A PATRIOT Act For Europe?

 

Mac Slavo
Activist Post
The irony is almost worse than 9/11.
Then, President Bush responded by stating, with bravado, that they attacked us because they hate our freedoms.
This time, the attack against the publication of satirical Mohammed cartoon, was not only an act of terrorism, but an attack on the spirit of free speech.
And the government response this time? After staging a photo op of world leaders, various heads of state have proposed new waves of surveillance and repressive attempts to ban encryption and violate the freedom of speech in communication devices through new spy policies and laws.

On Sunday, as more than 3 million people flooded the streets of Paris in support of the free speech principles that Charlie Hebdo embodied, a group of 12 European ministers issued a joint statement calling for internet service providers to more swiftly report and remove online material “that aims to incite hatred and terror.”

Establishing a framework to enhance police work and intelligence sharing concerning the actions of alleged terrorists and extremists, the joint statement from 12 European ministers and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder declares the intent to: “counter violent extremism” and “fight against radicalization, notably on the Internet,” in part through the “swift reporting [and removal] of material that aims to incite hatred and terror.” Meanwhile, it aims to beef up European border control, “step up the detection and screening of travel movements” and enhance law enforcement, particularly in “working to reduce the supply of illegal firearms throughout Europe.”

Although the statement takes a vow of respect and “scrupulous observance of fundamental freedoms, a forum for free expression, in full respect of the law,” it doesn’t hold much water with the focus on new surveillance and police powers to chill free speech in the name of fighting radicalization. It seems the terrorists have once again won before the fight has even begun.
The irony should be perfectly palpable, but instead leaders in Europe and the U.S. seem oblivious to the fact that they are, pound for pound, violating many more rights than the terrorists ever could… yet they are not exactly stopping and catching terrorists either. (As a side note, in case the Europeans don’t know, Eric Holder is a pretty poor partner in the effort to reduce the supply of illegal firearms, since he was caught deliberately arming Mexican drug cartels in the Fast and Furious scandal).
The spirit of freedom is hardly embodied by the leaders of the so-called “free world.”
As Ron Paul noted:

The mainstream media immediately decided that the shooting was an attack on free speech. Many in the US preferred this version of “they hate us because we are free,” which is the claim that President Bush made after 9/11. They expressed solidarity with the French and vowed to fight for free speech. But have these people not noticed that the First Amendment is routinely violated by the US government?

Another lesson from the attack is that the surveillance state that has arisen since 9/11 is very good at following, listening to, and harassing the rest of us–but is not very good at stopping terrorists.

Specifically, France has already proposed new terrorism-surveillance laws – despite have just passed legislation for new powers in November – while the Anglo powers are meeting to ramp up security and UK Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed ridiculous and draconian powers to breach encrypted communications.
Unfortunately, it is par for the course. Problem-reaction-solution.
Quite often, when attacks happen, fear sets in, and forces antithetical to freedom set in, attempting to control and ‘protect’ society, failing profoundly while trampling over society’s most cherished values. America lived through an entire decade of this nightmare after 9/11.  Jillian York, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, commented:

Nearly every major terrorist attack in the past couple of decades has been followed by new legislation of some kind. France just pushed through new anti-terror regulations in November, and the [prime minister] is already saying that more will be necessary. Where does it stop? These politicians haven’t demonstrated the need for more surveillance, yet it’s always their go-to ‘solution.’

Mass surveillance doesn’t only infringe on our privacy, but also our ability to speak freely. The knowledge, or even the perception of surveillance, can prompt writers to think twice before touching upon a given issue.

It seems that, egged on by the horror of terrorism, all the governments are capable of doing is more spying, surveillance, invasion of privacy and repression – even though it clearly doesn’t work. From the Verge:

“[I]nstead of trying to address problems with the existing expansive surveillance powers, governments merely see these crises and fearful times as an opportunity to simply to ask for more,” Mike Rispoli, spokesman for the London-based watchdog Privacy International, wrote in a blog post Tuesday. “Short of creating a society in which thoughts themselves are monitored and controlled by the State, no amount of surveillance powers endowed upon our governments can ensure that all acts of fanaticism and violence can be predicted and prevented.”

UK Prime Minister David Cameron actually proposed banning encryption as a response to the Hebdo Charlie attacks – and caught a wave of criticism from the tech savvy who now run the consumer and computing world.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government should be allowed to read encrypted messages on smartphone apps like WhatsApp and Snapchat, adding that the Paris attacks proved the need for greater government access. Experts say an outright ban on these apps wouldn’t be wise or even feasible, but privacy advocates say Cameron’s comments speak to larger, more troubling trends.

Chastised as being both ‘draconian’ and ‘dim-witted,’ Cameron’s proposed policy is noted as both “ill-thought out and scary” at the same time – a true government mix of “idiocy” and “draconian.” Cameron stated in his speech:

"In extremis, it has been possible to read someone’s letter, to listen to someone’s call, to mobile communications," Cameron said. “The question remains: are we going to allow a means of communications where it simply is not possible to do that? My answer to that question is: no, we must not.”

As the Guardian reported:

Independent computer security expert Graham Cluley said: “It’s crazy. Cameron is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that this is a sensible idea, and no it wouldn’t be possible to implement properly.”

Encryption is the backbone of security that allows modern banking, commerce and communication in the digital world.

Encryption is what protects your private details when you send your bank details to a server. It’s required for governments and companies when they store customer information, to protect it from hackers and others. And it’s built right in to whole hosts of messaging applications, including iMessage and WhatsApp.

Tech firms are obviously not going to do business without encryption, so they are instead making preparations to leave the UK if this becomes policy, or likewise, to stop doing business in the UK if British laws would keep global firms from operating as usual.

Eris Industries, which uses open-source cryptography, has said it is already making plans to leave the UK if the Conservative party is re-elected with this policy in its programme.

It is true that terrorists use encryption, much as in real life they use bank accounts, locks, money transfer services and public transport. If the presence of terrorists on a given service is reason enough to shut it down, we’ll find there’s really no form of civil society left to defend.

“We must avoid knee jerk reactions,” said Graham. “In particular, I am concerned about any compromising of effective encryption for consumers of online services.”

“Citizens, businesses, and nation states need to protect themselves. Internet companies are understandably offering their customers online services that are better encrypted following recent security incidents,” said Graham.

The Open Rights Group stated:

“Cameron’s plans appear dangerous, ill-thought out and scary,” said Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group. “Having the power to undermine encryption will have consequences for everyone’s personal security. It could affect not only our personal communications but also the security of sensitive information such as bank records, making us all more vulnerable to criminal attacks.”

Wow… that is some civil liberties blowback. Enough to take us back a few notches in the Internet era and make a visit to the dark ages.
You can read more from Mac Slavo at his site SHTFplan.com, where this first appeared.

A PATRIOT Act For Europe?
Activist
Fri, 16 Jan 2015 01:05:00 GMT

Obama amnesty to qualify 2 million illegal immigrants for tax breaks, benefits - Washington Times

Obama amnesty to qualify 2 million illegal immigrants for tax breaks, benefits - Washington Times



CBO estimate released as White House defends non-deportation order from states’ lawsuit

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 15, 2015

More than 2 million illegal immigrants will be approved for President Obama’s deportation amnesty over the next few years, and they will be eligible to collect Social Security and Medicarebenefits as well as claim a special tax break for low-income families, the Congressional Budget Office said in an analysis Thursday.



Mr. Obama predicted that up to 5 million illegal immigrants could be eligible for his amnesties, but the CBO numbers predict only 2.25 million will have signed up and been approved by 2017.



The estimate was released as the administration defended the law in a federal court in Texas on Thursday, asking a judge to reject a request by Texas and two dozen other states to halt the program even before it gets started.



SEE ALSO: Senate Republicans rebuff House ploy to reverse Obama amnesty



Judge Andrew S. Hanen, sitting in Brownsville, said he won’t rule before the end of the month. Applications for the first part of the amnesty are scheduled to begin in the middle of February.



“There aren’t any bad guys in this,” Judge Hanen told attorneys for both sides, according to The Brownsville Herald. He gave no indication of which way he is leaning in the thorny case, which is likely to determine Mr. Obama’s legacy on immigration.



Texas and its allies argue that Mr. Obama overstepped his legal bounds in November when he announced a program to halt deportations for illegal immigrant parents who have legal resident or U.S. citizen children, and to expand a 2012 amnesty for illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.



AUDIO: Stephen Dinan with Andy Parks



To win, the states first must prove that they were injured by the amnesty, which would give them “standing” to sue. Then they must prove that Mr. Obama’s actions are either unconstitutional because they try to rewrite the laws, which is Congress’ job, or else they are official policies that should have been submitted to the public for comment and revisions before they were enacted.



Administration attorneys told Judge Hanen that Mr. Obama isn’t rewriting law, but rather deciding whom to prosecute under it based on his powers of prosecutorial discretion. The attorneys say presidents going back to the 1950s have used similar powers to halt deportations, albeit on smaller scales.



The Obama administration said if it declares most illegal immigrants off limits for deportation, it will be easier to pursue the recent illegal immigrants and the serious felons who won’t qualify for the leniency.



Mexican officials, hoping to help their citizens stay in the U.S., began issuing birth certificates at consulates Thursday.



Mexicans make up the majority of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S., though Central Americans may be rivaling them among newcomers, according to statistics.



Although Judge Hanen didn’t tip his hand about his thinking, administration supporters fear the worst. They point to a striking order he issued in December 2013, at the beginning of the surge of Central American children crossing the border, that accused the Homeland Security Department of being complicit in human trafficking.



Judge Hanen said because agents would take children caught at the border to their parents living illegally in the U.S., without trying to deport either of them, the government was in effect doing the job of smugglers and encouraging others to make the same journey.



“Clearly, the plaintiffs filed their suit in Brownsville for one reason — a friendly judge,” said America’s Voice Education Fund, which lobbies for immigrants’ rights.



Three self-identified illegal immigrants, who filed as “Jane Doe” litigants, asked Judge Hanen on Thursday to be allowed to join the lawsuit in defense of the president’s policies.



The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed on their behalf, said they “could face deportation and separation from their families and their communities” if the president’s amnesty is struck down.



They are three of the millions who could qualify, but the CBOreport suggested that many of those who are eligible for amnesty won’t apply.



All told, the budget analysts predicted that 1.5 million will have been approved under the amnesty for illegal immigrant parents by 2017, while 750,000 illegal immigrants will have been approved under the modified 2012 amnesty for Dreamers, who are illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.



The total illegal immigrant population in the U.S. is estimated to be 11 million to 12 million people. The number dropped at the beginning of the Obama administration but has been ticking up in recent years.



Most illegal immigrants who do not qualify for the amnesty are unlikely to be deported under the guidelines Mr. Obama issued in November, which call for only the most serious criminals to be deported.



On Wednesday, the House voted to insist that convicted sex criminals be included in that list of crimes serious enough to demand deportation.



Those who are granted amnesty are also entitled to work permits, allowing them to compete legally for jobs. Texas and its allied states argued that those who get the amnesty are also eligible for some state benefits and services, such as a driver’s license and, in some states, concealed weapons permits or health care.



The CBO also said those covered by the temporary amnesty, which the government refers to as “deferred action,” will be eligible for some federal benefits.



“Because they are lawfully present during the period of their deferred status, they are eligible to receive Medicare and Social Security benefits if they meet the programs’ requirements,” theCBO said in its report. “In addition, those individuals who are approved for deferred action and receive work authorization have Social Security numbers and therefore can claim the earned income tax credit if they qualify. They are ineligible for other federal benefit programs.”

Obama Terror Cells In The US

George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action - Washington Times

George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action - Washington Times



Liberal billionaire gave at least $33 million in one year to groups that emboldened activists

By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 14, 2015





There’s a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it’s not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It’s not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.



Rather, it’s liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.



Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.



PHOTOS: Eye-popping excuses in American political scandals



In all, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups that emboldened the grass-roots, on-the-ground activists in Ferguson, according to the most recent tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations.



The financial tether from Mr. Soros to the activist groups gave rise to a combustible protest movement that transformed a one-day criminal event in Missouri into a 24-hour-a-day national cause celebre.

George Soros, chairman, Soros Fund Management, speaks during a forum “Charting A ... more >



“Our DNA includes a belief that having people participate in government is indispensable to living in a more just, inclusive, democratic society,” said Kenneth Zimmerman, director of Mr. Soros‘ Open Society Foundations’ U.S. programs, in an interview with The Washington Times. “Helping groups combine policy, research [and] data collection with community organizing feels very much the way our society becomes more accountable.”







PHOTOS: George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action



No strings attached



Mr. Zimmerman said OSF has been giving to these types of groups since its inception in the early ‘90s, and that, although groups involved in the protests have been recipients of Mr. Soros‘ grants, they were in no way directed to protest at the behest of Open Society.



“The incidents, whether in Staten Island, Cleveland or Ferguson, were spontaneous protests — we don’t have the ability to control or dictate what others say or choose to say,” Mr. Zimmermansaid. “But these circumstances focused people’s attention — and it became increasingly evident to the social justice groups involved that what a particular incident like Ferguson represents is a lack of accountability and a lack of democratic participation.”



Soros-sponsored organizations helped mobilize protests in Ferguson, building grass-roots coalitions on the ground backed by a nationwide online and social media campaign.



Other Soros-funded groups made it their job to remotely monitor and exploit anything related to the incident that they could portray as a conservative misstep, and to develop academic research and editorials to disseminate to the news media to keep the story alive.



The plethora of organizations involved not only shared Mr. Soros‘ funding, but they also fed off each other, using content and buzzwords developed by one organization on another’s website, referencing each other’s news columns and by creating a social media echo chamber of Facebook “likes” and Twitter hashtags that dominated the mainstream media and personal online newsfeeds.



Buses of activists from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference in Chicago; from the Drug Policy Alliance, Make the Road New York and Equal Justice USA from New York; from Sojourners, the Advancement Project and Center for Community Change in Washington; and networks from the Gamaliel Foundation — all funded in part by Mr. Soros — descended on Ferguson starting in August and later organized protests and gatherings in the city until late last month.



Broaden issue focus



All were aimed at keeping the media’s attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes — not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August.

George Soros funds Ferguson protests, hopes to spur civil action

Liberal billionaire gave at least $33 million in one year to groups that emboldened activists

“I went to Ferguson in a quest to be in solidarity and stand with the young organizers and affirm their leadership,” said Kassandra Frederique, policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance, which was founded by Mr. Soros, and which receives $4 million annually from his foundation. She traveled to Ferguson in October.

“We recognized this movement is similar to the work we’re doing at DPA,” said Ms. Frederique. “The war on drugs has always been to operationalize, institutionalize and criminalize people of color. Protecting personal sovereignty is a cornerstone of the work we do and what this movement is all about.”

Ms. Frederique works with Opal Tometi, co-creator of #BlackLivesMatter — a hashtag that was developed after the killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida — and helped promote it on DPA’s news feeds. Ms. Tometi runs the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, a group to which Mr. Soros gave $100,000 in 2011, according to the most recent of his foundation’s tax filings.

“I think #BlackLivesMatter’s success is because of organizing. This was created after Trayvon Martin, and there has been sustained organizing and conversations about police violence since then,” said Ms. Frederique. “Its explosion into the mainstream recently is because it connects all the dots at a time when everyone was lost for words. ‘Black Lives Matter’ is liberating, unapologetic and leaves no room for confusion.”

#BlackLivesMatter

With the backing of national civil rights organizations and Mr. Soros‘ funding, “Black Lives Matter” grew from a hashtag into a social media phenomenon, including a #BlackLivesMatter bus tour and march in September.

“More than 500 of us have traveled from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities to support the people of Ferguson and help turn a local moment into a national movement,” wrote Akiba Solomon, a journalist at Colorlines, describing the event.

Colorlines is an online news site that focuses on race issues and is published by Race Forward, a group that received $200,000 from Mr. Soros’s foundation in 2011. Colorlines has published tirelessly on the activities in Ferguson and heavily promoted the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag and activities.

At the end of the #BlackLivesMatter march, organizers met with civil rights groups like the Organization for Black Struggle and Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment to strategize their operations moving forward, Ms. Solomon wrote. OBS and MORE are also funded by Mr. Soros.

Mr. Soros gave $5.4 million to Ferguson and Staten Island grass-roots efforts last year to help “further police reform, accountability and public transparency,” the Open Society Foundations said in a blog post in December. About half of those funds were earmarked to Ferguson, with the money primarily going to OBS and MORE, the foundation said.

OBS and MORE, along with the Dream Defenders, established the “Hands Up Coalition” — another so-called “grass-roots” organization in Missouri, whose name was based on now-known-to-be-false claims that Brown had his hands up before being shot. The Defenders were built to rally support and awareness for the Trayvon Martin case and were funded by the Tides Foundation, another recipient of Soros cash.

Hands Up Coalition has made it its mission to recruit and organize youth nationwide to start local events in their communities — trying to take Ferguson nationwide.

Years and weekends of ‘resistance’

Hands Up Coalition has dubbed 2015 as “The Year of Resistance,” and its outreach program strongly resembles how President Obama’s political action committee — Organizing for Action — rallies youth for its causes, complete with a similarly designed Web page and call to action.

Mr. Soros, who made his fortune betting against the British pound during the currency crisis in the early ‘90s, is a well-known supporter of progressive-liberal causes and is a political donor to Mr. Obama’s campaigns. He committed $1 million to Mr. Obama’s super PAC in 2012.

Mr. Soros‘ two largest foundations manage almost $3 billion in assets per year, according to their most recent respective tax returns. The Foundation to Promote Open Society managed $2.2 billion in assets in 2011, and his Open Society Institute managed $685.9 million in 2012.

In comparison, David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers whom liberals often call a threat to democracy — and worse — for their conservative influence, had $308 million tied up in their foundation and institute in 2011.

One of the organizations that Mr. Soros funds, and which fueled the demonstrations in Ferguson, is the Gamaliel Foundation, a network of grass-roots, interreligious and interracial organizations. Mr. Obama started his career as a community organizer at a Gamaliel affiliate in Chicago.

The Rev. Traci Blackmon of Christ the King United Church of Christ in Florissant, Missouri, which is part of the Gamaliel network, said in one of the group’s webinars that clergy involved with Gamaliel must be “protectors of the narrative” of what happened in Ferguson.

The Gamaliel affiliate in St. Louis — Metropolitan Congregations United — organized the “Weekend of Resistance” in October, in which clergy members from around the nation were called to come to Ferguson to protest.

Clergy involvement

Representatives of Sojourners, a national evangelical Christian organization committed “to faith in action for social justice,” attended the weekend. The group received $150,000 from Mr. Soros in 2011.

Clergy representatives from the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference, where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright serves as a trustee, also showed up. Mr. Wright was Mr. Obama’s pastor in Chicago before some of his racially charged sermons, including the phrase “God damn America,” forced Mr. Obama to distance himself. SDPC received $250,000 from Mr. Soros in 2011.

During Gamaliel’s weekend protest event, Sunday was deemed “Hands Up Sabbath,” where clergy were asked to speak out about racial issues, using packets and talking points prepared for them by another religion-based community organizing group, PICO.

PICO is also supported by the Open Society Foundations, according to its website.

The weekend concluded Monday, when clergy members were asked to lead in acts of civil disobedience, prompting many of them to go to jail in the hopes of gaining media attention.

It worked, as imagery of clergy members down on their hands and knees in front of police dominated the mainstream news cycle that day — two months after Brown’s shooting.

“After the initial shooting, we were all hit in the face with how blatant racism really is,” said the Rev. Susan Sneed, a Gamaliel organizer who helped stage the October weekend event. “We began quickly hearing from our other affiliates offering support.”

At the end of August, Gamaliel had a large organizational meeting to discuss its Ferguson strategy, Ms. Sneed said.

It had its affiliates in New York and California handling the St. Louis Twitter feed and Facebook page, helped in correcting any inaccurate stories in the press and promoted their events, she said.

“When we started marching down the street, saying, ‘hands up, don’t shoot,’ those images reached all over the world,” said Ms. Sneed, referring to the moment she realized Ferguson was going to become a movement. “The Twitter images, Facebook posts of burning buildings — it’s everywhere, and the imagery is powerful. And the youth — the youth is so engaged. They’ve found a voice in Ferguson.”

National activists descend

Larry Fellows III, 29, a Missouri native, did find his voice in the chaos of Ferguson with the help of outside assistance backed by Mr. Soros.

Mr. Fellows is co-founder of the Millennial Activists United, a key source of video and stories developed in Ferguson by youth activists used to inspire other groups nationally.

Mr. Fellows explained how he started his organization in an interview with the American Civil Liberties Union (another Soros-backed entity that sent national representatives to Missouri) in November.

“Initially, it would just be that we would show up for protests, and the next day we’d clean up the streets. A lot of the same people were out at the protests and going out to lunch and talking about what was happening. That became a cycle until a lot of us figured out we needed to have a strategy,” Mr. Fellows explained to the ACLU, which posted the interview in its blog.

“Then a lot of organizers from across the country started to come in to help us do the planning and do the strategizing. That helped us start doing it on our own and planning out actions and what our narratives were going to be,” he said.

MAU has listed on its website that it has partnered with Gamaliel network churches. They’ve also received training on civil disobedience from the Advancement Project — which was given a $500,000 grant from Mr. Soros in 2013 “to build a fair and just, multi-racial democracy in America through litigation, community organizing support, public policy reform, and strategic communications,” according to the Foundation’s website.

The Advancement Project, based in Washington, also arranged the meeting between community organizers in Ferguson and Mr. Obama last month to brief him on the situation in Ferguson and to set up a task force that examines trust between police and minority communities.

In addition, the Advancement Project has also dedicated some of its staff to lead organizations in Ferguson, like the Don’t Shoot Coalition, another grass-roots group that preaches the same message, links to the same Facebook posts and “likes” the same articles as DPA, ACLU, Hands Up Coalition, OBS, MORE and others.

Unhealthy Food Cravings are a Sign of Mineral Deficiencies - Healthy Holistic LivingHealthy Holistic Living

Unhealthy Food Cravings are a Sign of Mineral Deficiencies - Healthy Holistic LivingHealthy Holistic Living
Unhealthy Food Cravings are a Sign of Mineral Deficiencies




Most of us have, at one point in our lives, experienced intense cravings for unhealthy foods. Whether it be for chocolate, donuts, salty snacks or refined carbs, our bodies appear to want them — and we’re often all too happy to submit. There’s just one problem: Eating these foods doesn’t seem to end the cravings. What is going on here? Are our bodies playing a cruel joke on us? Well, not quite.

Science now understands that these cravings are a sign that your body needs certain minerals that can be found in unhealthy foods but are best acquired from whole foods. Indeed, only by acquiring minerals from natural sources, in which all nutrients are optimized for superior absorption, can we hope to finally end the cravings that plague our lives.
Chocolate: magnesium

Chocolate is the most commonly-reported craving in the Western world, so it shouldn’t surprise us that it is linked to a nutrient in which a huge number of us are unknowingly deficient: magnesium. According to recent statistics, up to 80 percent of Americans are lacking in this essential macromineral, which is needed for over 300 biochemical reactions in the body, including reactions that relate to relaxation. In fact, magnesium is nicknamed the “relaxation mineral,” since anxiety, irritability, insomnia and high blood pressure are its main deficiency symptoms. This is the reason why magnesium-deficient people temporarily feel better after eating a chocolate bar: the small amounts of magnesium in it (derived from its cacao content) relaxes them. But, of course, there are far healthier sources of magnesium than processed chocolate. Dark leafy greens, seeds and nuts, fish, beans and blackstrap molasses are all excellent sources of magnesium and will help end chocolate cravings.
Sugary foods: chromium, carbon, phosphorus, sulfur and/or tryptophan

The second most commonly reported craving in the West is high-sugar foods. This is the most complex craving to pin down, since deficiencies in no less than five nutrients could be causing it: chromium (helps to regulate blood sugar levels), carbon (one of the elements from which sugar is made), phosphorus (helps the body produce energy), sulfur (helps remove toxins) and tryptophan (a serotonin regulator). Therefore, the best way to end incessant sugar cravings is to simply improve your diet, which will help remineralize your body in all areas.




Refined carbohydrates: nitrogen

A craving for refined carbs like pasta and bread signals a deficiency in nitrogen. Nitrogen compounds are an essential component of nucleic acids and protein, and deficiencies in them can result in malnutrition due to a related protein deficiency. Therefore, if you find that you’re craving a lot of refined carbohydrates, add more nitrogen-rich foods to your diet. Most foods contain nitrogen in organic or non-organic form, but fruits and vegetables are especially rich in it.
Other cravings

The following cravings are less common than those detailed above, but are still regularly reported in today’s society:

Oily and fatty foods: You are deficient in calcium. Good sources of calcium include raw milk, cheese, turnip greens and broccoli.

Ice: You are deficient in iron. Eat more iron-rich foods like leafy greens, meat, blackstrap molasses and sea vegetables.

Salty foods: You are deficient in chloride and/or silicon. Try adding more fish, nuts and seeds to your diet.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ruled.me

http://eatwiseteens.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.tandurust.com

http://science.naturalnews.com

About the author:
Michael Ravensthorpe is an independent writer whose research interests include nutrition, alternative medicine, and bushcraft. He is the creator of the website, Spiritfoods, through which he promotes the world’s healthiest foods.

» CDC Admits New Flu Shot Protects Less Than 1 in 4 Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» CDC Admits New Flu Shot Protects Less Than 1 in 4 Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



CDC ADMITS NEW FLU SHOT PROTECTS LESS THAN 1 IN 4

Despite ineffectiveness, media still urges public to take vaccine







Image Credits: Wiki Commons





by ADAN SALAZAR | INFOWARS.COM | JANUARY 15, 2015





As flu season kicks into high gear, the US’ foremost health authority, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is coming clean about the current flu vaccine’s lack of efficacy.



A recent study released by the CDC regarding seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness found the chemical cocktail concocted to battle this year’s strain to be only 23 percent effective; in other words it will protect less than 1 in 4 people.



“Its lack of punch is being blamed on multiple strains of the H3N2 virus that are circulating and making people sick, but that were not included in this season’s vaccine,” reports Agence France-Press.



“That’s one of the worst performances in the last decade…” according to the Associated Press. “In the best flu seasons, the vaccines were 50 to 60 percent effective.”





AFP has a breakdown of how the vaccine performed in different age groups, noting that it mostly “helped” younger, healthier people:





This season, vaccine effectiveness has been highest — 26 percent — in those aged six months through 17 years.



Vaccine effectiveness was just 12 percent for ages 18 to 49 years and 14 percent for people age 50 years and older, the CDC said.



Last month, the CDC also issued an advisory to physicians warning that this season’s flu vaccine was an incompatible match for the circulating Influenza A (H3N2) strain, meaning the agency knew shots which 145.4 million people received were doing little to nothing in the way of fighting the flu.



However, despite the lousy odds of it actually doing anything to combat the flu, the CDC and its mainstream media propaganda parrots have still gone on to promote vaccination, ludicrously blaming flu outbreaks on people who refuse to inject themselves with vaccines known to contain toxic adjuvants such as thimerosal, a mercury-containing compound.



RELATED: CDC Sends Fact Sheet Linking Polio Vaccine to Cancer Down the Memory Hole



Instead, the public gets watered down headlines that try to put a positive spin on the 23 percent figure, like this one from NPR: “This Year’s Flu Vaccine Is Pretty Wimpy, But Can Still Help,” and this one from the Washington Post: “CDC: Flu Vaccine Only 23 Percent Effective This Season, But Still Better Than Nothing.”



Notice the articles contain no mention of the scores of victims that incur life-altering, and sometimes lethal, adverse reactions as a result of taking the shot, such as three-year-old Ayzlee McCarthy, an Iowa tot that died soon after receiving an injection.

Or the numerous lives lost during the clinical trial phases of vaccine development, like the 23 who died after receiving high doses of the Fluzone vaccine, up from only 7 deaths earlier this year.

“No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola. “Unfortunately, the partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is getting closer and closer. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.”

For a list of vaccine inserts and information click here.

Law Library of Congress Study: Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions

 

The following study on police armaments and militarization in several international jurisdictions was authored by researchers at the Law Library of Congress and released in September 2014.

Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions

• 105 pages
• September 2014

This report examines the weapons and equipment generally at the disposal of law enforcement officers in several countries around the world. It also provides, for each of these countries, a brief overview of the rules governing the use of weapons by law enforcement officers. Precise and reliable information on the weapons and equipment of some countries’ police forces was often difficult to find. Nevertheless, certain interesting facts and patterns emerged from the Law Library’s research.

II. Centralized and Decentralized Police Forces

Some countries examined in this report have a very unified and centralized police force. In the Netherlands, for example, a recent reform combined the former twenty-five regional forces into a single national police agency. South African and Israeli police forces are also organized at the national level. Many other countries, however, have several layers of police, with separate organizations at the national and local levels. Mexico, Argentina, Canada, and Australia, for example, have national-level police organizations as well as separate police bodies at the provincial, state, or territorial level. Estonia, Italy, and France have a national police, but some municipalities in these countries also have their own police forces.

In countries that have multilayered law enforcement, there can sometimes be significant differences between the national and the lower-level forces’ equipment. In France, for example, municipal police officers have access to a much more restricted array of weapons than members of the national force. This seems to be the exception rather than the rule, however. In most jurisdictions examined here, it appears that regional forces have access to roughly the same types of weapons and equipment as their national counterparts.

III. Police Weapons

The basic individual police weapon in almost all the countries examined is the handgun. The United Kingdom, China, and New Zealand stand out as exceptions, as their police officers do not routinely carry firearms. Even in those countries, however, police officers have access to firearms to be used when necessary.

In addition to handguns, police officers often carry nonlethal devices such as batons, pepper spray or tear gas, and Tasers. Almost all of the police departments examined here appear to have access to rifles and/or shotguns, even if these are generally not carried by officers in their day-to-day functions. Many, including the Russian, Dutch, Canadian, and Estonian police, also have access to automatic weapons such as submachine guns.

Most countries equip at least one major law enforcement organization with armored vehicles and other types of military equipment. In contrast to the United States, where military involvement in civilian affairs is limited by statute, some countries have a major law enforcement body that is actually part of the military. France’s Gendarmerie nationale, for example, is a national-level law enforcement body that is part of the French military. The Netherlands has a similar corps called the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, Spain has its Civil Guard, and Portugal has its National Republican Guard. It appears that these corps generally have access to heavier weaponry and more military-grade equipment than these countries’ civilian law enforcement agencies. French gendarmes, for example, may sometimes carry the French army’s standard assault rifle, and they have a number of wheeled armored personnel carriers at their disposal. The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee has a fleet of Lenco BEAR and BearCat armored vehicles. Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal Troops are trained and equipped in much the same way as regular military forces.

Military police corps are not the only ones to have such heavy weapons and equipment, however. South African police forces have a number of armored vehicles, as do Australian state and territorial police forces, and some local Canadian police forces. Surveillance drones are used for law enforcement purposes in Portugal and the Netherlands. Mexican law restricts the use of certain equipment to the military, but Mexico’s Department of Defense may authorize law enforcement agencies to use such weapons. New Zealand’s police force does not appear to have its own fleet of armored vehicles, but it has an agreement with New Zealand’s armed forces by which it has access to the Army’s Light Armored Vehicles when necessary.

IV. Rules on the Use of Police Weapons

While certain basic principles appear to be universal among the countries studied in this report, there are notable differences in their rules on the use of police weapons, and especially on the use of firearms. One clear commonality is that police officers are almost always required to give warning before using a firearm, except if there is no time or if giving such a warning would cause more serious and dangerous consequences. Guidelines issued in Brazil in 2010 appear to go further in that they require police officers to use at least two nonlethal weapons before using a firearm, but there does not seem to be such a requirement in other countries.

In addition to this point, all of the countries in this report ostensibly follow the basic principles that the use of force must be necessary and proportional to the threat being countered. The Council of Europe has established a nonbinding Code on Police Ethics, which recommends that police only be authorized to use force when strictly necessary, and that such force be proportionate to the objectives pursued. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights also establishes the principle that police may only use deadly force when absolutely necessary. Non-European countries appear to follow the same basic principles as well. The appreciation of what is “necessary” and what kind of threats warrant the use of potential deadly force varies considerably, however.

In some countries, such as Brazil, France, and Spain, police officers may use their firearms only in self-defense or defense of others, and only if it is proportional to the threat.1 Some other jurisdictions give their police forces somewhat more leeway for the use of firearms. South Africa authorizes the use of deadly force not only when a suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the police officer or another person, but also when there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime in which he inflicted serious bodily harm or threatened to do so, and no other options are available for making an arrest. Similarly, Australia allows the use of deadly force in cases of self-defense and defense of others, or to stop someone who has been called on to surrender and who refuses, if that person cannot be apprehended in any other manner.
Russian law gives an exhaustive list of circumstances in which the use of firearms by law enforcement officers is authorized. This list includes self-defense and the protection of others, the apprehension of fleeing criminals, and the suppression of riots. Chinese law also provides a list of fifteen types of circumstances where police may use firearms, including preventing acts of violence, robbery of dangerous goods, sabotage of certain facilities, or resisting arrest for certain crimes.

In many countries, including Brazil, Portugal, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, any incident in which a police officer shoots someone automatically triggers an investigation or the requirement that a detailed report be made.

V. Controversies

Issues revolving around police weapons and equipment have been the root of debates in most of the countries examined here. Controversies range from disagreements over the use of drones by law enforcement in Netherlands, to the question of whether New Zealand police officers should routinely carry pistols. In addition, many countries have seen incidents where law enforcement officers were involved in controversial shootings of unarmed individuals.

…

Law Library of Congress Study: Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions
Public Intelligence
Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:19:53 GMT

» Father of Man Arrested in Alleged ISIS Plot Says His Son Didn’t Have Money to Buy Weapons Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

» Father of Man Arrested in Alleged ISIS Plot Says His Son Didn’t Have Money to Buy Weapons Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!



FATHER OF MAN ARRESTED IN ALLEGED ISIS PLOT SAYS HIS SON DIDN’T HAVE MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS

Speculation money for M-15 semi-automatics came from FBI





by INFOWARS.COM | JANUARY 14, 2015



The father of the man arrested by the FBI on Wednesday and accused of plotting an attack on lawmakers told CNN his son was entrapped by the FBI.

Tammy Mutasa @TammyMutasaWLWT

Follow

Managers at Point Blank tell me terror suspect #ChrisCornell paid about $1900 in CASH for the rifles @WLWT

John Cornell said his son Christopher, who lived at home with his parents, did not have $1,900 to spend on two M-15 semi-automatic rifles and 600 rounds of ammunition.

“I think Chris was coerced into a lot of this,” the elder Cornell said.

“He very seldom left the house,” he said, adding that his son didn’t own a car. “There’s no way he could have carried out any kind of terrorist plot.”

WCPO        ✔ @WCPO

Follow

PHOTO: MUGSHOT of Christopher Lee Cornell, who is being held at the Butler County Jail. http://bit.ly/1x1Vn6B 

4:53 PM - 14 Jan 2015

CIA Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”

 

Melissa Melton
Activist Post
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
That creepy quote above has been widely attributed to Former CIA Director William Casey.
Casey was the 13th CIA Director from 1981 until he left in January 1987. He died not long after of a brain tumor in May 1987. Dead men tell no tales, as they say.
But did William Casey really say this quote?
The quote itself has been passed around extensively on the Internet, and some people claim Casey never really said it because the only main source it traces back to is late political researcher and radio show host Mae Brussell.
Brussell was the host of the radio show Dialogue: Conspiracy. She got her start when, as a radio show guest, she questioned the official JFK assassination story and the Warren Commission Hearings by suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only person involved in Kennedy’s murder. Perhaps the propagandized label of “conspiracy theorist” is the reason why people question the quote Brussell often repeated.

However, Brussell is not the only person that can be attributed to this sharing quote.
Someone posted this meme on Quora back in 2013 with the note, “A disclaimer: I just like Quorans debunking or showing the stupidity behind some of the worst FB memes.”

This is a new trend lately, people trying to debunk old (and most especially, establishment damaging) quotes.
This time, however, someone who claims to have been there when Casey said it showed up to validate the quote:

I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.

Barbara Honegger

Not only does Honegger claim he said it, but apparently he said it in response to what he saw as his goal as CIA Director!
This statement was further backed by an email posted by Quora user Greg Smith from Honegger regarding the quote which is consistent and apparently prompted her to tell the story above:

Seriously — I personally was the Source for that William Casey quote.  He said it at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House which I attended, and I immediately told my close friend and political godmother Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who then went public with it without naming the source…

So there you go. Guess it boils down to he said she said, except when she says it, it’s because she was actually there…
The year 1981 was an interesting one for Director Casey. He just so happened to be under investigation and fighting to keep his new job over various seedy dealings that came to light; among them were claims he approved a plan to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to install a shadow government. (Oh I know, our government would never do that, would they?)
The agency’s plan, according to an article in the July 27, 1981 Gettysburg Times, involved toppling Qaddafi via what else?
Disinfo:

Newsweek Magazine reported the covert operation was designed to overthrow Khadafy through a ‘disinformation’ campaign to embarrass him, creation of a counter government to challenge his leadership and a paramilitary campaign.

(Wow. A lot of that sounds eerily familiar… 2011, anyone?)

That same year, investigative journalist Jack Anderson published this piece in the September 22, 1981 Santa Cruz Sentinel discussing the troubling CIA disinformation campaign being waged against Americans:

Anderson points out the CIA’s “triple assault on the public’s right to know” included 1) trying to shut off channels of information to the electorate, 2) seeking criminal penalties against reporters whose stories might identify CIA operatives, and the third which Anderson called most troubling, 3) spreading “disinformation” to news agencies.
And who else does Anderson specifically call out in this disinfo campaign but new CIA Director William Casey:

Now along comes Bill Casey, the doddering CIA director, with the argument that the government has the right to mislead the public by planting phony stories in the press.

Oh really? So the good director not only talked about his disinformation campaign but actually argued for the government’s right to wage it against the American people?
The plan involved getting around the ban on CIA operations on domestic soil by planting disinfo stories in foreign news outlets that were routinely picked up by American mainstream media agencies. Anderson also points out the various rumors and false stories going around surrounding the goings on in Libya at the time…
The bottom line here is, if anyone in our government was going to make the above disinformation statement and specifically in 1981, all available evidence points to no better person who would have likely said it than Casey.
Finally on an aside, there seems to be this mission lately to memory hole quotes or muddy the water about who said what and change history.
In this particular instance, someone who was there when William Casey said the line in question and claims to have literally heard the words come out of the man’s mouth with her own ears as he said it is vouching that this quote is true.
Then again, this is the same agency on record behind the government’s MKUltra mind control program, an illegal project in which the CIA experimented on Americans for over two decades (that we know about) to manipulate mental states and brain function with everything from drugs to microwaves — the kind of stuff DARPA is openly working on today — all of which makes the piddly quote in question here seem like mere child’s play by comparison.
Even so, people still went into the Quora thread afterwards to claim — with absolutely no evidence whatsoever as they were not personally there — the quote is false.
So, in a bitter twist of the saddest irony possible, it would seem the contents of the quote itself are also true.
Melissa Melton is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free.

CIA Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”
Activist
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:19:00 GMT

Activist Post: Unity Rally in Paris Photo Op + Free Speech Hypocrisy Controversy

Activist Post: Unity Rally in Paris Photo Op + Free Speech Hypocrisy Controversy