10 Preposterous Examples That Orwell’s 1984 Police State Is Alive & Well

Think

TheBreakaway | BreakawayConciousness
Zy Marquiez
March 24, 2017

There has been an undercurrent of corruption growing in certain sections of Big Government.  Even Orwell might be shocked by such government overreach.

For America being a country that’s supposed to be the paragon of Freedom, one must wonder askance about the developments that have taken place below.  Yes, not all cops carry out such overreach, but the one’s that do should be called out for it.

The fact that such ludicrous things even happen show something is amiss, and the fact that the mainstream media doesn’t cover these instances should be a clue.

#1:  One would think water, that thing that comes from rain, would be free.  Apparently not.  An Oregon man was forced to destroy his pond in a clear example of downright insanity.

#2:  Donating food and helping others is a great thing.  It is a virtuous act.  So why is it that in Florida Activists that were carrying out a “Food Not Bombs” were arrested for feeding the homeless – AGAIN?  So much for land of the Free.

#3:  Self sufficiency is something America used to be a pioneer in.  In fact, our ancestors thrived off of it.  This is one area that most modern individuals lack, and lack enormously in modern times.  So, one would figure that when someone does strive to become self sufficient, they should be applauded, no?  Say, you want to make natural products – that sounds like a good idea doesn’t it?  Recently, an Amish farmer faces 68 years in prison for theft murder making natural products.  Let that one sink in.

#4:  In one place, walking your child home from school and driving while caffeinated are now felony crimes.  No more comment.

#5:   Police are even being caught not uploading body cam footage.  One has to wonder why they’re not doing their job, especially when they work ostensibly to help the public.  It’s ironic because that very footage they need to upload is the very footage that will help in keeping them accountable to the public.

#6:  Police have also been caught spying on journalists attempting to uncover leaks.

#7:  The police state is escalating so such levels that merely filming the protests for the pipeline protest can get you facing 45 years in prison.

#8:  In Florida, again, residents are even being fined for growing vegetables on their own property.

#9:  Let’s think outside the box now.  When is the last time you heard of someone arrested for dancing?  No, really, for dancing.  What follows in the video in the link is disturbing considering nothing wrong was taking place.  This could have easily happened to me, any of my friends, perhaps you, or heaven knows anyone else.  Even those recording the video speak out against this glaring example of a police state.

#10:  Victoria Bloch explains here that she got arrested for selling products at a farmers market.  To watch her interview please click on the link.

As we can gather, a few of these examples target self-sufficiency.  Becoming self sufficiency is one of the greatest acts of rebellion and individual can carry out, because the individual ceases to be a cash cow for the system and that allows for greater latitude through life and finances.

It’s vital to realize what is taking place, because the above examples are not the only ones that showcase the growing Police State presence in America.

While it might seem ludicrous, and some of these very people would have never in a million years thought the above circumstances could ever happen, it has happened.  People need to find out, because if these issues do not get exposed they will never stop and only grow unabated.

Freedom requires responsibility.  And if we are to enjoy those Freedoms we have, we need to be cognizant so we can act responsibly.

Have courage, stand up for what is right, even if you stand alone.

Sometimes, all it takes is one person to change the tide of life.

Let’s each strive to become that person and bring about resounding change.

The future either flourishes with us, or dwindles with us.  It’s our choice.

Each of us individually should strive to make that choice a great one.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.
___________________________________________________________
About The Author:

Zy Marquiez is an avid book reviewer, researcher, an open-minded skeptic, yogi, humanitarian, and freelance writer who studies regularly subjects like Consciousness, Education, Creativity, The Individual, Ancient History & Ancient Civilizations, Forbidden Archaeology, Big Pharma, Alternative Health, Space, Geoengineering, Social Engineering, Propaganda, and much more.

His own personal blog is BreakawayConsciousnessBlog.wordpress.com where his personal work is shared, while TheBreakaway.wordpress.com serves as a media portal which mirrors vital information usually ignored by mainstream press, but still highly crucial to our individual understanding of various facets of the world.

What Everyone Should Know About the New Quarantine Regulation


Source: TheDailyBell.com
March 22, 2017

Imagine men in bleach white bio suits with medical masks show up at your door. You are suspected of carrying a communicable disease. You will now be arrested and held without due process, indefinitely.

The government could do this any day.

They have the “authority”. They have the personnel. They have the funding. Now all they need is the excuse.

The Authority

The federal government claims the right to quarantine anyone who they suspect has or has come into contact with a communicable disease.

On January 19th of this year, a regulation was passed by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The regulation is meant to allow the HHS and other departments of the federal government to stop the spread of contagious diseases, like Ebola or bird flu. But the regulation is obscure enough to be a serious threat to liberty.

Because the government does not consider quarantine an arrest, those being detained are not afforded the same rights and due process that criminals are supposed to get through the U.S. Justice system.

Apprehension and detention of persons with quarantinable communicable diseases.

(a) The Director may authorize the apprehension, medical examination, quarantine, isolation, or conditional release of any individual for the purpose of preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of quarantinable communicable diseases, as specified by Executive Order, based upon a finding that:

(1) The individual is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage and is moving or about to move from a State into another State; or

(2) The individual is reasonably believed to be infected with a quarantinable communicable disease in a qualifying stage and constitutes a probable source of infection to other individuals who may be moving from a State into another State.

That pretty much covers everyone, in a sly little trick to make this regulation somehow apply to interstate commerce. Anyone living in America risks coming into contact with someone who might physically move into another state.

And a person must simply be “reasonably believed” to be infected or have come into contact with an infection, which again is a very low standard that could easily apply to almost anyone who has recently gone out in public. Even when they define “reasonably believed,” the CDC and HHS use obscure language so that the definition could basically fit anyone.

Reasonably believed to be infected, as applied to an individual, means specific articulable facts upon which a public health officer could reasonably draw the inference that an individual has been exposed, either directly or indirectly, to the infectious agent that causes a quarantinable communicable disease, as through contact with an infected person or an infected person’s bodily fluids, a contaminated environment, or through an intermediate host or vector, and that as a consequence of the exposure, the individual is or may be harboring in the body the infectious agent of that quarantinable communicable disease.

Indirectly being exposed to a contaminated environment could get you quarantined. That doesn’t sound like a very strict standard, nor does it sound like a well defined parameter for apprehension. Basically anyone could think up a “reasonable” suspicion that someone has been exposed to a disease that would require quarantine.

The regulation says those quarantined will be allowed representation, but what good will this representative do? The government has all the obscure “authority” they need to keep you on lock down.

The regulation also allows the government to conduct screenings “through non-invasive procedures determined appropriate” at airports, bus stations, and other public places, where people may be required to provide contact information.

And there is the obscure limit again: “determined appropriate.” It is a safe bet that the government will determine any action it takes as “appropriate”.

This means people will be compelled to answer the government’s questions and provide information against their will. Since carrying a disease is not guilt of a crime, the CDC and HHS believe that this does not violate the Fifth Amendment protections against being compelled to give testimony that may incriminate you.

As for how this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, the regulation sites some legal precedents for how the government can legally violate your rights.

And the same will apply after apprehension where during a forced medical exam, you may also be required to provide further health details about yourself to the authorities.

The Personnel: Who Will Enforce This?

The group capable of large scale detainment and quarantine was authorized under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

A thousands strong army of medical police is ready to be activated by the government, and spring into action in case of an epidemic.

SEC. 5210 ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 203 COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS

‘(a) Establishment-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- There shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.

‘(2) REQUIREMENT- All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

Notice that officers are appointed “without regard to the civil-service laws.” These are laws designed to remove politics as a consideration when hiring in the public sector. They also establish guidelines based on merit, impartial hiring criteria, and safety from arbitrary firing and unwarranted disciplinary action.

Officers are also chosen “without regard to the Classification Act of 1923,” which established merit pay and compensation based on performance.

To be clear, the bill states these laws will be disregarded when appointing this police force. So these officers have been hired based on no known criteria, without any defined qualifications, can be denied for no particular reason, can be fired for any reason whatsoever, paid without regard to merit, and punished or rewarded independently of performance.

That section basically ensures the Ready Reserve Corps can be a politicized group that will follow orders of whoever appoints them.

The Funding

Most of the provisions discussed are already well funded through the Centers for Disease Control, and Department of Health and Human Services. But another source to bolster the government quarantine capabilities is making its way through congress.

The bill, which has passed the House and is now in the Senate, wants the government to be able to deal with “surge capacity” in the event of an epidemic.

It would use certain Homeland Security grants and funds for “enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities.”

The Excuse

We’ve heard about some disease every year with the potential to cause mass casualties in the event of an outbreak. It is difficult to tell sometimes how much of the hype is media driven, versus which diseases are of real concern.

But there is actual risk for an eventual epidemic. In China, a particularly deadly strain of bird flu is more prevalent this year than in the past four years.

The Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 which killed tens of millions of people worldwide, is believed to have started in China in a similar fashion. All it takes is the right mutation of the flu virus to become deadly.

So in a sense, the government should be prepared for such an event, but that doesn’t mean they have to violate rights in order to keep the public safe.

It is important to remember that when protecting the public health, the concern is for the general population and not individuals. That is why regulations like this one open up the possibility that individuals will be severely mistreated, in the name of stopping a contagious outbreak.

If the government does implement the forced quarantine of individuals, whether the excuse is real or fabricated, individuals have cause to fear for their safety under government detainment.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Germany proposes ridiculous $53M penalty for “fake news” and “hate speech”

Image: Germany proposes ridiculous $53M penalty for “fake news” and “hate speech”
Source: NaturalNews.com
JD Heyes
March 21, 2017

One German official thinks that fake news and hate speech is so serious it ought to permanently bankrupt virtually anyone who is accused or convicted of either.

As reported by The Associated Press, German Justice Minister Heiko Maas – perhaps worried that there’s another Adolph Hitler waiting for the right moment to rebirth the Nazi Party via propaganda spread on social media – has proposed fines of up to 50 million euros, or about $53 million, for any social networking site that neglects to quickly police and remove anything deemed as “hate speech” or “fake news.”

While acknowledging that some social media sites have already begun cracking down on what they have described as hate speech, Maas said the effort isn’t satisfactory yet. He said research indicated that Twitter only deletes about one percent of so-called ‘illegal content’ that is flagged by users; he added that Facebook deletes about 39 percent of said content.

The AP noted further:

The proposal would require companies to provide a round-the-clock service for users to flag illegal content, which would have to be removed by the site within seven days. All copies of the content would also have to be deleted and social media companies would need to publish a quarterly report detailing how they have dealt with such material.

In addition, the proposal instructs social media sites to name someone specifically charged with taking down content and handling speech complaints, and if that person fails to do so quickly or adequately, he or she would then be subject to a personal fine of up to 5 million euros (about $5.3 million). (RELATED: Do College Students Hate Free Speech? Let’s Ask Them (Video))

Who would line up to take that job is anyone’s guess.

Oddly, Maas claimed his proposal would somehow not restrict the free speech protections already enshrined into German law, and it wouldn’t establish a “truth commission” of sorts to root out so-called fake news (which would include The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and others, from time to time).

Always eager to please Left-wing speech cops, Facebook eagerly acquiesced. “We have clear rules against hate speech and are working hard to remove such content from our platform,” the company said in a statement, in response to the German proposal.

While reasonable people can agree that some speech obviously qualifies as hateful – such as derogatory remarks about race, ethnicity, religion, sex and so forth – other speech some people have arbitrarily labeled as “hate speech” simply because they disagree with what’s being said.

For instance, on many American college campuses, anything a conservative says is branded as hateful, bigoted and, some would argue, slanderous. President Donald J. Trump can’t say a word about enforcing immigration law without being branded a racist. And this reporter has been mislabeled as being “hateful” simply for taking a political position that liberals don’t like.

So, that’s what makes “hate speech protection” measures like this German proposal such a slippery slope: While advocates keep telling us out of one side of their mouths they aren’t trying to suppress speech, that’s usually the end result.

In this era, speech suppression is becoming a real thing and, ironically, it is occurring most rapidly in supposed “free speech zones” in democratic countries including the United States. In recent months, one survey of college-age Millennials by Yale University found that an incredible 51 percent of students surveyed were okay with their school enacting “speech codes” that regulate speech for both students and faculty.

Speech codes.

Worse, this generation of high schoolers is also conflicted about the First Amendment, with more than half saying speech should not be allowed if its “offensive.” (RELATED: Students Arrested For Handing Out Copies Of The Constitution)

But who gets to define what is and is not ‘offensive’? That’s the problem, isn’t it – when you put some person or some entity ‘in charge’ of deciding what people should and should not be offended by, then you put serious crimps on all speech.

That’s not what our founders intended. In fact, they adopted the First Amendment’s free-speech clause precisely because they wanted to protect speech some may find offensive.

Maas’ proposal might seem ridiculous now, but there is no doubt that the trend regarding free speech in Western democracies is one of suppression, not expansion. Frankly, it’s dangerous.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WND.com

TheBlaze.com

Freedom.news

New Zealand Government Preparing To Drown Whole Country In Fluorides

: DOSSIER COMPLET SUR LE FLUOR ET FLUORIDE DE SODIUM DANGER ...
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 16, 2017

The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?

From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:

“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”

“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]

“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”

“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]

“’The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”

“’It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]

“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”

“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]

My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.

The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.

I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.

For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”—written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”

“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.

So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.

Quite clear.

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.

The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.

They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Flint official dodges jail time for concealing water contamination that killed 12 people … only has to write apology letter

Source: ZeroHedge.com
March 17, 2017

Authored by Nikhil Swaminathan via Grist.com,

This former official dodged jail time in the Flint water crisis, just has to write an apology letter.

A Michigan district court judge ordered that Corinne Miller, the former director of epidemiology at the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, publicly apologize to the residents of Flint for withholding information about the presence of the Legionella bacteria, the microbe that causes Legionnaires’ disease, in the city’s drinking water.

After pleading no contest to a charge of neglect, Miller also got a year’s probation and 300 hours of community service — essentially a slap on the wrist. She is cooperating with special prosecutors pursuing cases against several former employees of the health department and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality for their role in Flint’s water crisis.

Twelve Flint residents were confirmed to have died in 2014 and 2015 from Legionnaires’ disease, an extreme type of pneumonia. But in January, statistics released by Genesee County, where Flint is located, appeared to confirm public health experts’ suspicions that the city’s water in fact caused additional pneumonia deaths.

Miller’s attorney argued against her having to make a public mea culpa, but Judge Jennifer J. Manley said the demand was “perfectly appropriate in this case.” Considering that even more people were sickened than previously believed, it’s the least she could do.

*  *  *

WTF!

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

Science, Secrecy, And Ufology

Secrecy
Source: RichardDolanpress.com
Richard Dolan
December 26, 2000

Secrecy permeates the UFO field. What does this mean for Ufology as a science? Answer: the field cannot really be handled scientifically within the public domain. The great model is the Manhattan Project. When a project is undertaken at highly classified levels, you will find nothing of value about it within the mainstream. This was true during the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s; it is true regarding the UFO.

Missing the Obvious

Somethings are so obvious that they are invisible.

Segments of the intelligence community have been intensely interested in UFOs since the problem emerged after World War Two. Moreover, they have monitored and infiltrated the UFO field. Conversely, the “mainstream” (as opposed to “classified”) scientific community has ignored UFOs altogether. Ask yourself a simple question: why this discrepancy?

What passes for Ufology has spun its wheels for fifty years. Not only have even its most important researchers been unable to force recognition of the problem by official powers (not very surprising, after all), but some of these same researchers have not even taken a definite stand on what UFOs might represent. That is, they have been working without a hypothesis (!) and so in many cases have merely piled up sighting after sighting for years and years, and then expected this pile of “evidence” to do the trick. But in any intellectual endeavor, piling up evidence is never enough. The researcher has to organize and analyze the evidence through hypothesis or supposition. Without this effort, there is no research, only what Gore Vidal calls “scholarly squirreling” of data in a hole in a hollow tree. What can we say about such researchers, some of whom having been in the field for decades, or even in some cases, generations? What have they been doing?

A young innocent who wants to learn more about this topic – a subject of the utmost seriousness and importance – can easily become bewildered by the confusion. Should one side with Klass, Shaeffer, and Korff, or Hynek, Ruppelt, and Keyhoe, or Friedman, or Randall? Does one follow the line of the conservative J. Allen Hynek Center of UFO Studies (CUFOS), the paranormal leanings of MUFON, or the coverup themes of UFO Magazine? On the Internet, should one haunt the tepid world of listserves like Project 1947 or UFO Updates, or dive right into John Greenwald’s Black Vault?

Four centuries ago, Rene Descartes established a very simple principle of knowledge: one must create a strong skeleton – that is, a foundation of unquestionable facts – and build an edifice upon it.

So let us be Cartesian, and review the obvious.

Secrecy and the National Security Crowd

In 1946, a year before the great deluge of reports here in the states, Americans monitored “ghost rockets” over Europe. Two prominent American generals conferred with the Swedes, and censorship over the Swedish press followed. The Greek Army also investigated, according to Dr. Paul Santorini, a key scientist in the development of the atomic bomb. The Greeks concluded the objects were not Soviet, nor were they missiles. The American military then pressured them into silence.

In 1947, UFOs appeared over American skies in large numbers. Some incidents were quite serious, such as the repeated violation of air space over the Oak Ridge Nuclear Facility. Oak Ridge housed some of the most sophisticated technology in the world and was highly classified: one did not simply fly over there. Yet Army Intelligence and the FBI monitored dozens of intrusions over Oak Ridge well into the 1950s. Similar violations occurred over sensitive places in Los Alamos, Hanford, and many military bases. All of this was classified, of course. Americans knew nothing about them at the time.

In a classified memo, General Nathan Twining wrote of the possibility – based on the careful evaluation of military personnel – that “some of the objects are controlled.” Controlled by whom was the $64,000 question, and America’s national security establishment set out to answer it, far removed from the prying eyes of the public.

In 1949, an FBI memo stated that: “Army intelligence has recently said that the matter of ‘unidentified aircraft’ or ‘unidentified aerial phenomena’ … is considered top secret by intelligence officers of both the Army and the Air Forces.”

In 1950, Robert Sarbacher, a physicist with the DOD Research & Development Board, privately told Canadian official Wilbert Smith that UFOs were “the most highly classified subject in the U.S. government.”

After an extraordinary UFO encounter near Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in 1951, Air Force officer Edward Ruppelt attended a two-hour meeting chaired by General Charles Cabell, the Director of Air Force Intelligence (and later Deputy CIA Director). The meeting was recorded, but the tape “was so hot that it was later destroyed. . . . to be conservative, it didn’t exactly follow the tone of the official Air Force releases.”

The CIA, meanwhile, had monitored the problem since at least 1948. After the UFO wave of 1952, the Agency sponsored the Robertson Panel, which convened in January 1953 – the final weekend of the Truman presidency. The panel debunked UFOs, and its recommendations resulted in the gutting of Project Blue Book (already a public relations burden) and heightened surveillance of civilian UFO organizations.

Clearly, this was an issue considered to be of the utmost seriousness. As a result, it was not a topic ordinary citizens could simply waltz into and get easy answers. Observe what happened to the most dangerous of all civilian organizations: the National Investigative Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP). Founded in 1956 with the goal of ending UFO secrecy, it was quickly and secretly infiltrated by “ex-CIA” officers involved in CIA psychological warfare operations. The most important of them, Colonel Joseph Bryan, was the key player in the ouster of Director Donald Keyhoe in 1969. A succession of CIA men then ran NICAP into the ground. Needless to say, no one outside the Agency knew of their CIA connections.

One might complain this was all a long time ago. Does the military still take UFOs seriously? Does the intelligence community still infiltrate UFO organizations? After all, if UFOs are still important, then intelligence operatives would presumably still need to monitor and influence the key organizations. Is there any reason to believe this is so?

In a word, yes. The military still encounters UFOs, as many reports continue to prove. Moreover, secrecy orders about UFOs remain in effect. In 1975, the late Senator Barry Goldwater stated that UFOs were still classified “above Top Secret.” As one of my Navy acquaintances recently said to me: “If I were to tell you what I knew about that subject, I would probably go to prison.”

In the mid-1980s, UFO researcher William Moore admitted to working covertly with the intelligence world, to the shock and dismay of his colleagues. But stuff like this is surely the tip of a large iceberg. Ufology is dominated by men and women connected to the world of intelligence, usually through prior experience in the military or CIA. Why is this so? What does it mean to Ufology that this is the case? It is a question I will return to – more than once, I suspect – in future articles.

Science

Throughout history, people have used outdated concepts to think about the world, especially during periods of rapid change. It’s unavoidable. We remain wedded to the concepts we learned in our youth, while reality races ahead. Observe our cultural attitudes toward science. Science, we were taught, is a bastion, indeed the foundation, of intellectual freedom in the world. It is an independent search for truth, and the destroyer of social and religious myths.

How independent is science? In whose interest is it practiced today? This is no idle question, for gone are the days of scientists following their intellectual passions in a search for truth. Earlier this year, James Lovelock, a pioneer in environmental science now in his eighties, had this to say:

Nearly all scientists are employed by some large organization, such as a governmental department, a university, or a multinational company. Only rarely are they free to express their science as a personal view. They may think that they are free, but in reality they are, nearly all of them, employees; they have traded freedom of thought for good working conditions, a steady income, tenure, and a pension.

Science is an expensive business, and you need sponsorship. I laughed out loud when a sincere and interested reader of my book asked me who sponsored my research. But, he is a scientist, for whom such a thing is absolutely necessary.

Reflect on the following:

  1. Since the Second World War, the military has been by far the biggest sponsor of scientific work.
  2. The military and intelligence community has exhibited extreme levels of interest in the UFO phenomenon, and high levels of classification have enveloped the subject.
  3. It would seem logical that the military has sponsored classified – that is, secret – scientific work on this problem for many years.
  4. In public, however, mainstream scientists offer nothing more than ridicule or scorn upon the topic of UFOs

Like any other segment of our civilization, scientists follow the money. If the cash is there, so are they; if not, forget about it. If, as I believe, the vast sponsorship of UFO research is classified, we will not hear positive statements about the subject from the mainstream. Moreover, the extreme specialization of science ensures that mavericks do not stray into the uncharted seas of UFO research. The result is widespread ignorance by scientists of even the basics of the UFO phenomenon. At least, this is so within the non-classified, mainstream areas of research. In the classified world, we can only surmise, but we can do so based on some facts.

We know without question that within the first few years of the appearance of UFOs, many top-flight scientists became involved in some way with this phenomenon – in every case at the classified level. By no means exhaustive, here are some of the more noteworthies: Lloyd Berkner, Edward Teller, Detlev Bronk, Vannevar Bush, David Sarnoff, Thornton Page, H. P. Robertson, Allen Hynek, and Lincoln La Paz. In the case of Bush and Bronk, the connection has not been proven to the satisfaction of some skeptics, but even in their case, the evidence remains strong. For the rest, the case is open-and-shut. These men were some of the elite power scientists in the world, and intimately connected with the American defense establishment. And yet, we find them looking at UFO reports. Of course, let us not forget Harvard astronomer and UFO debunker extraordinaire, Donald Menzel, who, unbeknownst to the world, was deeply involved with the American intelligence community, in particular the super-secret National Security Agency.

One supposes that we shall have to wait another few decades to learn about our contemporaries – in other words, long after the issue becomes moot. Such secrecy, we realize, is not unique to UFOs. It is standard operating procedure. We learn the truth after it becomes irrelevant.

The Great Secrecy Model

As was stated above, when a project is undertaken at highly classified levels, you will find nothing of value about it within the mainstream. The primordial example is the Manhattan Project. Here was an undertaking of such magnitude that secrecy was of paramount importance. How to design and build an atomic bomb without the enemy knowing? It is, of course, a multifarious question. One of the answers, however, was to hide the knowledge from Congress itself – despite the fact that it involved unprecedented outlays of money. Amazingly, the plan succeeded.

In fact, when scientists detonated a nuclear bomb at Los Alamos on July 16, 1945, the most spectacular and ominous event in the history of science, no one outside that small classified circle knew a thing. Consider the implications. The work was done in a secrecy so profound that the mainstream scientific literature had nothing of import to say about nuclear technology. The information was too sensitive to discuss openly.

Significantly, though the Manhattan Project remained secret from the public, it was not secret from the Soviets, who had penetrated the American defense and scientific establishment, and used data from the project to build an atomic bomb years ahead of schedule. This pattern, in fact, recurred throughout the Cold War: more often than not, the American public was kept in the dark about black projects more successfully than were the Soviet authorities. Many times, it was they and not the Soviets who were the true target of secrecy – for instance, in such cases as the U-2 flyovers or mind control experiments.

Thus, the Manhattan Project possesses staggering historical importance for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it has served as a model ever since for conducting expensive and covert operations. Hiding the money, keeping the real talk classified, and steering the public discussion – all of these were successfully tackled by the national security world of the 1940s.

If it’s important, it’s probably secret. This was true during the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s; it is almost certainly true regarding the UFO.

Implications

Those of us without a “need to know” about UFOs can still learn a few things. Enough information exists within the public realm that we can put many of the pieces together. It is, frankly, what I have tried to do in my recent study.

Do the math. For more than fifty years, millions of people have experienced a global phenomenon from agencies unknown, possessing what appears to be fantastic technology. We have on record hundreds of military UFO encounters and reports, with undoubted interest and infiltration by the intelligence world. Compound this with disturbingly strong claims of abduction (and even worse) on the part of these others, and you have powerful reasons for abject silence on the part of our erstwhile leaders.

The math is not higher calculus. No, it is simple addition, and when you add it up the conclusion is forced: this is a fundamentally covert event of awesome magnitude.

But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can “get to the bottom” of this. That is, as mere citizens of what some would call an oligarchic empire that masquerades as a democracy, we are unlikely to get official confirmation regarding something as important as an alien presence. And even if we did get such “confirmation,” could we truly depend on the accuracy and completeness of the information? I think you know the answer.

Knowledge may give us an edge in some way. Or, our situation may more closely match the American natives of 500 years ago. Either way, we on the outside are on our own where this phenomenon is concerned, and it behooves us to become as educated about it as we can. Otherwise, we experience our fate – for good or ill – in the dark.

Read More At: RichardDolanPress.com

 

Homeschoolers under attack by officials conducting unannounced visits

Image: Homeschoolers under attack by officials conducting unannounced visits

Source: NaturalNews.com
Thomas Dishaw
March 13, 2017

School officials in Paris, KY are attempting to overstep their boundaries by conducting unannounced visits to homeschooling families. According to the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), these visits are a clear violation of a state-wide agreement that was implemented to protect a family’s constitutional right to privacy.

The school officials claim they are only there to help the parents, but part of their plan to help involves demanding information from parents about attendance records and curriculum. They have even asked to meet the children to question them in some instances. One home school parent, Jenny Griffith, who received one of these visits said “I got the impression that district staff could become more difficult if I didn’t cooperate in answering their questions or bring out my child to meet them. I tried to handle the situation as civilly as possible, without adding any threat to them.” The officials also told her that the district intends on visiting every homeschooling family three times a year.

After being alerted of these visits, the HSLDA quickly got involved and warned parents of this threat to their fourth amendment rights. On the HSLDA website, they spell out for their members what their rights are and how they should handle the situation. According to Kentucky laws, a homeschool program operates as a private school. While private schools are required to keep attendance and scholarship records (i.e. report cards) in the same manner as the local public school, homeschooling parents do not need to open their homes and present these documents simply because a school official comes knocking

TJ Schmidt, a contact attorney for Kentucky through the HSLDA, also said that unless school officials receive some report or have some evidence that the parents are not educating their children, no further inquiry should be made. This agreement, known as the Best Practices Document, has been in place for more than 20 years. Schmidt also assured families that he and Cindy West, a local CHEK representative and veteran homeschooling mom in Bourbon County, have contacted the Paris Independent School District and are objecting to the visits on behalf of the parents. They expect the visits to cease but promise to monitor the situation. (RELATED: Get all the news Google is trying to hide at Censored.news.)

This is not the first time that the HSLDA has had to step in when dealing with a Kentucky school district. In 2015 homeschooling families in Gallatin County, KY received a packet from Roxann Booth, the director of pupil personnel, letting them know county officials would visit the home of every homeschool program through the coming school year. The packet also contained forms that requested detailed information not required by state law.

When the HSLDA was alerted about this violation Schmidt wrote a letter to Ms. Booth on behalf of the families informing her that the information requested went well beyond what is required under Kentucky law. And because home visits would violate each homeschooling individual’s privacy rights the HSLDA would legally challenge any attempt to carry out these visits. Within two weeks, every homeschooling family received a follow-up letter from Ms. Booth apologizing for the demands for additional information and the challenge to the legitimacy of their homeschool programs.

Public schools do not want any challenge to their plans to turn all of our children into politically correct social justice warriors with no ability to think for themselves. As we see from these examples, they know very well where the lines are but are more than willing to cross them until someone is brave enough to stand up and tell them that they refuse to conform.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

HSLDA.org

HSLDA.org

Offthegridnews.com