vehicle insurance held by Dakota Access LLC.

Goldtooth told Democracy Now! that Thompson admitted to tribal security he was, in fact, employed by Dakota Access — likely as a security contractor, though that remains unclear.

“I think that it’s pretty terrifying to know that there—that Dakota Access has infiltrators within our camp, is paying for individuals like this, armed individuals, to create situations of escalation, potentially creating very, very dangerous situations by—you know, we don’t know what his intention could have been,” Goldtooth explained.

“He could have, you know, fired upon police, creating a situation where the police think it’s coming from our protectors when it’s not. I mean, it goes hand in hand with this series of mysterious situations that really paints—creates a situation where we have to feel suspicious about what Dakota Access’s intentions are.”

Despite the altogether damning evidence proving Thompson to be a pipeline employee in some capacity, Dakota Access denied the man worked for the company.

Obviously, one rogue person wouldn’t be sufficient evidence of outside actors infiltrating the camps to paint water protectors in an unpleasant light — but there have been other indications agitators are present in the camps for that purpose.

Heightened violence by police defending the pipeline began in earnest earlier in the day on October 27, when law enforcement used rubber bullets, tear gas, and pepper spray to forcefully clear a nascent frontline camp near Backwater Bridge along Highway 1806. In the process, police destroyed a number of tents and disrespectfully dismantled a teepee after refusing to allow water protectors to take it down themselves, arresting over 100 people in the process.

Agitators quickly took advantage of the situation, as journalist Derrick Broze, who camped with water protectors, wrote for Mint Press News,

“In stark contrast to the water protectors’ many actions of peaceful prayer and ceremony, the atmosphere at the bridge the night of Oct. 27 was more reminiscent of an outdoor rave. The protesters on the bridge set fire to an SUV, and threw rocks and other objects at a row of armored vehicles operated by law enforcement. This small faction of non-peaceful protesters and officers briefly tossed smoke bombs back and forth.

“Officers eventually lit two smoke bombs on the north side of the bridge before parking two armored vehicles at the exit to the bridge, preventing water protectors and protestors from evacuating in that direction. All law enforcement vehicles were gone within a matter of minutes, and protesters climbed aboard the armored vehicles before setting fire to them.”

Those vehicles burned through the night, but neither police nor fire crews bothered to return to extinguish the flames. Broze continued:

“On Oct. 28, water protectors and elders arrived on the scene to retake the bridge from the agitating faction in all-black clothing, a tactic for protests and marches known as ‘black bloc.’ There were no more than 20 of these provocateurs, and they all traveled together in five older pick-up trucks. Several fights broke out on the bridge as the agitators clashed with those calling strictly for prayer and ceremony, and the agitators were run off the bridge and back to the camps within an hour.”

The fact, these agitators used black bloc tactics — wearing all-black, nondescript clothing to make identification and arrest by police difficult — is significant, as law enforcement has been caught on multiple occasions infiltrating protest movements this way. Police officers, federal agents, or even pipeline security could easily opportune that tactic during conflicts or pose as water protectors, who often shield their faces with bandanas, to gain entry into the camps.

Tribal members condemned the violent acts and the encampments have well-established rules against destruction of property, weapons, and violence by anyone who wishes to support their opposition to Dakota Access.

Still and drone photographer, Tim Yakaitis, has stayed in the North Dakota encampments on multiple occasions, and also noted the presence of agitators.

“The violence isn’t coming from the protesters,” he told the Record Journal.

“It’s coming from the black ops security infiltrators who have come in to start violence so that the pipeline company and the police can point at us and say it’s our fault.”

Yakaitis also claimed he had ‘spoken with an underground hacker who found a document stating that Dakota Access LLC has contracted 75 agents from a security company. From what he’s seen, the security company is sending infiltrators into the camp to pose as protesters and create violence.’

A set of guidelines published by Indian Country Today explaining what to expect if you join the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes in North Dakota expressly addresses the issue of outside agitators and spies present in the camps. Supporters are strongly cautioned not to follow instructions given by non-Native leadership, and are reminded the protection of water in the case of Dakota Access is an Indigenous issue:

“Keep in mind that there are infiltrators in camp. Don’t gossip. If someone tries to persuade you to take action not called for by Indigenous leadership at the camp, check with an elder or other leader.”

Law enforcement and the pipeline company have a vested interest in making opposition to Dakota Access appear violent and destructive — if water protectors aren’t as peaceful as they claim, police would have a sound reason to lash out and brutalize the group, and the company could legitimately claim the camps need to be cleared for construction to continue.

Although Indigenous water protectors advocate prayerful, peaceful opposition and acts of civil disobedience without violence and destruction to begin with, it’s likely the policy of non-violence exists in part precisely because infiltrators were expected.

If someone you know claims water protectors have brought brutal police actions on themselves, it would benefit them greatly to be privy to this information. Opposing the Dakota Access Pipeline is imperative to preserve clean drinking water — not only for the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, but for 18 million people downstream.

As Dallas Goldtooth noted, law enforcement and the pipeline company seem not to value life or have any considerations for the future.

As he explained of incident involving Thompson, “it just clearly paints that Dakota Access has no regard for common decency or any kind of corporate responsibility. And it’s really surprising that people are still invested in this company.”

Source*

Related Topics:

The Black Block!

Gov’t Cancels Oil and Gas Leases On Native Land in Montana, Stays Silent On Dakota Access*

Standing Rock Camp Being Sprayed With “Chemical Agents” By Low Flying Aircrafts at Night*

Hundreds of Veterans Heading to Standing Rock to Defend DAPL Protesters from Police*

2010 Gulf Oil Spill Caused Widespread Land Loss*

Pray with Standing Rock: a Global Call to Action*

Swedish Developers offer a Way to Delete Yourself off the Internet*

Swedish Developers offer a Way to Delete Yourself off the Internet*

By Julian Buis

The internet can be a beautiful and horrible place at the same time, and it isn’t weird to sometimes feel like you want to leave — there’s wasn’t an easy way out, until now.

Swedish developers Wille Dahlbo and Linus Unnebäck created Deseat.me, which offers a way to wipe your entire existence off the internet in a few clicks.

When logging into the website with a Google account it scans for apps and services you’ve created an account for, and creates a list of them with easy delete links.

Every account it finds gets paired with an easy delete link pointing to the unsubscribe page for that service. Within in a few clicks you’re freed from it, and depending on how long you need to work through the entire list, you can be account-less within the hour.

If you’re getting tired of social media and internet-induced stress in general, it’s the quickest way to get back to a state of tranquility — and to be honest, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

Deseat.Me

Source*

Related Topics:

Google Removes Wall to Anonymous Online Advertising Tracking and User’s Names*

‘Google is Doing Things the CIA Cannot*

France’s CNIL fines Google 100,000 euros over ‘right to be forgotten’*

 

E.U. Votes for Citizens to Fund their Own Brainwashing*

E.U. Votes for Citizens to Fund their Own Brainwashing*

By Finian Cunningham

A fledgling group set up by the European Commission to allegedly counteract “Russian propaganda” is to be expanded with more public cash and resources. European citizens will be funding mechanisms inducing their own ignorance and misinformation.

This week, the European Parliament in Strasbourg voted by a dubious majority for a cash injection to expand the work of a media watchdog aimed at “debunking Russian propaganda.”

The little-known media group, reportedly comprising 11 “diplomats,” was established a year ago by the all-powerful, but unelected European Commission. The media unit has, therefore, no electoral mandate. It is potentially holding sway over how 500 million E.U. citizens will be able in the future to access news and public information.

In particular, it is evident the said E.U. media program is motivated by an extreme Russophobia bias. Working in tandem with this media watchdog is another coterie of seven parliamentarians headed by the rabidly anti-Russian Polish MEP Anna Fotyga. The 57-year-old member of the right-wing Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe within the EU Parliament has been regularly accusing Russia of “aggression” in Ukraine and toward Europe generally.

Fotyga’s self-appointed media group, dominated by eastern European anti-Russian interests, produced a report earlier this year entitled “EU strategic communications with a view to counteracting propaganda.” It makes for hysterical reading accusing Russian news networks RT and Sputnik of being Kremlin propaganda tools for sowing division and discord among E.U. member states.

The report states: “The Russian government is employing a wide range of tools and instruments, such as think-tanks […], multilingual TV stations (e.g. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies and multimedia services (e.g. Sputnik) […], social media and internet trolls, to challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighborhood.”

It was largely this tendentious “study” that formed the basis for the European Parliament’s resolution this week to expand funding for the media program to “debunk Russian propaganda.”

How much new money is being disbursed to the media watchdog is not clear. But ultimately it will be funded by E.U. citizens whose taxes underwrite member governments’ financial contributions to the Brussels-based 28-nation bloc.

Notably, the E.U. Parliament vote this week was far from convincing. Some 304 MEPs voted for extra funding to the “anti-Russian propaganda” group, while 179 MEPs voted against. A further 208 parliamentarians abstained. That suggests widespread apprehension among lawmakers about the function and credibility of “debunking Russian propaganda.”

So, here we have an outcome whereby a minuscule group of unelected faceless bureaucrats and ideologically driven politicians, who evidently have an ax to grind against Russia, are able to shape a vital area of foreign policy for the entire EU bloc and furthermore to significantly impinge on the public’s right to access information freely.

The charges of “Russian state-sponsored propaganda” have been inflamed with recent claims by Western leaders like US President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that “fake news” is undermining Western democracy. These claims have in turn followed months of reports from various NATO-linked think-tanks which have allege that Russian news services are fronts for Kremlin-inspired disinformation.

Political pressure is now being brought to bear on internet and social media providers, such as Google and Facebook, to ban “fake news” from their networks. Germany’s Merkel has even declared this week that she intends introducing legislation that will force internet service companies to “regulate fake news.”

It is not clear how far this development will go. Western-based internet companies may yield and impose blanket censorship. Another question is what are the limits on designating which information and sources are considered “fake”?

The political atmosphere of Russophobia being whipped up by Western leaders, NATO-connected think-tanks and now EU parliamentarians – and the actual fingering of Russian news services like RT and Sputnik as “illegitimate sources” – is all setting the stage for the banning of Russian media.

In reports this week, the E.U. media watchdog that is being expanded to “counter Russian propaganda” said that it would be employing ways of “alerting internet users to false information.” Presumably, that involves hiring online commentators (trolls) who will add disparaging comments to news articles deemed to be Kremlin propaganda. Apparently, there are no moves yet to demand that internet providers actually delete content. But that full-blown censorship would seem to be only a short step away, given the relentless anti-Russian atmosphere and claims by Western leaders of “fake news” eroding democracy.

The insidious nature of what is unfolding is illustrated by the alleged incident of Belgian NATO fighter jets bombing Syria last month. On October 18, the village of Hassadjek in Aleppo was reportedly hit by air strikes that killed six civilians, according to local sources.

Several news services, including Reuters, subsequently carried reports in which Russia’s Ministry of Defense accused Belgium of carrying out the strikes as part of the U.S.-led coalition purportedly bombing Syria to combat jihadi terror groups.

The Russian information appeared to be substantive, providing flight and radar data that reportedly identified the Belgian warplanes. Belgium’s ambassador was summoned in Moscow to explain why the Belgian government appeared to be stonewalling with denials that its air force was involved in the deadly attack.

Disturbingly, the news reports of the alleged Belgian air strike on the Aleppo countryside last month are described as an example of “fake news” by the E.U, media watchdog during this week’s parliamentary vote to endorse more funding for the unit.

This has huge sinister implications. Any news report or analysis – no matter how substantive or factual – that happens to offend the political sensibilities and reputation of E.U. governments are thus liable to be labeled “fake.” And therefore subject to censorship.

What about reports on Western governments supplying jihadi terror groups with weapons? Or reports on how Western media are colluding with terrorist propaganda fronts like the White Helmets to fabricate allegations of Russian violations in the liberation of besieged Syrian city Aleppo?

All such reports can be verified and documented. But because they happen to offend official Western claims about their involvement in Syria, then such “offending” reports can be merely dismissed as “Russian propaganda.”

This marks an audacious license by European and American authorities to grant themselves immunity from media criticism and scrutiny – simply by invoking a subjective, politicized claim that Russian news is “fake” and “propagandistic.”

Meanwhile, this week Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was being hosted in Brussels by E.U. leaders during which he warned: “The European Union is under very severe attack from Russia.”

There is no hint of awareness among European media outlets and the EU’s own media watchdogs that Poroshenko’s tedious tirades constitute a glaring case of “fake news.”
Dystopian future beckons in which EU citizens are obligated to fund unelected media controllers who will deprive them of critical news and information, while at the same time sluicing citizens with the most gratuitous anti-Russia propaganda.

The upshot is that E.U. citizens are gradually forced into paying for their own brainwashing.

No wonder a growing number of citizens are becoming alienated from the E.U.’s oligarchic rule. It is acting like a tyranny that needs to be torn asunder.

Source*

Related Topics:

Ron Paul Publishes Real List of ‘Fake News’ Websites*

Syrian Catholics Denounce Western Media Biased Reporting on Aleppo*

Sweeping Cyber Attack By U.S/ Gov’t on WIKILEAKS/TWITTER…Not RUSSIA!

E.U. Military Union Is Budgetary Union*

French Assembly Calls an End to anti-Russian Sanctions Imposed by E.U.*

Europeans Launch New Anti- NATO War Campaign*

World Leaders Agree to Merge NATO and E.U.*

 

U.S. Tries to Assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister in Missile Attack*

U.S. Tries to Assassinate Iraqi Prime Minister in Missile Attack*

The Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), also known as Hashd al-Shaabi forces, in Iraq say the U.S.-led coalition fired a missile at their command tent at the recently liberated Tal Afar Airport after Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi met with commanders there.

In a statement released on Friday, the PMU said that the attack took place on Thursday and left several people injured.

An investigative committee has been set up to probe the incident, with its examination of the missile wreckage showing that the laser-guided rocket had not been fired by the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group, the statement read.

It also added that the missile landed one metre and a half from the PMU commanders’ tent while a drone belonging to the U.S.-led coalition was up in the sky.

The PMU called on the U.S.-led alliance to provide an explanation for the incident, noting that it will announce the findings of the probe after its conclusion.

On Saturday, the Iraqi parliament approved the merger of the PMU with the army. Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) Ammar Hakim hailed the development as a national event.

The PMU also freed 400 Iraqi families held by Daesh as human shields in western Tal Afar. Iraqi media said the popular forces further liberated three villages in the region and killed a large number of militants.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi (4th R) visits Tal Afar Airport after it was retaken from Daesh terrorists, in this image grab taken from Iraqiya TV footage on November 24, 2016. (Photo by Reuters)

 

The United States and some of its allies have been carrying out airstrikes in Iraq since June 2014 allegedly targeting Daesh elements in the northern and western parts of the conflict-plagued Arab country.

Iraqi forces advance as part of Mosul liberation operation

Meanwhile, Iraq’s War Media Cell said that Iraqi forces had blown up a factory, in the village of al-Zawiya south of the city of Mosul, where terrorists had planted 200 booby traps.

Iraq’s al-Sumaria news website also reported that an army drone targeted a Daesh vehicle that was later blown up in the same village.

Additionally, the Iraqi forces advanced in the eastern side of the Tigris River that divides Mosul in half.

A local source in Nineveh Province, of which Mosul is the capital, said that the Iraqi volunteer forces had shot down a Daesh spy drone in the district of Tal Afar.

In their push to win back Mosul, the volunteer forces recaptured several villages, destroyed four Daesh car bombs and killed seven terrorists on Wednesday.

Iraqi policemen also clashed with Daesh militants in southern Mosul, killing 50 Takfiris and arresting 32 others.

Meanwhile, there were reports that Daesh had cut off water from the liberated areas in the western bank of the Tigris River.

It was further reported that the terrorist group had dropped bombs from a spy drone on a sports field in a village on the outskirts of Shirqat, which lies on the Tigris River 100 kilometers south of Mosul. The bomb attack left three children wounded.

Moreover, Diyala Police chief, Jasim al-Sa’adi, said in a statement that his forces had confiscated a large quantity of guns, explosives and military equipment after inspecting a mountainous area close to the Mansuria military base and the Hamrin region.

Mosul fell to Daesh in 2014, when the terror outfit began its campaign of death and destruction in Iraq.

Since October 17, Iraqi army soldiers and allied fighters have been leading an offensive to retake the city, the last Daesh bastion in the country.

Source*

Related Topics:

What You Aren’t Being Told About The Iraqi ISIS Offensive*

Canada Escalating Military Presence in Iraq*

Iraqi Forces Kill over 950 ISIS Terrorists in Mosul*

Media Blackout as Millions of Muslims March against ISIS in Iraq for Arbaeen*

U.S. Airstrikes on Iraqi Army Slowing Advance on Mosul*

Zionist Israelis Sneaking into Iraq*

Iraq Will Likely Sue U.S. Govt For 2003 Invasion Following Passage of 9/11 Bill*

 

Revolutionary Icon Fidel Castro Dies Aged 90*

Revolutionary Icon Fidel Castro Dies Aged 90*

The leader of the movement that won Cuban independence and champion of the Global South has died in Havana.

Fidel Castro, former president and leader of the Cuban revolution, died Friday night at age 90, Cuban state television confirmed.

Raul Castro, Cuba’s President and Fidel Castro’s brother, announced that Fidel would be cremated on Saturday.

“The commander in chief of the Cuban revolution died 10:29 p.m. tonight,” said Castro.

Born in 1926 to a prominent landowner in Holguín Province, Cuba, Fidel went on to lead Cuba’s revolutionary independence movement, defeating the U.S.-backed Batista dictatorship in 1959.

Soon after his movement took power, Fidel adopted an explicitly socialist model of development and forged strong ties with the Soviet Union, earning the wrath of the United States.

For the next 48 years, until resigning in 2008, Fidel led the tiny island nation to historic levels of development, leading the world in many social indicators including literacy and public health rates.

Influence and Internationalism

The success of Cuba’s revolution also meant facing down more than 50 years of a hostile and destructive U.S. blockade, while also surviving multiple CIA assassination attempts. Fidel and Cuba inspired a growing decolonization movement throughout the world, one which Fidel actively supported by creating networks of mutual aid throughout Latin America, Africa, and the rest of the Global South.

Under Fidel’s leadership, Cuba’s internationalism expanded beyond support for liberation movements such as Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, with the small island sending thousands of health and education professionals across the world. Cuba’s literacy program is credited with having taught millions to read outside of Cuba, while Cuban doctors earned even the admiration of the United States, who recently lauded their “heroic” contribution to combatting the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Fidel was also vital in the upsurge of left-wing government in Latin America, beginning with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 1998. Fidel and Chavez not only developed a famous friendship, but the two leaders pushed for a radicalization and coordination of regional movements which yielded left-wing victories in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, along with left-leaning governments in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.

The two leaders also founded the Bolivarian Alternative for Our America, or ALBA bloc, which promoted an alternative to neoliberal free trade.

Fidel Recently Turned 90

Revered by many and loathed by others, the Cuban leader remained influential and was highly regarded even by his detractors as a keen analyst of world affairs.

His native Cuba recently celebrated his 90th birthday, where in typical Fidel style, he foreshadowed what was to come with elegance and dignity.

“I’ll be 90 years old soon,” Fidel said at an April 2016 communist party congress where he made his most extensive public appearance in years. “Soon I’ll be like all the others. The time will come for all of us, but the ideas of the Cuban Communists will remain as proof that on this planet , if one works with fervor and dignity, they can produce the material and cultural goods that human beings need and that need to be fought for without ever giving up.”

Source*

In Havana, many were enjoying regular Friday evening strolls along the Malecon when news of Fidel Castro’s death broke.

While much of the U.S. media focuses on the reactions of world leaders and the right-wing of the Cuban-American community in south Florida, initial reactions among Cubans themselves was a mix of shock and sadness.

Carlos Rodriguez, 15, was sitting in Havana’s Miramar neighborhood when he heard that Fidel Castro had died. He told the AP

“Fidel? Fidel? That’s not what I was expecting. One always thought that he would last forever. It doesn’t seem true,” he said, slapping his head in shock.

“It’s a tragedy,” said 22-year-old nurse Dayan Montalvo. “We all grew up with him. I feel really hurt by the news that we just heard.”

“It’s a normal life process (but) it’s news that no one is ever ready to receive. Even less so, news of the Comandante’s death,” said one woman.

Another told Reuters, “Well, I feel a bit shaken. He was a public figure that everybody loved and respected.”

Another young woman told AFP, “As a Cuban, and like everyone else in the country who loved him, I’m sad. He was a man who did a lot for the Cuban revolution, for the country, for all of the Cuban people. He is an idol, he is the man of the country, as they say.” Another said ”

Officials declared a nine-day mourning period early Saturday, canceling public festivals and official events. On Monday and Tuesday gatherings are planned throughout the country so Cubans can pay homage to the former President and sign books of remembrance.

On Tuesday at 7 p.m. local time there will be a mass rally at the iconic Plaza de La Revolucion in Havana – site of countless Fidel speeches – and the next day Fidel’s ashes will be transported along the route of the 1959 “Caravan of Liberty” which marked the victory of the Cuban revolution.

The procession will continue until Dec. 3 and end in Santiago de Cuba. There, on Dec. 4, Fidel’s ashes will be ceremonially placed in the national hero’s Cementerio Santa Ifigenia, home to the memorials of legendary Cuban independence leader Jose Marti, and the martyrs of the 1953 Moncada Barracks attack, which marked the beginning of uprising that led to the triumph of the 1959 revolution.

Source*

Related Topics:

Speech by Raúl Castro at the Summit of the Americas*

The Hypocritical Obama-Castro Handshake in Context*

The Cuban Five are Free After 16 years Wrongful Imprisonment*

Cuba Rejects U.S.-Style Neo-liberalism*

Ongoing U.S. Blockade on Cuba Is Genocidal*

A Year of Achievement for Cuban Healthcare*

Cuba Ready to Provide All Needed Medicines for Syria*

This is America: Guantánamo Detainee Requires Rectal Surgery Following CIA Sodomy Torture*

New Crohn’s Disease Vaccine, the Latest Con*

New Crohn’s Disease Vaccine, the Latest Con*

By Michelle Goldstein

A Crohn’s disease vaccination is being developed by a researcher in Great Britain. The vaccine targets MAP, a bacteria found in 80% of Crohn’s sufferers. The vaccine aims to help stimulate the body to eliminate MAP, and thus cure those suffering with Crohn’s disease.

While the intent of the researcher may be honorable, it is highly debatable whether another vaccination is the answer for this serious disease.

Vaccinations have in fact been blamed for causing autoimmune disorders including Crohn’s disease. It makes little sense to use a vaccine to target a disease caused by vaccines. Crohn’s disease is a progressive, life-threatening illness correlated with gut dysbiosis and inflammation of the intestines.

Functional medicine approaches, which aim to heal the gut, offer hope for those suffering with Crohn’s disease. Conventional medicine treatments include anti-inflammatory drugs that attempt to put the disease into remission.

New Crohn’s Disease Vaccine

Professor John Hermon-Taylor of St. George’s Hospital, London, has developed a vaccination which targets MAP (Mycobaterium avium patratuberculosis) found in animals and passed into the food chain. Professor Hermon-Taylor believes that the pathogen MAP is the cause of 80% of the cases of Crohn’s disease, based on the fact that most individuals with Crohn’s tested positively for MAP.

The Crohn’s vaccine has been tested on animals and plans exist to start human trials. The vaccine would target current sufferers of Crohn’s disease, by stimulating their bodies to rid themselves of MAP. More than 100,000 people suffer with Crohn’s disease in the U.K.

Hav Vaccines, LTD, began in 2009, is developing the vaccine which will be available for current Crohn’s sufferers along with those considered to be at high risk for developing Crohn’s disease. The phase 2 trials are predicted to be completed by January 8, 2018.

Crohn’s Disease Defined and its Prevalence

Crohn’s disease involves chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract, causing a variety of symptoms including rectal bleeding, weight loss, fever, abdominal pain, cramping, fatigue and reduced appetite. It can also cause anemia and intestinal obstruction.

Complications of Crohn’s disease include blockage of the intestines, scar tissue formation, fissures, abscesses and fistulas, possibly requiring surgery to remove damaged portions of the digestive tract.

It is estimated that 1 to 1.3 million individuals in the United States suffer from inflammatory bowel disease, which includes both Crohn’s disease and closely related ulcerative colitis.

The causes of IBD are considered to be unknown and conventional treatments include anti-inflammatory drugs and surgery.

The Problem with a Crohn’s Disease Vaccination

A vaccination, which proposes to cure Crohn’s disease, by nature is poorly designed and doomed to failure. Vaccinations work by increasing an antibody aimed at a particular virus or bacteria. The Crohn’s vaccine is likewise being created to attack the MAP pathogen in Crohn’s patients.

The fatal flaw in all vaccines is the fact that increased antibodies do not equate to immunity. Assuming that MAP is the cause of Crohn’s disease (which is a large assumption with no proof), a vaccination targeting MAP will contain a variety of toxic ingredients which will have the end result of lowering the ability of the immune system and decreasing the body’s ability to fight MAP or anything else for that matter.

Crohn’s disease is an inflammatory response of the body. Vaccinations which inject foreign substances into individuals will only aggravate and worsen this inflammation.

Cellular immunity is more important than antibodies in fighting disease. Cellular immunity is worsened by vaccinations.

Neurologist Russell Blaylock has lectured and written extensively on this topic of cellular immunity and failed vaccines.

Proof that Vaccines Lead to Crohn’s Disease

Research studies have linked vaccinations, including Gardasil, with the development of autoimmune disorders. Vaccines are often the final assault to a weakened immune system which cause autoimmune disorders, including Crohn’s disease.

True Root Causes of Crohn’s Disease

Functional medicine and other alternative approaches to medicine have linked gut dysbiosis, parasites, candida, metal toxicity, vaccinations and other assaults to the immune system as causes of Crohn’s disease. Because these damaging environmental factors include vaccinations, using a vaccine to treat Crohn’s disease makes little sense.

How to Stay Healthy, Avoid Crohn’s Disease and Cure It

Eating a nutrient-dense diet and avoiding toxins in the environment including vaccines, GMOs and fluoride can help to both avoid and treat Crohn’s disease. Engaging a functional medicine practitioner to develop an individualized treatment plan can be essential for healing from this devastating and life-threatening disease. Others have managed to find healing by following certain dietary protocols such as GAPS and the Specific Carbohydrate Diet.

Conclusion

Crohn’s disease is a serious disease of the gastrointestinal tract involving inflammation. There is currently no known cause or cure from a conventional medicine perspective, although treatments aim to reduce inflammation and can bring the disease into remission. Holistic approaches address gut dysbiosis, candida and parasites using nutritional supplements, medications and dietary changes.

A new vaccine is being developed in England to treat Crohn’s disease by targeting the bacterium MAP found in most Crohn’s patients. The problem with this idea is that MAP has not been shown conclusively to be the cause of Crohn’s disease and vaccinations are known to actually cause autoimmune disorders, including Crohn’s disease.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Real History of U.S. Modern Healthcare*

CDC and the Policed State: Quarantine and Vaccination for Suspicion of Infection*

Eight Ways to Safely Take Charge of Your Health While Avoiding Toxic Vaccines*

Unvaccinated Children Seem Immune to Mysterious Virus Spreading in the Midwest*

The Zika Virus has been Proven Harmless*

The Eugenics of HPV Vaccine*

Western Governments Are Enslaving Humanity through Vaccines*

Mental Illness and the Gut-Brain Connection*

 

 

The Lies of Brexit*

The Lies of Brexit*

By Martin Edwards

In recent months the most discussed political issue has been Brexit and our future relationship with the remaining members of the European Union. Most mainstream commentators have missed the growing threat to independent sovereign Nations posed by Global Governance. The power to make many of our laws has long since shifted to organisations operating at the global level.

In her speech “Britain after Brexit: A Vision of a Global Britain“, delivered at the Conservative Party Conference, Theresa May made reference to a Great Repeal Bill which would have two effects. Firstly it would “remove from the statute book – once and for all – the European Communities Act”. Secondly, it would “transpose ‘the acquis’ – that is, the body of existing E.U. law – into British law”. According to May this will mean that “Parliament will be free – subject to international agreements and treaties with other countries and the E.U. on matters such as trade – to amend, repeal and improve any law it chooses”.

The “acquis” to which Theresa May made reference relates to the European Doctrine “Acquis Communautaire“. This means that when a power has been surrendered to a supra-national body, such as the E.U., it can never be recovered by the member state. The effect of transposing all existing E.U. law into UK law via the Great Repeal Bill provides ample evidence of this.

In the four decades that have passed since parliament approved the European Communities Act the Britsh people have been deceived and betrayed by governments and politicians of all political parties. Whenever a piece of legislation has been passed that angers the British public’s sense of fair play and justice our politicians have always deflected criticism by laying the blame on the European Union. During this time-frame international law which originates within the institutions of the United Nations has either been transposed into U.K. law directly by our Westminster Parliament or has entered the U.K. via the undemocratic European Union. International law is framed by those who have never been elected into office by the British electorate and neither can they be removed.

In this article we will briefly examine the international law on public procurement to demonstrate just how hollow Theresa May’s statement that we are going to be a “fully-independent, sovereign country” truly is.

The United Nations and Public Procurement

We have noted that the United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/95 of 9th December 2011 was “expected to contribute significantly to the establishment of a harmonized and modern legal framework for public procurement that promotes economy, efficiency and competition in procurement and, at the same time, fosters integrity, confidence, fairness and transparency in the procurement process”. This U.N. resolution is referenced within the United Nations Commission on Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Public Procurement, published in January 2014. UNICITRAL is the “core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of international trade law”. UNCITRAL helpfully provides 69 pages of guidance on how the “enacting States will promulgate procurement regulations to fulfil the objectives and to implement the provisions of the Model  Law”.

The World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) requires that open, fair and transparent conditions of competition be ensured in government procurement. One of the key reasons for the 1994 Global Agreement on Public Procurement was to ensure that “the laws, regulations, procedures and practices regarding government procurement should not be prepared, adopted or applied to foreign or domestic products and services and to foreign or domestic suppliers so as to afford protection to domestic products or services or domestic suppliers”.

The Agreement on Government Procurement has 19 parties comprising 47 WTO members. Another 28 WTO members participate in the GPA Committee as observers. Of these, 9 members are in the process of acceding to the Agreement. A block of European Nations which included the United Kingdom acceded to the ‘GP Agreement 1994’ on the 1st January 1996.

Obligations Contained Within the E.U. Procurement Directives

At the regional level, the E.U. Commission has dictated that “new rules have changed the way E.U. countries and public authorities spend a large part of the €1.9 trillion paid for public procurement”. Amongst other perceived benefits, the E.U. Commission claims that these new rules will “prevent ‘buy national’ policies and promote the free movement of goods and services”.

Their website reveals that from 18 April 2016, E.U/ countries must have put in place national legislation conforming to three directives.

Directive 2014/24/EU on public procurement, replacing Directive 2004/18/EC, for Public Sector Contracts;

Directive 2014/25/EU on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, replacing Directive 2004/17/EC, for Utilities Contracts; and

Directive 2014/23/EU on the award of concession contracts, which does not directly replace any previous directive.

Contracting authorities and entities to whom these directives apply include all central UK Government Departments and Agencies including both Houses of Parliament, HM Treasury, the Cabinet Office, Ministry of Justice and all courts, Ministry of Defence, Department of Health and the Department of Communities and Local Government. A more detailed list may be found within the Annexes to Commission Decision 2008/963/EC.

The E.U. Commission also claim that these new rules ensure that the award of contracts of higher value for the provision of public goods and services must be fair, equitable, transparent and non-discriminatory. We now know that this reflects the language used in UN General Assembly resolution 66/95 of 2011.

The Lisbon Treaty, which was signed by member states on 13 December 2007 and came into force on the 1st December 2009, gave the European Union the legal personality to enter into international agreements on behalf of it member states. The European Union, with regard to its 28 member states, including the United Kingdom, acceded to the GP Agreement on 6 Apr 2014. The main provisions of this WTO agreement appear to have been cascaded down to all E.U. member states in the form of the E.U. Directives we have already briefly examined above.

Transposing Procurement Rules into U.K. Law

According to this document, published by the Cabinet Office, there has been “a long running period of continuous U.K. stakeholder engagement on the new E.U. Public Sector Directive, which started in 2011 when the European Commission’s own consultations began”.

A short Consultation on the Draft U.K. Public Procurement Regulation was published by the Government on the 19th September 2014 and closed on 17 October 2014. A link to this final consultation “was issued directly to a number of known stakeholders and was also made available publicly on the GOV.UK website”. Unsurprisingly, it received just 200 responses. We believe that the process of transposing the E.U. Directives into U.K. law resulted in a ‘copy-out approach‘ being employed in the absence of ‘gold-plating‘. We have also noted that many respondents to the final consultation remarked that that there was “helpful alignment between E.U. Directive article number and regulation number” – in other words it was a simple ‘copy and paste’ job.

The E.U. Procurement Directives became transposed into U.K. Law by the Minister for the Cabinet Office making Statutory Instruments (Regulations) under delegated powers found within section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The procedure for making Statutory Instruments often means that they become law without either a debate or a vote in Parliament.

The relevant Regulations are the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 which come into force between 26th February 2015 and 18th October 2018. The Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 came into force on 18th April 2016. We understand that certain exemptions might apply to buyers working within the defence and security sector, where requirements may be covered by the earlier Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations (DSPCR) 2011.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office at the time of the making of the Public Contracts Regulations was Francis Maude. The 2016 Regulations were made when Matthew Hancock was Minister.

The policies and regulations governing public sector procurement are many and we have now seen how they have been shaped and influenced at the International and regional levels. An idea of their complexity and the depth and breadth of their reach can be discovered here.

The fact that this raft of U.K. Procurement Regulations came into effect so close to the enactment of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 defies belief.

The Practical Effect of Procurement Rules Within the U.K.

Examples of the impact of these Global Procurement Rules are not difficult to find.

The Conservatives faced heavy criticism in 2011 after German manufacturing giant Siemens secured a £1.6billion contract to provide new train carriages for the Thameslink route. The Munich-based company fought off competition from Bombardier, which operates the U.K.’s last remaining train factory in Derby. In order to deflect criticism of itself the Government website states that “the competition to supply trains and maintenance services for the Thameslink programme was designed and launched under the previous administration in 2008, in accordance with E.U. procurement procedures”.

In 2012 a £452m contract to build four new fuel tankers to supply the Royal Navy was awarded to a firm in South Korea. The MoD’s procurement chief Bernard Gray is reported to have said, “the competition for the contract sought to engage shipbuilders from across the globe …”.

In 2013 it was revealed that the Government had been planning to outsource to the private sector the responsibility for buying £14bn of equipment each year. The plan, heavily criticised in a report by the Royal United Services Institute, had been to establish a government owned contractor operated group (GOCO) and outsource more than 40% of the MOD budget. Of the groups bidding for the right to run the MOD’s defence equipment and support (DE&S) one consisted of the US engineering firm CH2M Hill, WS Atkins, and Serco. The other group comprised the US engineers Bechtel, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and PA Consulting. By December 2013 it was announced that plans to privatise defence procurement were to be ‘scrapped’.

In January 2014 we learned a the farcical story of the MOD buying back HMS Ark Royal parts so that HMS Illustrious, which had been damaged by a fire, could be repaired. Britain had decommissioned and sold the ageing Ark Royal for £2.9 million to Turkey. 14 other Navy vessels, including aircraft carrier Invincible, have been scrapped by Turkish shipyard Leyal Gemi Sokum since 2008.

In 2015, at the time of the NATO summit in Newport South Wales, David Cameron made headlines by announcing a £3.5 bn order for specialist scout vehicles for the army. It was later learned that 40% of the work was to be completed by overseas firms – £1.4 bn of contracts were therefore lost to British owned firms. That same report mentioned that “£75million of army uniform production was outsourced to India, China and Eastern Europe”.

South Wales based firm, Swansea Dry Dock Ltd, was fighting last year to win a contract to re-cycle the unwanted type 42 destroyers HMS Edinburgh, HMS Gloucester and HMS York. When SDC pointed out to the MoD that it could not compete with the lower labour costs and less onerous environmental regulations in non-EU countries the MoD replied that it was bound by the principles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and “could not discriminate on grounds of nationality and must treat all competitors equally”.

On 30th June 2016 John Speller MP asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he “will take steps to ensure that his Department’s purchasing policies support British (a) industry and (b) agriculture”. The written response was that “the Government is committed to doing all it can to ensure UK suppliers can compete effectively for public sector contracts in line with our current international obligations … We are providing industry with visibility of up to £191bn of potential procurement opportunities across 19 sectors”. Omitted in the Minister’s answer is the requirement that the international obligations prevent “buy national” purchasing policies.

In the past decade we have also seen privatisation of segments of the Prison Service involving global corporations such as SERCO and CAPITA. It would be difficult to dispute the fact that these International Public Procurement rules have led to the situation were the public no longer know who really runs the public sector.

Following the E.U. Referendum vote it is difficult to see how these International Public Procurement rules can be ignored by future British Parliaments wishing to develop “buy national” public procurement policies and promising to provide “British jobs for British workers”. International Public Procurement rules lay bare the lies of Brexit, and it is clear that the greatest threat to the United Kingdom regaining its place as a fully independent, sovereign Nation is the ongoing rise of Global Governance.

Source*

Related Topics:

Legal Documents in High Court Case Reveal anti-Brexit Strategy*

Global Power and the History of Trusts

The United States of Europe!

Financing the New World Order*

The Secretive Bank of England — Controlling the World’s Money Supply*

U.K. Taxpayers Subsidising World’s Largest Oil Companies to Exploit Its Own Natural Resources*

British Gov’t Silent on Secret E.U. Meetings with Lobbyists*

E.U. Passed Tax ID Numbers for Everyone*

War Criminal Blair to Eradicate European Culture to Create a United States of Europe*

U.K. Placing Justice Beyond Reach*

Multiple Paths to One World Government*

European Arrest Warrant Above Sovereignty*