↓ Archives ↓

Archive → November 23rd, 2016

Like the Britts U. S. Citizens say no to global society

Editors Note: Globalism is good if you want a socialist world of sharing wealth. Capitalism promotes competition and promotes the concept of hard work giving rewards. Socialism distributes the rewards of hard work to others who don’t want to work hard. Like a professor who takes an average of all grades on a test and gives everyone the same average grade. Soon students don’t want to study because they see little or no value in their efforts.

In Socialism the exception is the ruling class or government that now gets the best while everyone else suffers. During the cold War in the 50’s and 60’s The leaders of the USSR had everything they needed while the average person went without.

President Obama Discusses Globalist Earthquake and Plans for Future Political Tectonic Shifts…

President Obama held a press conference today with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and fielded questions about the 2016 presidential election.  Within the optics and the presented narrative it is possible to find evidence of the globalist’s perspective on the loss, and more importantly their intents moving forward.  Very Rivkin-esque.

Within the EU Merkel is the defacto representative of the continent’s globalist vision; as such when President Obama and Merkel appear together you will always find the epicenter of globalist advocacy – the direct opposition of nationalism.


For the optics note Obama’s grey hair exhibition.  One of the indicators of his preferred approach is how he chooses to present his personal image to the EU audience. When done by design, Obama always draws attention to it – today is no different.

There are many responses within the overall Merkel/Obama event which should be keenly understood by all Americans.  However, this response within this specific video (soundbite below) is a good summation:

Notice how President Obama responds by pointing toward “social media”.

The globalist movement, through Obama himself, exploited social media to carry out their prior globalist ideological endeavors.  This was not only evidenced within Obama’s ’08 election, but also with the rise of his “Arab Spring”; which was kicked off post-Cairo speech, when FaceBook was enlisted to advance the Brotherhood cause.

It is remarkable to see President Obama now pointing a finger toward social media as a risk toward the globalist endeavors.   This will be missed by most, but explains why you are seeing a filtering shift amid those who control the architecture of the various social media platforms. The specific phrase: …“but, we’ll figure it out”… should ring your alarm bells.

Also within this admission is where you find the first specific evidence of why they need to eliminate Steve Bannon, who has effectively outwitted the globalist team on their own social media platforms.

Notice how President Obama also emphasizes what makes him most optimistic moving forward is: …”the attitudes of young people etc“…  Which is specifically directing attention to the globalist plans within all educational systems to promote globalist world-views and advance multiculturalism.   This is the key underpinning behind the U.S. State Department’s “Rivkin Project” to eliminate nationalism.

merkel zuckerberg

Some other breakouts.

President Obama asked about the protests to U.S. election, and the “crude rise of nationalism”:

President Obama Asked about Russia (takes him to 03:25 to get to it):

This is where you recognize the fundamental earthquake that has taken shape with the 2016 election of Donald Trump.  The political tectonic plates have shifted:


Source: Will County News

Government both admits and denies health benefits of medical marijuana

marijuana121814Government doublespeak on the health benefits of marijuana knows no bounds.

The National Cancer Institute, an agency of the federal government, now lists on its website recent studies showing marijuana kills cancer cells. Meanwhile, the Drug Enforcement Agency continues to oppose any and all efforts to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, claiming it has “no currently accepted medical use.”

According to NCI, preclinical studies of cannabinoids have shown:

  • Cannabinoids can kill cancer cells in animals while protecting normal cells.
  • Cannabinoids protects against colon inflammation and may potentially reduce the risk of colon cancer in mice.
  • In a laboratory study of delta-9-THC in hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer) cells showed that cannabinoids damaged or killed the cancer cells. The same study of delta-9-THC in mouse models of liver cancer showed that it had antitumor effects. Delta-9-THC has been shown to cause these effects by acting on molecules that may also be found in non-small cell lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.
  • In a laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in estrogen receptor positive and estrogen receptor negative breast cancer cells, CBD was shown to have caused cancer cell death while having little effect on normal breast cells. Studies in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer showed that cannabinoids may lessen the growth, number, and spread of tumors.
  • A laboratory study of cannabidiol (CBD) in human glioma cells showed that when given along with chemotherapy, CBD may make chemotherapy more effective and increase cancer cell death without harming normal cells. Studies in mouse models of cancer showed that CBD together with delta-9-THC may make chemotherapy such as temozolomide more effective.
  • In animal studies, delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids have been shown to stimulate appetite and can increase food intake. Reduced appetite is a common problem experienced by chemotherapy patients.
  • Cannabinoids may prevent nerve problems (pain, numbness, tingling, swelling, and muscle weakness) caused by some types of chemotherapy, according to animal studies.
  • Cannabinoid receptors found in brain cells may have a role in controlling nausea and vomiting. Animal studies have shown that delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids may act on cannabinoid receptors to prevent vomiting caused by certain types of chemotherapy.

I told you last January how the federal government argued and continues to argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug with no medicinal value even while it patents marijuana extracts for health-related uses and as it was posed to grant a license to GW Pharmaceuticals for treating patients with multiple sclerosis with a cannabinoid-based drug called Epidiolex.

Cannabis marijuana medications have also been used with complete safety for the treatment of many health problems, including asthma, glaucoma, nausea, tumors, epilepsy, infection, stress, migraines, anorexia, depression, rheumatism and arthritis.

The NCI website claims, “No clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans have been found in the CAM on PubMed database maintained by the National Institutes of Health.” Yet, PubMed, aka the National Institutes of Health, aka another government agency, lists a number of studies that have been conducted. Also, the Schedule I listing severely limits or prohibits the ability of most research organizations to hold clinical trails.

The truth is, marijuana and its uses have been studied far more than most drugs the FDA approves for use on the general public – drugs that cure nothing but merely cover symptoms and generate billions of dollars for Big Pharma.

The federal government – and most local governments — is far more interested in using marijuana as a revenue stream in its fake “War on Drugs” than in allowing medical marijuana in its many forms to improve the lives of people with health problems.

All the “War on Drugs” has accomplished is to create suffering and death, a large prison population, a host of people with criminal records for victimless crimes, a more militarized police regime and great loss of liberty.


Source: Will County News

How do we rediscover freedom and truth?

Senior man wearing spectacles reading book in living room, close-upBack in May, I warned my Bob Livingston Alerts readers about the real purpose of any election, and my warnings are coming to fruition.

Agents of the shadow government — the deep state — are using every vile meme they can think of to describe Donald Trump, and are fomenting protest and argument so that we keep fighting each other, and they can keep their power and wealth.

Understanding these agents and their aims is vital to your survival, not just as an American but as an independent human being. That’s why I want to make sure you see the warning I sent, which applies even more so these few months later:

The state always considers that a self-sufficient and independent thinker is a threat to collectivism and its deception of the masses.

The welfare state must absolutely keep the people from the individualistic tendency of thinking for themselves. Government parasites extract their wealth, power and pomp from mass deception based upon altruistic sacrifices of the workers and producers of wealth.

Their greatest fear is that this will be revealed. To keep it quiet, the government uses memetics.

You have heard the word “meme”? Injecting this word into the public consciousness so that any meme is remembered as simply a “silly internet joke” is part of your programming.

In reality a meme is an information pattern, held in an individual’s memory, which is capable of being copied to another individual’s memory. So memetics is neurolinguistic programming. You could also call it what I’ve called it for years — propaganda by code words.

You are programmed to respond in a particular way to certain words and phrases created by the elites.

It is important you recognize these words (and learn to recognize the truth) because once you become aware of the phrases and how they work, you will be able to shrug off the chains of modern slavery and there will be hope for you.

The overarching code word: Democracy

Most of you are already informed enough to know that the American nation was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

A republic is a limited, representative, participatory government. A republic is the almost natural result of public order built upon the individual, the family, the church, and business and many, many private associations and relations.

Democracy is not necessarily a representative government, but it is an illusory participatory government. People tend to think that democracy is evolved or modern republicanism.

Democracy is truly a veil for a wicked government that places all matters, including personal and private ones, into the public view, for public legislation.

In a democracy, the vote becomes the single, all-important symbol of citizen participation in government. Witness the movement to turn to another code word: the “popular vote.”

The brilliant Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville described in his “Democracy in America” the danger facing all Americans should they become deceived into believing that their mere, sole vote constituted all the duties of a good citizen.

He warned that when this development came about, we should become slaves to the real, elitist and plutocratic powers operating behind the veil of democracy. The problem was obvious more than 150 years ago, when de Tocqueville wrote his book.

Democracy flourishes where the hard-working, creative middle class perishes, or is not allowed to develop.

Now you know why the middle class is “disappearing.” It is in reality being destroyed in order to render the individual vote today meaningless.

So few people vote today that the illusion is breaking down. Some folks say I am a pessimist, but here you see that I am really an optimist. The middle class is opting out of the illusory democratic system.

But as a result, they are being herded into supporting a different collectivist system, the paper money system, which is less and less reliant on the dollar and more and more reliant on the stock market.

Think back… did the average middle class individual have a brokerage account 30 or 40 years ago?

But you can’t be entrusted to invest on your own, else the wealth-stealers will lose the ability to continue their thievery. So today, when you do invest, the financial media espouses a set of code words designed to keep you in the dark.

Financial code words are especially used to make you think you are free and have a choice. But they are part of selling you on “democracy.” Yet it is merely the mask of tyranny that pretends to promote public debate but always on spurious issues. He who speaks about the real issues is blacked out.

The people, through public schools and mass media indoctrination, eventually adopt government morality and habits. Every stage of growth of government carries at the same time a corresponding dependency of the people.

The growing dependency of the people upon government is a gradual, imperceptible and silent revolution.

I cringe when I hear the mention of “constitutional rights.” There is no such thing in the United States! As one example, we wouldn’t be forced to sign annual confessions on IRS tax form 1040 each year if there were any such thing as “constitutional rights.”

My friends, we are not under constitutional law. We are under merchant law. The U.S. Constitution is now merely historical memorabilia of human freedom that now passed away in favor of the money creators.

This means all so-called justice is under the jurisdiction of the “king’s court,” same as in colonial days. You didn’t know that? We are aliens in our own country and our continued beliefs in legal fictions and historical myths is demeaning to our mental capacity and militates far more to slavery than human liberty.

Prescription for individual freedom

Most people never break free of popular delusions because they will not read. 99.9 percent of people will not read, so you are already far above the average!

It’s as if they have some kind of phobia of reading. They wouldn’t buy a book or walk across the street if offered free. The frivolity of life is what consumes them. Yet if you do not read you will never break free and become truly wealthy and free.

You may become like those “educated” people whose thinking has been sealed within the parameters of education. They wouldn’t dare read anything not in harmony with what they already believe.

These are high IQ people. They think what they don’t know isn’t worth knowing.

You could become one of those people whose mind is crowded out. They have an information overload. They can’t see the woods for the trees. These people do read but they have trouble evaluating what to read. So they tend to look past high value and creative ideas that could give them great satisfaction as well as the good life.

All of the above are locked into the “public mind” — collectivism.
Reading and learning has liberated more people than all the wars in history.

I read five to eight books a month on health and finance and many, many publications. I don’t watch TV or go to the movies much, and I only look at the mainstream media to discover what is the propaganda of the day.

I research deeply through publications and information available on the Web. I spend thousands of dollars each year for publications that contain millions of dollars’ worth of information. I feel a conviction to decipher it and bring to you in these Bob Livingston Alerts [Editor’s Note: You can sign up to receive them FREE right here].

I want to help you stay three steps ahead of the propagandists and those trying to confiscate your wealth and take your freedom.

People who won’t read are no better off than those who can’t read. I can’t imagine such a collectivist fate.

Source: Will County News

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research…”

science1003_imageSome of the greatest illusions are sitting out in the open. They are bypassed for two reasons. People refuse to believe they are illusions, despite the abundant evidence; and the professionals dedicated to upholding the illusions continue their work as if nothing at all has been exposed.

Medical journalists in the mainstream rely completely on studies published in prestigious journals.

This the rock. This is the science.

This is also the source of doctors’ authoritarian and arrogant advice to patients.

“Studies show…”

Well, that wraps it up. Nothing else to prove. The studies in the journals are the final word.

Medical reporters base their entire careers on these published reports.

But what if higher authorities contradicted all these studies? What if they scrutinized more studies than any reporter or doctor possibly could… and came to a shocking and opposite conclusion?

This very thing has happened. And the conclusions have been published. But medical reporters ignore them and go their merry way, as if a vast pillar of modern medicine is still intact… when it isn’t, when it has been decimated.

Buckle up.

Let us begin with a statement made by Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical journal in the world — a journal that routinely vets and prints thousands of medical studies:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

You might want to read that statement several times, to savor its full impact. Then proceed to this next one, penned by the editor of The Lancet, another elite and time-honored medical journal that publishes medical studies:

Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…

“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale… Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…”

Still standing? Here are several more statements. They are devastating.

The NY Review of Books (May 12, 2011), Helen Epstein, “Flu Warning: Beware the Drug Companies”:

“Six years ago, John Ioannidis, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, found that nearly half of published articles in scientific journals contained findings that were false, in the sense that independent researchers couldn’t replicate them. The problem is particularly widespread in medical research, where peer-reviewed articles in medical journals can be crucial in influencing multimillion- and sometimes multibillion-dollar spending decisions. It would be surprising if conflicts of interest did not sometimes compromise editorial neutrality, and in the case of medical research, the sources of bias are obvious. Most medical journals receive half or more of their income from pharmaceutical company advertising and reprint orders, and dozens of others [journals] are owned by companies like Wolters Kluwer, a medical publisher that also provides marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry.”

Here’s another quote from the same article:

“The FDA also relies increasingly upon fees and other payments from the pharmaceutical companies whose products the agency is supposed to regulate. This could contribute to the growing number of scandals in which the dangers of widely prescribed drugs have been discovered too late. Last year, GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia was linked to thousands of heart attacks, and earlier in the decade, the company’s antidepressant Paxil was discovered to exacerbate the risk of suicide in young people. Merck’s painkiller Vioxx was also linked to thousands of heart disease deaths. In each case, the scientific literature gave little hint of these dangers. The companies have agreed to pay settlements in class action lawsuits amounting to far less than the profits the drugs earned on the market. These precedents could be creating incentives for reduced vigilance concerning the side effects of prescription drugs in general.”

Also from the NY Review of Books, here are two more quotes from Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”):

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive — that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk — the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.”

Here is another Angell statement:

“In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs — largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.”

If you have the patience to read and re-read these statements, you’ll see they are marking out a scandal of scandals — the entirety of medical literature is a pipeline for deep fraud.

Citing with confidence a study on a drug, for example, would carry no more weight than an article about a celebrity in a gossip rag.

But medical reporters must pretend their sources are correct. It’s their job. If they reject published studies, they have nothing left — except to expose the giant scandal I’m outlining in this article. Biting the hand that feeds them would put them out of work. They’d end up writing about picnics for some local paper — if they were lucky.

However, that’s not my problem or yours. It’s theirs. They chose their profession.

We can settle on the truth. We can even spread it.

Why not?

— Jon Rappoport

Source: Will County News

Freedom of Speech

american flag on computer keyAs the political establishment and Silicon Valley become increasingly emboldened in efforts to silence online speech that defies political correctness or the “official story”, it’s time for free speech advocates and innovators to create online media spaces where the 1stAmendment reigns supreme.

All the talk of eliminating “fake news” from the internet following Donald Trump’s unexpected electoral victory isn’t likely to stop any time soon. But what the left really means when it says “fake news” is, “information we would rather ignore or that we disagree with.”

In fact, this certainly isn’t a new tactic for the left. For years, any speech that doesn’t fit neatly within the increasingly tight confides of political correctness has been labeled as racist, misogynistic or simply hate speech.

Many of the tech giants that grew out of the progressive stronghold of Silicon Valley are more than happy to oblige enemies of free speech with policies that err heavily on the side of limiting speech to protect liberal sensibilities.

That became extremely evident in recent months as YouTube adopted a new moderation scheme that encourages social justice warriors to tattle on creators of controversial content and the decision to eliminate monetization for videos containing politically charged content. And over at Twitter, hundreds of so called alt right activists had their accounts suspended for tweets criticizing or defying aspects of political correctness.

But some social media users who value free speech over mushy gushy feel good protectionism are pushing back.

As Fast Company reported, innovators are creating new platforms aimed at allowing users to address more controversial topics:

For those alt-right individuals and other social media refugees who feel that their views are suppressed, there’s a new social network that promises a digital space for completely free and unfettered communications. Gab, a platform that looks and feels like a combination of Twitter and Reddit, is meant to “put people first and promote people first,” as it was described to me by its founder. And this week, it’s been attracting thousands of users, many of them alt-righters exiled from Facebook and Twitter, though its founder insists that it aims to expand beyond that community and build a more diverse audience. Even Richard Spencer, who leads the far-right National Policy Institute think tank and is widely credited with inventing the term “alt-right” had his Twitter account suspended on Tuesday and soon increased the frequency of his posts on Gab.

Gab is the brainchild of Andrew Torba, an adtech startup founder who now lives in Austin after a stint in Silicon Valley. He found the politically progressive atmosphere of the Bay Area to be stifling, making him uncomfortable about expressing his views, and he moved to Texas to help build his fledgling social network. He was once a member of Y Combinator (he was recently ousted), and has now taken on the mission of fixing what he sees as the censorship that plagues online spaces. The tipping point that pushed him to leave the tech bubble and start Gab came earlier this year, when he read that several Facebook employees had come forward to divulge that the network’s trending topics section was actively suppressing conservative news. “I knew I had to take action,” Torba says.

As more online outlets clamp down on free speech, Americans with contrarian political viewpoints will increasingly find the need to locate alternative social sharing platforms.

With any luck, maybe a conservative version of Silicon Valley will emerge as an incubator for such outlets.

Source: Will County News