Archive | April 2014

The Ukraine Nexus: the Near Abroad & the MedUnion

The ‘Upper Floor (the Globalist controlled parts of the U.S. Gov’t, the EU, the UN, NATO, the IMF)’ have been super busy trying to bring Ukraine into their fold; and for their bidding. Mind you, most regular Ukrainians equally desire their own independence; as well as to enjoy western liberal democracy and transparency which they have never really fully known.  24 percent of Ukrainian citizens are ethnic Russians anyways. These are people who have always felt they were in Russia; or would be better off in union with Russia in some manner or degree to be comfortable.

In short, as to who the ‘bad guy’ is…’Russia is the devil we know; whereas The Upper Floor is the devil we don’t…’

Outsiders should know that many Kievites (residents of the capital city Kyiv) have one parent of Ukrainian background and another of Russian background; so understandably these people are torn at least two ways as to what their country’s wisest future direction should be; and in amidst all the propaganda -FROM BOTH SIDES.

There have been provacations and psych warfare coming from both ends; each with sphere of influence perspectives of their own to protect.

For Russia it is their ‘Near Abroad’.; for the Upper Floor they are building for themselves – ‘the Mediterranean Union.

The Upper Floor it should be remembered already tried to use a IMF faced ‘structural adjustment programm’ a decade ago trying to entice Ukraine with a $4 billion floation loan.

The US State Department, via spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki, said that reports of CIA Director John Brennan telling regime changers in Kiev to “conduct tactical operations” – or an “anti-terrorist” offensive – in eastern Ukraine are “completely false”. This means Brennan did issue his marching orders. And by now the “anti-terrorist” campaign – with its nice little Dubya rhetorical touch – has degenerated into farce.

Now couple that with NATO secretary general, Danish retriever

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, yapping about the strengthening of military footprint along NATO’s eastern border: “We will have more planes in the air, mores ships on the water and more readiness on the land.”

Welcome to the Two Stooges doctrine of post-modern warfare.

Pay up or freeze to death
Ukraine is for all practical purposes broke. The Kremlin’s consistent position for the past three months has been to encourage the European Union to find a solution to Ukraine’s dire economic mess. Brussels did nothing. It was betting on regime change to the benefit of Germany’s heavyweight puppet Vladimir Klitschko, aka Klitsch The Boxer.

Regime change did happen, but orchestrated by the Khaganate of Nulands – a neo-con cell of the State Department and its assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nulands. And now the presidential option is between – what else – two US puppets, choco-billionaire Petro Poroshenko and “Saint Yulia” Timoshenko, Ukraine’s former prime minister, ex-convict and prospective president. The EU is left to pick up the (unpayable) bill. Enter the International Monetary Fund – via a nasty, upcoming “structural adjustment” that will send Ukrainians to a hellhole even grimmer than the one they are already familiar with.

Once again, for all the hysteria propagated by the US Ministry of Truth and its franchises across the Western corporate media, the Kremlin does not need to “invade” anything. If Gazprom does not get paid all it needs to do is to shut down the Ukrainian stretch of Pipelineistan. Kiev will then have no option but to use part of the gas supply destined for some EU countries so Ukrainians won’t run out of fuel to keep themselves and the country’s industries alive. And the EU – whose “energy policy” overall is already a joke – will find itself with yet another self-inflicted problem.

The EU will be mired in a perennial lose-lose situation if Brussels does not talk seriously with Moscow. There’s only one explanation for the refusal: hardcore Washington pressure, mounted via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Again, to counterpunch the current hysteria – the EU remains Gazprom’s top client, with 61% of its overall exports. It’s a complex relationship based on interdependence. The capitalization of Nord Stream, Blue Stream and the to-be-completed South Stream includes German, Dutch, French and Italian companies.

So yes, Gazprom does need the EU market. But up to a point, considering the mega-deal of Siberian gas delivery to China which most probably will be signed next month in Beijing when Russian President Vladimir Putin visits President Xi Jinping.

The crucial spanner in the works
Last month, while the tortuous Ukraine sideshow was in progress, President Xi was in Europe clinching deals and promoting yet another branch of the New Silk Road all the way to Germany.

In a sane, non-Hobbesian environment, a neutral Ukraine would only have to gain by positioning itself as a privileged crossroads between the EU and the proposed Eurasian Union – as well as becoming a key node of the Chinese New Silk Road offensive. Instead, the Kiev regime changers are betting on acceptance into the EU (it simply won’t happen) and becoming a NATO forward base (the key Pentagon aim).

As for the possibility of a common market from Lisbon to Vladivostok – which both Moscow and Beijing are aiming at, and would be also a boon for the EU – the Ukraine disaster is a real spanner in the works.

And a spanner in the works that, crucially, suits only one player: the US government.

The Obama administration may – and “may” is the operative word here – have realized the US government has lost the battle to control Pipelineistan from Asia to Europe, despite all the efforts of the Dick Cheney regime. What energy experts call the Asian Energy Security Grid is progressively evolving – as well as its myriad links to Europe.

So what’s left for the Obama administration is this spanner in the works – still trying to scotch the full economic integration of Eurasia.

The Obama administration is predictably obsessed with the EU’s increasing dependency on Russian gas. Thus its grandiose plan to position US shale gas for the EU as an alternative to Gazprom. Even assuming this might happen, it would take at least a decade – with no guarantee of success. In fact, the real alternative would be Iranian gas – after a comprehensive nuclear deal and the end of Western sanctions (the whole package, not surprisingly, being sabotaged en masse by various Beltway factions.)

Just to start with, the US cannot export shale gas to countries with which it has not signed a free trade agreement. That’s a “problem” which might be solved to a great extent by the secretly negotiated Trans-Atlantic Partnership between Washington and Brussels (see Breaking bad in southern NATOstan, Asia Times Online, April 15, 2014.)

In parallel, the Obama administration keeps applying instances of “divide and rule” to scare minor players, as in spinning to the max the specter of an evil, militaristic China to reinforce the still crawling “pivoting to Asia”. The whole game harks back to what Dr Zbig Brzezinski conceptualized way back in his 1997 opus The Grand Chessboard – and fine-tuned for his disciple Obama: the US ruling over Eurasia.

Still the Kremlin won’t be dragged into a military quagmire. It’s fair to argue Putin has identified the Big Picture in the whole chessboard, which spells out an increasing Russia-China strategic partnership as crucial as an energy-manufacturing synergy with Europe; and most of all the titanic fear of US financial elites of the inevitable, ongoing process centered on the BRICS-conducted (and spreading to key Group of 20 members) drive to bypass the petrodollar.

Ultimately, this all spells out the progressive demise of the petrodollar in parallel to the ascent of a basket to currencies as the reserve currency in the international system. The BRICS are already at work on their alternative to the IMF and the World Bank, investing in a currency reserve pool and the BRICS development bank. While a tentative new world order slouches towards all points Global South to be born, Robocop NATO dreams of war.

Credit: Pepe Escobar


U.S. Federal Government Uses Agenda 21 to Prey on its own Citizens




Obama Sends Hundreds of Armed Feds to Nevada – Wouldn’t Send 1 Soldier to Defend Benghazi – Why?

benghazi cliven bundy“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice (remember Alice in Wonderland), “whether you can make words mean different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is to be master – that is all.”

Perhaps the irrational situations that Alice encounters in wonderland, after having passed “through the looking glass” can give us some insight into the illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and, indeed, irrational things that the government is doing right now in Bunkerville, Nevada.

In case you haven’t heard about it, here is the basic synopsis:

Cliven Bundy is a cattle rancher whose family has lived near Bunkerville for the last 140 years. The Bundy family’s cattle have always grazed on what had always been state-owned public land. In 1993, the Federal Government discovered that Bundy’s grazing area was also home to the endangered Desert Tortoise. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) swooped in and took control of the land. In order to dissuade farmers and ranchers from using the land and threatening the tortoise population, the BLM instituted a policy where ranchers would be forced to pay a grazing fee before using the land.

 YouTube Preview Image

For Cliven Bundy, this was an unacceptable affront to his livelihood. His family has lived off this land for over a century, long before the unconstitutional creation of the BLM, and the idea that he would now have to pay a tax to protect a turtle seemed to him to be absurd and, well…irrational.

So, Bundy refused to pay the tax. He allowed his cattle to graze on the land and didn’t pay the federal government. He figured “why should I”? It’s not their land.

The land is state-owned public land, yet the federal government demands a cut because of an endangered turtle. After twenty years of expensive court battles, the Bureau of Land Management has finally swooped in and began confiscating Bundy’s cattle at gunpoint because they claim he must pay the $1.1 Million that he owes in back “grazing fees” for using public land!

The federal government is seizing a rancher’s cattle because he didn’t pay a $1.1 Million “grazing fee” that was, ostensibly, set up to protect a turtle!

More and more, we see government militarized agencies and bureaus using any pretended legislation, regulation, and technicality to come after individual citizens with the full weight of the federal government!

Now, do you really believe that this is about a turtle?

Is it about the government’s desperate need for 1.1 Million?

Or is it about something else?

Maybe it’s just like Humpty Dumpty told us.

Maybe, at the heart of this example of out of control, thuggish, tyrannical government, it’s the question of “who is to be master – that is all.”

Did you know that we have a remarkable number of militarized, non-law enforcement agencies in government?

Agencies like the Department of Education, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the IRS, and even the Bureau of Land Management have been arming themselves to the teeth for years.

The Obama administration wouldn’t even send in one soldier to protect our ambassador in Benghazi, but it has sent in over 200 agents, including snipers, to harass and intimidate a rancher in Nevada!

Supposedly, this was to protect a turtle. Humpty Dumpty, please call your office.

Learn more about your Constitution with Michael Peroutka and his “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

Michael Anthony Peroutka Esq. is a former Presidential candidate and co-founder of Institute on the Constitution (IOTC) an educational outreach of his law firm that presents the founders “American View” of law and government.  IOTC has produced thousands of graduates in all 50 states with a full understanding of the Biblical principles on which those founding documents are based.

Shelter in Place Boston (‘Martial Law Lite’)

We revisit the Boston Lockdown. That’s right… when a whole city was locked down – just to search for one man.

What we witnessed in Boston was a test run for the applying of Martial Law to other cities in North America.

If you can enter homes and stop and searches on anyone on the street -you can do anything to anyone.

Where do we draw the line?

Do not measure this event by your own life and experiences. Instead measure it against history and the behaviour of regimes granted too much power and what they’ve done with that power…


Take a look at the hard question article below




America, we need to talk about the Boston “lockdown” and manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.imageLet me start this post by saying that I’m not anti-cop.  I’m not afraid of cops with M4s and armored vehicles (although I wish more private citizens had them too!).  I’m actually quite glad that the cops had a massive amount of firepower this week to deal with the Boston marathon bombers.However, there were things that happened in Boston that are quite disturbing, and we need to have a national conversation about the proper, Constitutional response to a crisis of public safety.First up, the lockdown itself.


Is it reasonable to shut down an entire major metropolitan area to search for one person?

Surely not.  What happened in Boston on Friday is unprecedented as far as I can tell from my research.  There have been “stay inside” orders to search for at-large fugitives in the past, but none so large as what we saw this week.

What happens in the future if more than one city is hit by an attack at the same time?  Are we going to shut down the whole country?  I would suggest terrorist groups would probably very much enjoy the idea that they can effectively shut down an entire city with just a single person.

The economic toll of the lockdown is another aspect that needs to be considered.  The Fiscal Times estimates that the lockdown of Boston likely cost the city $1 billion dollars in lost economic activity. This figure is nothing to sneeze at, especially when terrorist groups might begin leveraging their efforts to cause as much economic impact as possible.

Now, technically the lockdown was not “martial law” as some people are calling it.  The governor issued what’s called a “shelter-in-place” directive.

from Time:

“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”

The “shelter in place” request is legally different from a state of emergency, which Patrick declared earlier this year as winter storm Nemo descended on the Bay State. Patrick imposed a travel ban, threatening a penalty of up to a year in prison and a large fine if people were found on the roads. Massachusetts suffered very few fatalities during the storm.

When it came to keeping the public off the streets on Friday, an order, it seems, wasn’t needed. “When the governor suggested in light of last night’s events that we have an armed subject on the loose who is very dangerous, who has committed murder, I believe the citizens of the commonwealth, in the hopes of helping law enforcement, voluntarily stayed off the streets,” Massachusetts State Trooper Todd Nolan told TIME. “This is a request that the public stay inside and they are adhering to it. There has been no law mentioned or any idea that if you went outside you’d be arrested.”

There are quite a few reports to confirm the “voluntary” nature of the shelter in place directive.  In fact, many business in Boston were open on Friday.  Here’s a bit from one eyewitness account:


The perception that Bostonians are inside trembling in fear is all wrong. Many of us are inside because there is nowhere to go. This is Boston. Not in a million years would one suspect on the loose keep this entire city inside.

So far I count the S&S in Inman Square as open, another coffee shop, and of course the Au Bon Pain in Harvard Square, whose manager told me was doing a brisk, ordinary business all day. People are out with their kids and enjoying the day off. Of course the talk is all of the crime and the latest updates. But it is a lie to say we are all holed up inside.

Now, the voluntary/mandatory nature of the lockdown definitely seemed to depend on how close a person lived to the area of Watertown where all the action took place.  The closer you were to the 20-street area of Watertown the police had blocked off, the more restrictive the order was.

Now, let’s talk about the house by house search.  

Here’s video of a young guy who lived close enough to hear the firefight on Thursday night.  His house was searched at gunpoint (apparently twice), and afterwards he seems pretty freaked out by the whole ordeal.

The gentleman here (if you can call him that) notes that both times his house was searched the law enforcement officers “asked” permission to do so, but he didn’t feel like he had much of a choice as the police team had guns pointed at his face. On the one hand, he expresses relief that the terrorist was caught and that he’s still alive, but he seems to struggle with questions about whether the police action was appropriate.  I think his concerns are quite valid.

Now, watch this video of a family’s house being searched.  It appears to be anything but voluntary.  There are women and what appears to be at least one adolescent child in the house.  They are ordered out at gun point, one at a time. They are ordered to keep their hands one their heads, and run down the street to be frisked. The video is pretty chilling:

Now, without talking to this family directly or the commanding officer involved, it’s difficult to know what prompted this kind of coercion. However, simply observing the video itself, I would suggest that this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment.  I have seen no reports that this family had any connection to the terrorist, yet they were treated like criminals.  Scenes like these are extremely troubling, and they weren’t isolated to this one family.

Look at this photo from the Boston Herald:


Laurel Street resident Peter Reed moves away from his home as SWAT teams evacuated residents.

Is it really an “evacuation” if you’re ordered out of your house at gunpoint?

Here’s another photo of a citizen being “evacuated” at gun point, her hands up under police order:


Now look at this photo:


The officer in the armored vehicle is pointing his rifle directly at the photographer.  This is unacceptable behavior.  It is pure intimidation by the officer, and actions like this have no place on the streets of a residential neighborhood.  Americans have the right to photograph and record officers of the law.

What about this fellow?


Was he a suspect?  No.  Since when do we have to allow the police to search through our bags just to travel down our own neighborhood streets?  He seems to be cooperating, and that’s fine.  But what makes it okay to search through innocent people’s belongings without a warrant? Is everybody with a backpack or handbag now a criminal suspect?

Did the neighborhood home searches all end up being pointless?

Yes indeed.  In the end, the suspect was apprehended because a neighbor voluntarily called the police and reported suspicious activity in his back yard.

Obviously, it’s a good thing that the heavy police presence kept the suspect contained to a small area.  But was all the intimidation of innocent people really reasonable and necessary?  Almost certainly not.  Were there some Constitutional rights that got trampled? Almost certainly.

We need to be careful…

Let me reiterate what I said at the top. I am not anti-police.  I have no problem with a police show of force, a manhunt for a suspect, or a “shelter-in-place” directive when a fugitive is on the loose.  The police in Boston were searching for some dangerous criminals who killed innocent people, killed a rookie police officer, hurled at least 3 bombs at police during the chase, and engaged the police in a massive gunfight.  Obviously, extraordinary precautionary measures are reasonable and necessary.

However, when there is a manhunt for 1 person, it’s also important to remember that over 99% of the other people in the area are innocent. These innocent people shouldn’t be herded like cattle out out of their homes at gunpoint.  They shouldn’t be treated as suspects.  The number one priority of police officers should be to protect citizens, not protect themselves from citizens.


What can we learn from what happened in Boston?

  1. Whenever there is a crisis, there is always the risk that innocent people’s rights will be violated.
  2. State and municipal governments need to be better prepared to handle crisis in an effective, Constitutional manner.  The 4th Amendment still applies, even during a crisis situation.
  3. The American people need to be proactive in petitioning their representatives to push for better legal guidelines during times of crisis.  These guidelines should be in place to protect the rights of innocent people.
  4. Without proper legal guidelines for law enforcement, we run the risk of having an entire country full of TSA checkpoints. This is unacceptable. We need to have this discussion on the front end of a crisis so that the government doesn’t make up the rules as they go during a crisis.
  5. Police officers need to have better training about the Constitutional limitations of what actions they can take.  Treating innocent people like criminals is unacceptable. Just because a person lives in the vicinity of a crime does not give law enforcement the authority to strip ignore that person’s rights.
  6. Lockdowns are incredibly costly.  As mentioned before, Boston likely flushed $1 billion down the toilet on Friday. This doesn’t just mean that the municipal government lost $1 billion. It means that the business owners and workers in Boston lost $1 billion.  They lost this money because of a government action, not because of a terrorist action.
  7. A heavily armed citizenry would have made Boston a safer place.  Boston isn’t exactly a gun-friendly environment.  The terrorists certainly had guns, but most of Boston’s citizens were helpless, locked in their own homes with little means of defense.  Once again, the only people who were inhibited by Boston’s gun control laws were the innocent citizens.

To conclude…


I join the citizens of Boston and Watertown in celebrating the heroic actions of the lawn enforcement officers this week.  Their job wasn’t easy, and in the end, one suspect is dead and the other is under arrest. The terrorists were not able to use their additional bombs to harm more innocent people, and this outcome is rightfully celebrated.

At the same time, I know we can do better.  America, it’s time to have a national conversation about how we respond to danger and crisis.  Think about how abusive and unconstitutional the TSA is at the airport, yet the entire organization is sloppy, corrupt, and ineffective. We cannot allow a police state to become the norm in our society.  We must plan now to prevent such an outcome.

Experiments on Aboriginal Children – Under Liberal & PC Governments


Were these experiements on Aboriginal children limited to the “government of the day” ? Below one will discover that the political party and Prime Ministers involved during the 40s and 50s were William Lyon Mackenzie King 1935 – 1948 (Lib; in Third Term) and Louis Saint-Laurent 1948 -1957 (PC).

The political party name matters not; for they are all parts of ‘one machine’ in which the new faces are chosen in advance by a modern- clothed aristocracy.

Canada as one can find through further focused research is not a country; instead it is a corporation; an experiment using people’s lives.

Aboriginal children were deliberately starved in the 1940s and ’50s by government researchers in the name of science.

Milk rations were halved for years at residential schools across the country.

Essential vitamins were kept from people who needed them.

Dental services were withheld because gum health was a measuring tool for scientists and dental care would distort research.

For over a decade, aboriginal children and adults were unknowingly subjected to nutritional experiments by Canadian government bureaucrats.

This disturbing look into government policy toward aboriginals after World War II comes to light in recently published historical research.

A nurse takes a blood sample from a boy at the Indian School, Port Alberni, B.C., in 1948, during the time when nutritional experiments were being conducted on students there and five other residential schools.

A nurse takes a blood sample from a boy at the Indian School, Port Alberni, B.C., in 1948, during the time when nutritional experiments were being conducted on students there and five other residential schools.

When Canadian researchers went to a number of northern Manitoba reserves in 1942 they found rampant malnourishment. But instead of recommending increased federal support to improve the health of hundreds of aboriginals suffering from a collapsing fur trade and already limited government aid, they decided against it. Nutritionally deprived aboriginals would be the perfect test subjects, researchers thought.

The details come from Ian Mosby, a post-doctorate at the University of Guelph, whose research focused on one of the most horrific aspects of government policy toward aboriginals during a time when rules for research on humans were just being adopted by the scientific community.

Researching the development of health policy for a different research project, Mosby uncovered “vague references to studies conducted on ‘Indians’ ” and began to investigate.

Government documents eventually revealed a long-standing, government-run experiment that came to span the entire country and involved at least 1,300 aboriginals, most of them children.

These experiments aren’t surprising to Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission became aware of the experiments during their collection of documents relating to the treatment and abuse of native children at residential schools across Canada from the 1870s to the 1990s.

It’s a disturbing piece of research, he said, and the experiments are entrenched with the racism of the time.

“This discovery, it’s indicative of the attitude toward aboriginals,” Sinclair said. “They thought aboriginals shouldn’t be consulted and their consent shouldn’t be asked for. They looked at it as a right to do what they wanted then.”

In the research paper, published in May, Mosby wrote, “the experiment seems to have been driven, at least in part, by the nutrition experts’ desire to test their theories on a ready-made ‘laboratory’ populated with already malnourished human experimental subjects.”

Researchers visited The Pas and Norway House in northern Manitoba in 1942 and found a demoralized population marked by, in their words, “shiftlessness, indolence, improvidence and inertia.”

They decided that isolated, dependent, hungry people would be ideal subjects for tests on the effects of different diets.

“In the 1940s, there were a lot of questions about what are human requirements for vitamins,” Mosby said. “Malnourished aboriginal people became viewed as possible means of testing these theories.”

These experiments are “abhorrent and completely unacceptable,” said Andrea Richer, spokesperson for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Minister Bernard Valcourt.

The first experiment began in 1942 on 300 Norway House Cree. Of that group, 125 were selected to receive vitamin supplements, which were withheld from the rest.

At the time, researchers calculated the local people were living on less than 1,500 calories a day. Normal, healthy adults generally require at least 2,000.

In 1947, plans were developed for research on about 1,000 hungry aboriginal children in six residential schools in Port Alberni, B.C., Kenora, Ont., Schubenacadie, N.S., and Lethbridge, Alta.

One school for two years deliberately held milk rations to less than half the recommended amount to get a ‘baseline’ reading for when the allowance was increased. At another school, children were divided into one group that received vitamin, iron and iodine supplements and one that didn’t.

One school depressed levels of vitamin B1 to create another baseline before levels were boosted.

And, so that all the results could be properly measured, one school was allowed none of those supplements.

The experiments, repugnant today, would probably have been considered ethically dubious even at the time, said Mosby.

“I think they really did think they were helping people. Whether they thought they were helping the people that were actually involved in the studies — that’s a different question.”


Credit: Andrew Livingstone, News reporter, Bob Weber The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jul 16 2013