If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism.... did that make them Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They wrote the Bible to invent themselves as the chosen ones. They even got Adolf Hitler to legitimize and nationalize themselves by making Israel and moving them there. Jews are not Hebrew. DNA tests prove Jews genetic mix of many different nationalities... ever since they migrated from their homeland Khazaria (Turkey) in 740 BC. Jews were the original Gypsies, that moved from country to country, thieving, murdering and killing children for their rituals to Moloch. Ever since the Jews infiltrated Monarchies and Governments in countries all over the globe hundreds of years ago, they have been using non jews to do their dirty work for them. People need to understand that Hebrews are a race of Negros, Jews have been proven to be just an invention, created by their Satanic Motherland Khazaria, now known as Turkey.

Is "Snowden" Movie a Form of Hypnosis?

 

September 24, 2016

share.jpg

Source Article from http://henrymakow.com/2016/09/snowden-form-of-hyponsis.html

FBI Finally Releases Tesla Documents on Death Ray, Ball Lightning and More


At long last, the FBI has released its document cache of files containing information on Nikola Tesla, including his inventions like death ray and ball lightning, as well as how the government obtained his notes and memos following his death.

Tesla, an inventor and innovator considered at least decades ahead of his time, predicted and helped develop an early prototype of a smartphone, among many other things.

In the Volume 100 of Popular Science Monthly in 1922, for example, Tesla predicted video calling:

“It will soon be possible to see as well as hear by means of electricity. ‘Television’ will be employed as generally as telephoning. As one listens to a voice at the other end of the line, he will also see every expression of the speaker’s face,” explained Tesla in his article.

“In a general way the instrument used for television will closely resemble the mechanism of the human eye. Success in transmitting vision depends upon four things, and of these I have already perfected two.

“The radio transmission of sound will also be developed in the future far beyond the present system. It will be possible not only for any person with a station to listen in, but also to transmit at the same time to every other station. I have already accomplished this in my experiments.”

Tesla’s experiments and inventions, and incredibly forward-thinking vision, made him the target of FBI and government surveillance. Upon his death in the midst of World War II — which had been documented January 7, 1943, though the new cache of documents suggests he didn’t pass away until the following day — the FBI rushed to seize trunk loads of his work in order to prevent anything falling into the hands of Axis forces.

But considering his inventions centered around electricity and involved the amplification of power, the United States government likely had motivations it never put to paper.

According to the newly-released information, the FBI even plotted to arrest a family member Tesla despised — who was believed to be friendly to the enemy — to prevent him using the familial bond to make a legal claim for the work.


Despite Nikola Tesla’s astonishing achievements, he has been all-but omitted from government education.

A smattering of individuals have been post-mortem students of Tesla, both furthering and fleshing out his experiments. One such inventor, Jim Murray, has studied the unparalleled scientist for over five decades — and the two have an FBI following in common.

After years of experimentation and projects, Jim contributed greatly to the development of SERPS (Switched Energy Resonance Power Supply) device. As The Free Thought Project, which has interviewed Jim on multiple occasions, previously described SERPS:

“This highly specialized electronic circuit has the ability to “Magnify” the effective power applied to it by nearly 50 times. When Jim coupled his device with his friend Paul Babcock’s patented ultra fast 5 nanosecond switching technology, they achieved a 4790% increase in electrical power compared to the input. This type of performance, if commercialized, would cause the largest electric utility companies to shake in their boots.”

You can read the FBI’s Nikola Tesla files here.


Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/VLj4wZRMgyM/M.html

The lie-started and illegal Wars of Aggression of a US rogue state

James Corbett’s sharp 5-minute video:

My 2015 paper for the Claremont Colleges’ conference, Seizing an Alternative Toward an Ecological Civilization:

My 2016 paper:

Bonus essay:

Excerpt on unlawful US/UK wars of the present:

“No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion.” – President Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Unlawful Wars of Aggression: The US/UK/Israel “official story” is that current wars are lawful because they are “self-defense.” The Emperor’s New Clothes fact here is that “self-defense” means something quite narrow and specific in war law, and US/UK/Israel armed attacks on so many nations in current and past wars are not even close to the definition of “self-defense.”

Addressing three nations and several wars again seems ambitious for one academic paper, and again, these are all simple variations of one method:

  1. Ignore war law.
  2. Lie to blame the victim and claim “self-defense.”
  3. “Officials” and corporate media never state the Emperor’s New Clothes simple and obvious facts of war law and war lies.

Proving unlawful wars with massive deception is easier when the scope is broadened to see the same elements in three cases.

Importantly, a nation can use military, police, and civilians in self-defense from any attack upon the nation. This is similar to the legal definition of “self-defense” for you or I walking down the street: we cannot attack anyone unless either under attack or imminent threat. And, if under attack, we can use any reasonable force in self-defense, including lethal.

Two world wars begat two treaties to end nations’ armed attacks forever. They are crystal-clear in content and context:

  • Kellogg-Briand Pact (General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as official title)
  • United Nations Charter.

Both are listed in the US State Department’s annual publication, Treaties in Force (2013 edition pages 466 and 493).

Article Six of the US Constitution defines a treaty as US “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that US policy may only complement an active treaty, and never violate it.

This is important because all of us with Oaths to the US Constitution are sworn to honorably refuse all unlawful war orders; military officers are sworn to arrest those who issue them. Indeed, we suffer criminal dishonor if we obey orders for armed attack when they are not “self-defense,” and family dishonor to so easily reject the legal victory won from all our families’ sacrifices through two world wars.

Treaty 1. Kellogg-Briand: General treaty for renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy:

The legal term renounce means to surrender access; that is, to remove that which is renounced as lawful option. This active treaty (page 466 “Renunciation of War”), usually referenced as the Kellogg-Briand Pact, states:

ARTICLE I

The High Contracting Parties solemly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II

The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

Treaty 2. United Nations Charter:

It’s helpful to understand what the UN is not. The only area of legal authority of the UN is security/use of force; all other areas are advise for individual nation’s legislature’s consideration. The UN is not global government. It is a global agreement to end wars of choice outside of a very narrow legal definition of national self-defense against another nation’s armed attack.

The preamble of the United Nations includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…”

The UN purpose includes: “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace…”

Article 2:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter…

Article 24: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

Article 25: The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

Article 33:

  1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
  2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

Article 37: Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40: In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable.

Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the judicial branch of the UN. Their definition of “armed attack” is by a nation’s government. Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan (or IraqSyriaUkraine, Iran [hereherehere], Russia, or claims about ISIS or Khorasans). The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, a criminal act, not an armed attack by another nation’s government.

The US use of force oversees could be a legal application of Article 51 if, and only if, the US could meet the burden of proof of an imminent threat that was not being responded to by the Security Council. To date, the US has not made such an argument.

American Daniel Webster helped create the legal definition of national self-defense in the Caroline Affair as “necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The US attack on Afghanistan came nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorism. Article 51 only allows self-defense until the Security Council takes action; which they did in two Resolutions beginning the day after 9/11 (1368 and 1373) claiming jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definitionno party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy. 

Another area to clarify is the US 1973 War Powers Act (WPA). The authorization by Congress for US presidential discretion for military action in Afghanistan  and Iraq references WPA. This act, in response to the Vietnam War, reframes the Founders’ intent of keeping the power of war in the hands of Congress. It also expressly limits the president to act within US treaty obligations; the principle treaty of use of war being the UN Charter.

This means that presidential authority as commander-in-chief must always remain within the limitations of the UN Charter to be lawful orders. It’s not enough for Congress to authorize use of force; that force must always and only be within the narrow legal definition of self-defense clearly explained in the UN Charter. Of course, we can anticipate that if a government wanted to engage in unlawful war today, they would construct their propaganda to sell the war as “defensive.” The future of humanity to be safe from the scourge of war is therefore dependent upon our collective ability to discern lawful defensive wars from unlawful Wars of Aggression covered in BSEmperor’s New Clothes claims of self-defense.

Governments have been vicious killers over the last 100 years, using “self-defense” to justify their wars. The US has started 201 foreign armed attacks since WW2, causing the world’s peoples to conclude in polling that the US is indeed #1 as the most threatening nation to world peace. These US-started armed attacks have killed ~30 million and counting; 90% of these deaths are innocent children, the elderly and ordinary working civilian women and men. These US armed attacks have war-murdered more than Hitler’s Nazis, and continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression.

The most decorated US Marine general in his day warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars, and W. Bush’s Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, chided Pulitzer-winning journalist, Ron Suskind, that government will continue with such actions to “create our own reality” no matter what anyone else might say.

The first round of US current wars, the attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, continues this history as a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Article 51 requires self-defensive war coming from an attack by a nation’s government, which the CIA and FBI refute in the case of the Afghan government with the terrorism on 9/11. Self-defense ends when the attack ends. The US war began four weeks after 9/11 ended; making the US war one of choice and not defense. Article 51 ends self-defense claims when the UN Security Council acts. Resolution 1373 provides clear language of international cooperation and justice under the law, with no authorization of force.

This evidence doesn’t require the light of the UN Charter’s spirit of its laws, but I’ll add it: humanity rejected war as a policy option and requires nations to cooperate for justice under that law. The US has instead embraced and still embraces war with its outcomes of death, misery, poverty, and fear expressly against the wishes of humanity and the majority of Americans. These acts are clearly unlawful and should be refused and stopped by all men and women in military, government and law enforcement.

Some war liars argue that UN Security Council Resolution 687 from 1991 authorizes resumption of force from the previous Gulf War. This resolution declared a formal cease-fire; which means exactly what it says: stop the use of force. The resolution was declared by UNSC and held in their jurisdiction; that is, no individual nation has authority to supersede UNSC’s power to continue or change the status of the cease-fire. The idea that the US and/or UK can authorize use of force under a UNSC cease-fire is as criminal as your neighbor shooting one of your family members and claiming that because police have authority to shoot dangerous people he can do it.

The categories of crime for armed attacks outside US treaty limits of law are:

  1. Wars of Aggression (the worst crime a nation can commit),
  2. Treason for lying to US military, ordering unlawful attack and invasions of foreign lands, and causing thousands of US military deaths.

All 27 UK Foreign Affairs Department attorneys concluded Iraq war is unlawful: I wrote in 2010:

“All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

“This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.”

“UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith testified he “changed his mind” against the unanimous legal opinion of all 27 of the Foreign Office attorneys to agree with the US legal argument that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 authorized use of force at the discretion of any nation’s choice. This testimony is also criminally damning: arguing that an individual nation has the right to choose war violates the purpose, letter and spirit of the UN Charter, as well as violates 1441 that reaffirms jurisdiction of the Security Council in governance of the issue. This Orwellian argument contradicts the express purpose of the Charter to prevent individual nations from engaging in wars.

“Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” — the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response… There is no “automaticity” in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12.

“The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.”

The UN Charter is the principle law to end wars; designed by the US to produce that result. That said, West Point Grads Against the War have further legal arguments of all the violations of war from US attack and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, including further analysis of the UN Charter and expert supporting testimony. Another resource for documentation and analysis is David Swanson’s War is a Crime. Ironically, Americans would never allow a favorite sport such as baseball or football to be similarly destroyed by such Emperor’s New Clothes lies to those rules/laws.

Lawful war analysis: Negroponte’s letter invokes a legal Charter Article of self-defense in contrast with the loss of over 3,000 lives on 9/11. The letter portends legal evidence of al-Qaeda’s “central role” in the attacks and claims military response is appropriate because of al-Qaeda’s ongoing threat and continued training of terrorists. This reasoning argues for a reinterpretation of self-defense to include pre-emptive attack while lying in omission that such an argument is tacit agreement of current action being outside the law.

The US Army’s official law handbook provides an excellent historical and legal summary of when wars are lawful self-defense and unlawful War of Aggression in a seven-page Chapter One.

Importantly, after accurately defining “self-defense” in war, the JAG authors/attorneys explicitly state on page 6 that war is illegal unless a nation is under attack from another nation’s government, or can provide evidence of imminent threat of such attack:

“Anticipatory self-defense, whether labeled anticipatory or preemptive, must be distinguished from preventive self-defense. Preventive self-defense—employed to counter non-imminent threats—is illegal under international law.”

However, despite the US Army’s law handbook’s accurate disclosure of the legal meaning of “self-defense” in war, they then ignore this meaning to claim “self-defense” as a lawful reason for US wars without further explanation (details here).

President George Washington’s Farewell Address, the culmination of his 45 years of political experience, warned of the primary threat to America as “the impostures of pretended patriotism” from people within our own government who would destroy Constitutional limits in order to obtain tyrannical power:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.”

Young Abraham Lincoln wrote eloquently to defend the US Constitution from unlawful tyrants within our own government. In Congress, he spoke powerfully and truthfully that the President’s claims for armed attack and invasion of a foreign country were lies. Although war-mongers slurred Lincoln’s name at the time, history proved him correct in asserting the President of the US was a war-mongering liar:

“I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him… Now I propose to try to show, that the whole of this, — issue and evidence — is, from beginning to end, the sheerest deception.”

Lincoln also wrote that “pre-emptive” wars were lies, and “war at pleasure.”

Those of us working to end these illegal Wars of Aggression have found zero refutations of our documentation that address war law. All we’ve ever found are denial and unsubstantiated claims of “self-defense” while having to lie about the legal limits in that term. Therefore, We the People have an obvious solution: arrests of .01% “leaders” for the most egregious crimes centering in war, money, and lies (4-part series on arrests with videos).

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at Carl_Herman@post.harvard.edu

Note: Examiner.com has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to http://archive.org/web/, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).

**

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/WkPh2V7Oh_Q/M.html

New DHS Emails Reveal Efforts To Rush Citizenship Grants "Due To Election"


Just a couple of days ago we noted that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had “mistakenly” granted citizenship to over 850 immigrants from “countries of concern to national security” even after they had been flagged for deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (see “DHS Admits “Mistakenly” Granting Citizenship To 858 Immigrants From ‘Countries Of Concern To National Security’“).  Now, newly disclosed DHS emails, indicating a rush to “process as many [citizenship] cases as possible due to the election year,” may help explain why so many “mistakes” were made. 

A recent letter from Senator Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) to the DHS, expressed concerns over the newly revealed emails and whether there may be efforts within U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) to naturalize as many potential voters as possible before election day.  Per Grassley’s letter (which can read in it’s entirely below), someone in the Houston USCIS field office sent the following email to office staff asking employees to consider working overtime in order to process as many naturalization applications as possible before the election: 



“The Field Office due to the election year needs to process as many of their N-400 cases as possible between now and FY 2016.”

 

“If you have cases in this category or other pending, you are encouraged to take advantage of the OT if you can.  This will be an opportunity to move your pending naturalization cases. If you have not volunteered for OT, please consider and let me know if you are interested.”

Another person within the Houston field office forwarded the message saying “it’s the end of the year crunch time!”



I couldn’t have said it better!  It’s the end of the year crunch time, so let’s get crunchy! Go Team Houston! Thanks for all your hard work!”

Grassley’s letter to Jeh Johnson of the DHS, blasts efforts to hastily grant citizenship as “an attempt to create as many new citizen voters as possible.



“We write to express serious concern about an apparent push by your department to rush the adjudication of naturalization applications before the upcoming presidential election, presumably in an attempt to create aa many new citizen voters as possible.

Grassley also points out that this is not the first time efforts have been taken to rush the approval of citizenship applications for election purposes.  Apparently similar efforts were made ahead of the 1996 election when citizenship grants soared by nearly 4x.



“Unfortunately, we have been down this road before.  In the year preceding the 1996 presidential election the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the predecessor agency for USCIS, established the notorious “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) initiative.  Previously, the INS had been granting citizenship to 300,000 to 400,000 aliens per year, but under CUSA that increased to 1.1 million cases.  The apparent push to naturalize as many aliens as possible in time for them to vote in the election resulted in cut corners that endangered national security and public safety.”

Any other election year this news might be shocking but this year, for some reason, we’re not terribly surprised.

 

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

 

Senator Chuck Grassley’s letter to the Department of Homeland Security



Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/WBVOJN_ttWk/M.html

It’s Official: America Is Not The Greatest Country On Earth… It’s 28th!

Violence, alcoholism, and obesity pose the biggest risks in the U.S.

But the rest of the world isn’t doing much better.

As Bloomberg reports, Iceland and Sweden share the top slot with Singapore as world leaders when it comes to health goals set by the United Nations, according to a report published in the Lancet. Using the UN’s sustainable development goals as guideposts, which measure the obvious (poverty, clean water, education) and less obvious (societal inequality, industry innovation), more than 1,870 researchers in 124 countries compiled data on 33 different indicators of progress toward the UN goals related to health.

The massive study emerged from a decadelong collaboration focused on the worldwide distribution of disease.

About a year and a half ago, the researchers involved decided their data might help measure progress on what may be the single most ambitious undertaking humans have ever committed themselves to: survival. In doing so, they came up with some disturbing findings, including that the country with the biggest economy (not to mention, if we’re talking about health, multibillion-dollar health-food and fitness industries) ranks No. 28 overall, between Japan and Estonia.

 

Bloomberg notes that the U.S. scores its highest marks in water, sanitation, and child development. That’s the upside. Unsurprisingly, interpersonal violence (think gun crime) takes a heavy toll on America’s overall ranking. Response to natural disasters, HIV, suicide, obesity, and alcohol abuse all require attention in the U.S. Also noteworthy are basic public health metrics that America. doesn’t perform as well on as other developed countries. The U.S. is No. 64 in the rate of mothers dying for every 100,000 births, and No. 40 when it comes to the rate children under age five die.

“The U.S. isn’t doing as well as it perhaps should compared with some countries in Western Europe,” Murray said.

Finally, it’s an oldie, but a goodie…

Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/IAXjs1vCwrc/M.html

World Bank Chief: Sweden Should Create Independent Migrant State Where Laws Don’t Apply


Sweden could solve their migrant problem by creating a new state-within-a-state where national laws don’t apply and sending thousands of migrants and so-called refugees there, the incoming chief economist of the influential World Bank has said.

Paul Romer, director of New York University’s Stern School of Business Urbanisation Project, made the remarks about his unusual approach to Sweden’s migrant crisis this week in an interview with the national newspaper Dagens Nyhter. Suggesting the zone could model itself on British Hong Kong, the senior economist said it could bring enormous benefit at no cost to the taxpayer.

Explaining his plan, the economist said: “The refugee issue is a huge problem, but there are possible solutions. Sweden, a sparsely populated country, could rent out a land area the size of Hong Kong.

“That could take millions of people who would support themselves, and not have to cost anything… It is important that this free zone should be considered independent, with its own laws and rules, and not as part of Sweden.

“Those who live there would not be Swedish citizens, but would live their lives completely separately from the rest of society.”

The economist has already suggested a similar zone for the United States, using the land in Guantanamo Bay to create an autonomous colony for refugees and migrants.

To make the zone work, Romer said there would have to be strong border controls with the rest of Sweden”making it impossible for free zone inhabitants to move to the other side of the border”. Freeing the migrants from restrictive labour laws such as the minimum wage and working time limits would stimulate economic growth within the zone, he said.

The basis for this assumption again rests with Hong Kong — the low regulation British crown colony which was one of the richest places on the earth — and that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants would follow those who came from China and would be hard working and productive.

Read More…


Source Article from http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blacklistednews/hKxa/~3/zHsfS6wvHO4/M.html

Pesticide Industry Secret Study Shows Neonics Kills Bees

bees




Tests conducted by agrochemical giants Syngenta and Bayer showed that their own pesticides caused severe harm to bees.

Yet they kept their findings secret and did not make them public.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace reveal that the agrochemical industry has a disregard for the environmental and food security concerns, and that regulators are no help.

According to a UN study more than 40 percent of invertebrate species like bees and butterflies face extinction threats at the local level.

“If Bayer and Syngenta cared about the future of our pollinators, they would have made the findings public…It’s time for these companies to come clean”

Common Dreams reports:


Agrochemical giants Syngenta and Bayer discovered in their own tests that their pesticides caused severe harm to bees, according to unpublished documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the environmental group Greenpeace.

The companies conducted the trials on products that used the controversial pesticides known as neonicotinoids, or neonics, which have long been linked to rapid bee decline. Neonics are also the world’s most commonly used pesticide.

According to their own studies, Syngenta’s thiamethoxam and Bayer’s clothianidin were found to cause severe harm at high levels of use, although the effect was lessened when used under 50 parts per billion (ppb) and 40ppb respectively, the Guardian reports.

However, as Greenpeace notes, the research “assumes a very narrow definition of harm to bee health and ignores wild bees which evidence suggests are more likely to be harmed by neonicotinoids.”

That means the findings may “substantially underestimate” the impact of neonics, Greenpeace said.

Still, the studies are significant not just for the admission of risk to bees, which help pollinate three-quarters of the world’s food supply, but also because they expose the agrochemical industry’s disregard for environmental and food security concerns, experts said.

“If Bayer and Syngenta cared about the future of our pollinators, they would have made the findings public. Instead, they kept quiet about them for months and carried on downplaying nearly every study that questioned the safety of their products. It’s time for these companies to come clean about what they really know,” Greenpeace’s Ben Stewart told the Guardian.

Professor Dave Goulson of the University of Sussex added, “Given all the debate about this subject, it is hard to see why the companies don’t make these kinds of studies available. It does seem a little shady to do this kind of field study—the very studies the companies say are the most important ones—and then not tell people what they find.”

Matt Shardlow, executive director of the nonprofit Buglife, also said, “These studies may not show an impact on honeybee health [at low levels], but then the studies are not realistic. The bees were not exposed to the neonics that we know are in planting dust, water drunk by bees and wildflowers, wherever neonics are used as seed treatments. This secret evidence highlights the profound weakness of regulatory tests.”

Neonics have been banned at some levels throughout the European Union and are somewhat regulated in the U.S., but continue to be sold throughout the world. A recent study by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a body formed by the United Nations, found that more than 40 percent of invertebrate species like bees and butterflies face extinction threats at the local level.

By Nadia Prupis/ Common Dreams

Source Article from http://yournewswire.com/pesticide-industry-secret-study-shows-neonics-kills-bees/

Jeremy Corbyn Re-Elected Leader Of The Labour Party

Jeremy Corbyn Re-Elected Leader Of The Labour Party




Jeremy Corbyn has been re-elected as leader of the British Labour party, after comfortably defeating his challenger Owen Smith on Saturday.

Corbyn took 61.8 percent of the vote after more than half a million party members, trade unionists and registered supporters voted.

Mr Corbyn said both he and Mr Smith were part of the “same Labour family” as he appealed for unity.

Press TV reports:

Surveys had indicated that Corbyn would easily defeat his challenger as he maintained widespread support of party members attracted by his socialist anti-austerity policies and “authentic” image.


On Wednesday, Corbyn urged for the party to unite behind his leadership. He reminded lawmakers that he has the support of rank-and-file members of the party and warned them not to challenge him again.

“We owe it to the millions of people Labour exists to represent to end the sniping and personal attacks, and work together for all those who depend on the election of a Labour government. Anything else would be destructive self-indulgence,” Corbyn said in a statement.

“All Labour Party members and MPs have a responsibility to work within the democracy of our party and respect the leadership of whoever is elected.”

The 67-year-old socialist and peace campaigner has shown little interest for Britain’s special relationship with the US and is opposed to nuclear weapons, including the costly Trident nuclear missile system that is maintained by the US.

Corbyn also is a critic of Israel and NATO. As member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, he invited members of the Hezbollah and Hamas resistance movements in 2009 to parliament where he called them “friends.”

Source Article from http://yournewswire.com/jeremy-corbyn-re-elected-leader-of-the-labour-party/

Hillary Clinton Left Classified Data In Hotel During Russian Trip: FBI

hillary clinton




Hillary Clinton forgot to take her classified documents with her after visiting a hotel in Russia while serving as U.S. Secretary of State.

Documents released by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) show that U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton left behind sensitive classified documents at a hotel in Russia.

Doni News Agency reports:Clinton's Doctor Say She Is 'Fit To Serve As President'

The documents, released on Friday and cited by ABC News, show that when Clinton was on a trip to Russia while serving as US secretary of state, her aide brought a classified briefing book into the hotel suite. The classified documents were left behind when the aide and Clinton left the room.

According to the FBI documents, the briefing book should not have been brought into the hotel suite in Russia.

 



Most of Clinton’s emails recovered by the FBI will reportedly not be made public until after the US presidential elections in November.

The Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit demanding that all 14,900 of Clinton’s emails uncovered by the FBI be released. In 2014, Clinton released over 55,000 emails to US State Department investigators, stating that the documents contained only work-related information. She has admitted to erasing 33,000 emails.

hillary clinton

Source Article from http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-left-classified-data-in-hotel-during-russian-trip-fbi/

Iceland Is Considering Suing Iceland The Supermarket

Iceland Is Considering Suing Iceland The Supermarket




A new ‘cold war’ may be on the horizon as Iceland the country considers legal action against Iceland the frozen food shop.

The Icelandic government has confirmed that it is considering launching a lawsuit against the British supermarket Icleand in a bid to protect its identity.

Iceland’s ministry of foreign affairs said it is contemplating filing a suit against the frozen foods giant 45 years after it was founded.

Metro reports:

The chain, which employs more than 20,000 people in more than 850 stores, was originally controlled by Icelandic retail group Baugur up until 2009.


Following Baugur’s collapse after the Icelandic financial crisis, it was then passed on to banks Landsbanki and Gitnir.

Iceland’s founder, Malcolm Walker, then took it over in 2014.

The supermarket has responded to talks of potential legal action brought against them, saying: ‘Iceland Foods has traded under the Iceland name in the UK since 1970, and is today one of the UK’s most recognised brands.

‘We have also traded as Iceland for many years in other EU countries, and in non-EU countries, including Iceland itself.

‘We are not aware that our use of the Iceland name has ever caused any confusion with Iceland the country.’

But Promote Iceland, which is a part of the country’s foreign ministry, said it was concerned Icelandic firms are able to register the name ‘Iceland’ across the UK and EU.

A spokesman for the ministry said: ‘I can confirm that this is being looked into, but no decision has been made.’

 

 

Source Article from http://yournewswire.com/iceland-is-considering-suing-iceland-the-supermarket/

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes