Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO)

Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) | comply-vaccinations | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new bill, HR 1313, has been introduced by North Carolina Congresswoman Virginia Foxx which is designed to give employers absolute power over the employee by mandating whatever they deem to be proper “heath prevention” measures. These measures would include submitting DNA records as well as mandatory vaccinations and other perceived “health preventive” measures designed for the “greater good” of the general public. The result of not complying with this new law of course would be losing your job.

This kind of legislation thus gives large corporations government-like political status and god-like powers over the individual and further widens the gap between the rich and poor. But even more importantly this kind of legislation strips away intimate individual medical privacy and further solidifies the global control grid being created by the ruling elite as they attempt to complete their new world order plans of permanent human enslavement. No need to imagine how this “future” new world order enslavement will look like anymore. We’re seeing it all being rolled out in real-time and in broad daylight for the world to see.

As I discuss in my video below, all of this is part of the Communist-Globalist “peaceful revolution” strategy which is designed to financially neutralize the individual by first making the individual financially dependent on the state or the rulers, and then the threat of having all their food and survival (work related) income taken away is enough to “peacefully” silence the individual into submission.

Writer Dena Schmidt at NaturalHealth365.com writes regarding this latest bill:

While Republican congresswoman Virginia Foxx is the main sponsor of H.R. 1313, she is not the originator of the legislation. It is actually part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Obamacare already threatens to assess penalties, surcharges and higher health insurance premiums to businesses and workers who refuse vaccinations – which the healthcare legislation refers to as “disease prevention.”

Solutions:

It’s time to pay attention and fight back. Organize your counterattack smartly, effectively and efficiently. Start somewhere and then build from there knowing that every voice counts. Below Schmidt explains some of the politics behind this resolution and offers a way to take action:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) calls the H.R. 1313 bill a threat to both businesses and the people employed by them. Instead of allowing for free choice in health and wellness decisions, the legislation would attempt to implement a “carrot and stick” method for “strongly compelling” businesses and workers to accept the agendas of big pharma and its paid-off government officials.

The National Vaccine Information Center is urging concerned citizens to contact their own representatives and senators to express their views about H.R. 1313. When doing so, please remember to express your opinions intelligently and respectfully – you are far more likely to be heard if you are firm but polite when explaining your point of view.

All of this serves to remind us that science has been undermined by the ruling elite and that government pseudoscience has taken its place. This politicized science is then used to make claims which are then used to take away your rights. So first let’s be mindful of how this problem began and then let’s fight back with awareness, information-spreading and do what we can to introduce our own new bills to secure our right to privacy and health. Let’s remind both governments and large corporations that our right to natural health and personal physical and mental well being is inalienable and cannot be taken away.

Related video

Additional links below:

Contact Congresswoman Virginia Foxx here

Contact your local representatives here


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Comply Or Lose Your Job- HR 1313 Would Force Vaccinations and DNA Submission (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

4 Signs We Do Not Live in a Free Country

4 Signs We Do Not Live in a Free Country | crying-liberty | Civil Rights Government Government Control Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

By: Gary ‘Z’ McGee, Waking Times |

“A man without a government is like a fish without a bicycle.” ~Alvaro Koplovich

Just as a fish does not need a bike, a man does not need a government. Especially not an oppressive one. As it stands, our government is cruel and arbitrary; certainly not free. Ironically, in a form of double speak amidst a flare of smoke and mirrors, statist propaganda has us believing that we live in a free country. When it’s more accurate to say that the government uses the term “freedom” as a distraction to keep people docile and under control. Let the sheep believe they are free and they won’t fight to become free. Meanwhile, covertly fence them in with outdated laws and an oppressive militarized police state, while convincing them it’s all in place for their own “protection.” Easy: Then it just takes care of itself. The conditioning and brain-washing kicks in with just a little boost from cognitive dissonance and soft slavery enslaves itself – statists gonna state. Let’s break it down.

1. We live in an oligarchic plutocracy disguised as a democratic republic.

“We may have democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” ~Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice

In our country, money is power. Money concentrated in the hands of a few means power concentrated in the hands of a few, and since power tends to corrupt if it goes unchecked, the people must be free to check it, lest tyranny prevails. But because of reason number two in this article, the people are not free to check it; and here we are, slipping into tyranny.

If we lived within a horizontal democracy, we would be free. No masters, no rulers, and hence, no chance for power to become concentrated in the hands of a few. Easier said than done, sure, but nothing worth doing was ever easy. As it stands, it is impossible to live freely within an oligarchic plutocracy. the plutocrats will simply buy up power by creating oppressive laws and “legal” extortion rackets that keep the people without wealth and power in a permanent state of being poor and powerless. Add to that the use of lobbyists and a fiat currency based on debt, and you have a nation of hoodwinked debt slaves under the delusion that they live in a free democratic republic.

2. We have an overreaching militarized police force.

“All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” ~Nietzsche

I’ve written this one into the ground, but it bears repeating. this particular dead horse needs to be beaten, over and over, until enough people become aware of it for a tipping point to occur. Most of all, police need to become aware of it and make amends for the error of their ways. It begins with changing their minds.

We live in a police state. Bottom line. When the police force is offense-minded, overreaching, and militarized, there is no doubt about it. People are not free if they cannot drive from point A to point B without being harangued and harassed, by threat of violence and force, from an offense-minded cop pushing an immoral extortion racket based on the breaking of a petty law. And all to meet a quota. Sick! And don’t delude yourself for a second that ruining people’s lives over petty speeding tickets or failure to stops is anything close to justice – that’s just your statist brainwashing blinding you from the truth.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the offense-minded police force’s gross overreach of power. They are judge, jury, and executioner in the street way too often these days for any free human’s comfort. Cops have way more power than any single human should have, and no single human should ever have that much power. At least not in a free country.

3. Taxation is not voluntary.

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” ~Dwayne Dyer

When taxation is forced, one cannot say they live in a free country. Taxation is not optional in this country, therefore this country is not free. Bottom line. If one decides not to pay their taxes, they are threatened with violence and/or prison if they don’t pay. That is point-blank extortion. And since it is being done by an authoritarian government, it is naked tyranny.

If one feels like paying taxes, then by all means, pay. That’s fair, because that’s voluntary. But if the state is using its monopoly on violence to get money out of you, that is not fair, because that is extortion. It really is that simple. If freedom is primary then voluntarism is paramount.

4. We have an oppressive bipartisan voting system that simply does not work.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” ~Noam Chomsky

When the voting system fails, then democracy fails. Or, in our case, the illusion of democracy fails. A voting system must be democratic, and it must be horizontally democratic, if it is going to be effective at preventing entrenched power from corrupting. When it cannot prevent power from becoming entrenched, then it does not work for the freedom of the people, it works toward the control of people. And here we are.

As it stands, we have a “voting” system that works well from bipartisanship, but does not work well for free human beings. The Republican/Democratic debacle we’re all forced into voting for is a tragic failure of monumental proportions. The power of republicans is too entrenched. The power of democrats is too entrenched. They both monopolize votes to the extent that voting other than this bipartisan fiasco is a wasted vote. And a wasted vote does not bode well for a free democracy. Add to that the influence of big money (plutocracy rearing its ugly head yet again), then you have a voting system set to control rather than progress the freedom of the people.

At the end of the day, it comes down to individuals being free to live, love, and prosper without a group of others forcing their values (rules and laws) on them through threat of violence. No masters, no rulers. As Epictetus said, “No man is free, who is not master of himself.”


Gary ‘Z’ McGeea former Navy Intelligence Specialist turned philosopher, is the author of Birthday Suit of God and The Looking Glass Man. His works are inspired by the great philosophers of the ages and his wide awake view of the modern world.

This article (4 Signs We Do Not Live in a Free Country) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is printed here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Gary ‘Z’ McGee and WakingTimes.com.

The post 4 Signs We Do Not Live in a Free Country appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

It Is Becoming Illegal To Be Homeless In America As Houston, Dallas And Dozens Of Other Cities Pass Draconian Laws

It Is Becoming Illegal To Be Homeless In America As Houston, Dallas And Dozens Of Other Cities Pass Draconian Laws | homelessness | Civil Rights Government Government Control Special Interests

Should we make homelessness against the law and simply throw all homeless people into prison so that we don’t have to deal with them?  Incredibly, this is actually starting to happen in dozens of major cities all across the United States.  It may be difficult to believe, but in many large urban areas today, if you are found guilty of “public camping” you can be taken directly to jail.  In some cities, activities such as “blocking a walkway” or creating any sort of “temporary structure for human habitation” are also considered to be serious crimes.  And there are some communities that have even made it illegal to feed the homeless without an official permit.  Unfortunately, as the U.S. economy continues to slow down the number of homeless people will continue to grow, and so this is a crisis that is only going to grow in size and scope.

Of course the goal of many of these laws is to get the homeless to go somewhere else.  But as these laws start to multiply all across the nation, pretty soon there won’t be too many places left where it is actually legal to be homeless.

One city that is being highly criticized for passing extremely draconian laws is Houston.  In that city it is actually illegal for the homeless to use any sort of material to shield themselves from the wind, the rain and the cold

Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner is taking a similar approach—his anti-encampment ordinance makes it illegal to use “fabric, metal, cardboard, or other materials as a tent or temporary structure for human habitation.” This ensures that the Houstonian homeless are vulnerable not just to the elements, but also to the constant threat of the police. Officials cite one of the most common justifications for crackdowns on the homeless: neighborhood safety (a more socially acceptable way of talking about the not-in-my-backyard mentality).

With all of the other problems that we are facing as a nation, it stuns me that there are politicians that would spend their time dreaming up such sick and twisted laws.

According to one news report, the homeless in Houston are now officially banned from doing all of the following things…

1. They can’t block a sidewalk, stand in a roadway median or block a building doorway. (AKA they can’t panhandle).

2. They also can’t do any of these things — blocking walkways — under state law that already existed.

3. They can’t sleep in tents, boxes or any other makeshift shelter on public property.

4. They also can’t have heating devices.

5. They can’t carry around belongings that take up space more than three feet long, three feet wide, three feet tall.

6. People can’t spontaneously feed more than five homeless people without a permit.

If I was a homeless person in Houston, I would definitely be looking to get out of there.

But where are they going to go?

Things are almost as bad in Dallas.  In fact, it is being reported that the police in Dallas “issued over 11,000 citations for sleeping in public from January 2012 to November 2015.”

When you break that number down, it comes to 323 citations per month.

Of course some people have tried to challenge these types of laws in court, but most of the challenges have been unsuccessful.  For example, just check out what recently happened in Denver

Three people who were contesting Denver’s urban-camping ban were found guilty on Wednesday, April 5, at the Lindsey-Flanigan courthouse. The defendants — Jerry Burton, Randy Russell and Terese Howard — were determined to have unlawfully camped on November 28, 2016, and to have interfered with police operations at one location. All three were sentenced with court-ordered probation for one year and between twenty and forty hours of community service.

The case challenged Denver’s unauthorized-camping ordinance, which has been divisive ever since Denver City Council approved it in 2012.

Since the courts are generally upholding these laws, this has just emboldened more communities to adopt anti-homelessness ordinances.  According to one report, dozens of major cities have now passed such laws…

City-wide bans on public camping (PDF) have increased by 69 percent throughout the United States. What used to be seen as an annoyance is now prohibited, forcing fines or jail time on those who certainly can’t afford it. The only nationwide nonprofit devoted to studying this, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, has been tracking these changes since 2006. Their findings? There are a scary number of laws passed that ironically make it costly to be homeless.

For example, in 33 of the 100 U.S. cities they studied, it’s illegal to publicly camp. In 18, it’s illegal to sleep in public. Panhandling is illegal in 27 cities.

In 39 cities, it’s illegal to live in vehicles.

As I have warned repeatedly, we are seeing hearts grow cold all around us.  Instead of doing everything that they can to try to help those in need, communities are trying to make them go some place else, and those that try to feed and help the homeless are being harshly penalized.

Sadly, all of this comes at a time when homelessness is on the rise all over America.  In a previous article I pointed out that in New York City the number of homeless people recently hit a brand new all-time high, and things have gotten so bad in Los Angeles that the L.A. City Council has formally requested that Governor Jerry Brown declare a state of emergency.

We tend to think of the homeless as bearded old men with drinking problems, but the truth is that many of the homeless are children.

In fact, the number of homeless children in the United States has risen by about 60 percent since the end of the last recession.

If this is how we are going to treat some of the most vulnerable members of our society while things are still relatively stable, how are we going to be treating one another when the economy completely collapses?


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post It Is Becoming Illegal To Be Homeless In America As Houston, Dallas And Dozens Of Other Cities Pass Draconian Laws appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Deep State Transcends Sovereign Law – John Titus (VIDEO)

The Deep State Transcends Sovereign Law – John Titus (VIDEO) | deep-state | Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Tyranny & Police State

The ultimate form of political and economic power is the power to commit crimes with impunity.  – John Titus

The Shadow of Truth is pleased to present a preview of, “All The Plenary’s Men,” the new film by John Titus (Best Evidence videos / Bailout Films). The term “plenary” in this context is defined as, “complete in every respect;” as in, “plenary power,” meaning, “absolute power.”

In his spectacularly prophetic dystopian novel, “1984,” George Orwell offered the following observation about power:

Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

The quiet revolution occurring behind the facade that is called “Washington, DC” for several decades has led to the complete hijacking of the U.S. Government by an entity nefariously known as, “The Deep State.” Those who warned about The Deep State previously were labelled conspiracy theorists. Now, with the help of Wikileaks, the idea of the Deep State is openly discussed even in the mainstream media. The Deep State is Orwell’s Big Brother.

The ultimate power is the power to commit crimes with impunity, meaning that the entity committing the crime does so free from fear of punishment. We saw this with the Iraq invasion in several respects. The invasion was never sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in accordance with the UN’s founding Charter. It was an illegal war waged by what has become the world’s most dangerous terrorist: The U.S. Deep State. Big oil is
part of the Deep State. Therefore, when Halliburton was caught charging the U.S. taxpayer $10/gallon for gasoline being sold to the military in Iraq, Halliburton was never punished.

The Deep State Transcends Sovereign Law – John Titus (VIDEO) | Untitled-3 | Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Multimedia Sleuth Journal Special Interests Tyranny & Police State
Even more horrifying was watching the Too Big To Fail banks break every major securities law in the rule book leading up to the financial collapse of 2008 and escape free from any form of prosecution. Not only were these banks allowed to trample all over the law, but the Government used $800 billion of taxpayer money to keep the banks from collapsing and to enable the banks to pay large bonuses that year.

The primary theme underlying John Titus,’ “All The Plenary’s Men,” is that any entity that can commit crimes with impunity has risen above a nation’s sovereign law. In fact, that entity IS the sovereign authority. Thus, The Deep State is the sovereign authority standing behind the U.S. Government. The Deep State is comprised of not just the NSA, CIA and Pentagon, but also Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Healthcare and Big Technology.

“We’ve been swirling down the toilet as a nation since 2007” (John Titus). The Shadow Truth chatted with John about his upcoming film, for which he provided a thoroughly engrossing, if not chilling, trailer:

Sharing is caring!


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post The Deep State Transcends Sovereign Law – John Titus (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO)

Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) | surveillance | Civil Rights Government Government Control Losing Rights Multimedia National Security Agency Society Surveillance

“If You Have Nothing To Hide You Have Nothing to Fear”, said once Joseph Goebbels, former Nazi Minister of Propaganda. We all know what happened while the Nazis and their American collaborators were in power. Yet, the quote cited above is exactly what the handlers of the U.S.S.A. use to justify its existence.

The same quote was used by William Hague and pretty much every other law enforcement official who believes in the need to have a worldwide Surveillance State. Even lay people who are interviewed on the streets of America and Europe often repeat the words of the former Nazi Propaganda Minister.

However, since not everyone agrees with Goebbels, many politicians and bureaucrats need to create reason for them to believe. The best reasons to make people believe what would be otherwise un-believable, is the typical ‘little known outside threat’ and the premise is always the same: we all need to surrender something we hold dear in order to do away with the threat.

For instance, in spite of what many western politicians say about Russia and how its actions supposedly resemble the U.S.S.R., the fact is that Russia is not the USSR. It is not even close to it being the U.S.S.R..

Ad-hominem attacks on Russia and its leaders, of whom I am not a fan of, are attempts to distract people from a greater global threat: the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. has been in the works for decades and its power has been expanded based on false premises, such as the Russian menace, the ISIS threat or the Al-Qaeda rising tide of global terrorism.

The United Surveillance States of America (U.S.S.A.) and its branches in Europe, Asia and Oceania are the threat we have all been distracted from by way of unfounded fear, misinformation, propaganda and outright ignorance.

This entity is not only charged with spying on billions of people worldwide, but also with carrying out offensive cyber attacks on infrastructure at home and abroad.

It collects billions of bytes of metadata whose associated content is later used, when possible, as a tool to blackmail anyone who may become an obstacle to the advancement of the U.S.S.A..

The U.S.S.A. is not only composed by American and allied monitoring agencies, but also by global communication networks and media conglomerates that, either voluntarily or by way of force (inter-connectedness, built-in back doors, direct and indirect threats, etc) serve as bridges to the larger U.S.S.A. infrastructure to capture, filter and direct information on everything and everyone that is somehow making use of digital resources almost anywhere on the planet.

Although much of the blame on the existence and operation of the United Surveillance States of America has been rightfully placed on the United States National Security Agency (NSA), as its name describes it, the existence of such a massive surveillance infrastructure would not be possible without the collaboration of similar entities in Europe, Asia and Oceania, to cite a few.

It is true, America is the central command of the U.S.S.A., but this globally operating multi-headed cyber beast could not do the work it does without the collaboration of partner organizations in other parts of the world.

A documentary titled “America’s Surveillance State”, whose content is based on declassified and leaked documents as well as testimony from former ‘intelligence gatherers’ such as Thomas Drake, Russ Tice and Edward Snowden, unveiled details about the strength and reach of the U.S.S.A. and how, despite political rhetoric from seating presidents and congressmen about its despotic existence, it continues to grow out of control.

The following is the six part documentary which shows how the U.S.S.A and not the U.S.S.R. is the most significant threat to all of us. This is so not only because it is out there sniffing it all, but also because people have become accustomed to it. It is part of their lives and most of them do not even see it as an inconvenience, much less as a threat.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


Save

The post Goodbye U.S.S.R And Hello U.S.S.A. (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism

The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism | feudal-society | Civil Rights Globalism Government Control Illuminati Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests US News

By: Jon Rappoport |

There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt’s secret society, the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and onward to the modern Globalist agenda.

One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.

Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.

That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and Mexican economies.

Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising, unearthed Hills’ brief statement on private property. I’ve broken it up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending point.

Carla Hills: “Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.”

Her use of the term “human settlements” is curious, as is her reference to “crucial role it [land] plays.” Is she trying to take us back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of “oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil will play ‘a crucial role’ in our future.” It’s been centuries since private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn’t like acknowledging that. And through her use of “human settlements,” she also wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a claim to land or buying it is verboten. It’s a corruption of the natural order. I assume Hills wasn’t living on a kibbutz or in a commune when she wrote her statement, but we’ll leave that problem for another time.

Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn’t ordinary and can’t be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn’t “control it.” And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work, is inefficient, if that means some super-government can’t take land away “for the public good.”

Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that’s where she’s going.

She continues: “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”

Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own more land than others. That’s not right. That’s unjust. There should be no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own way in the world, believe in private property. They’re for social injustice. They don’t want to give way to Greater Sharing.

Finally, Hills states: “Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That’s how land should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of course, includes people (in unlimited numbers—no ceiling) who come here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they get justice. They should get free housing. They should get “healthy conditions.” No problem. Everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot square box to live in.

What could go wrong?

Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati and Marx, but she’s on the same page. She’s “sustainable” and “green” and “kind” and “thoughtful” and “caring.” She’s perfect for self-styled liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.

She’s part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.

I know many people (and I’m sure you do, too) who have worked hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would nevertheless applaud Carla Hills’ statement. They’ve succeeded in compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all, they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as they’ve been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will be served.

They’re in a dream. It’s so pretty.

There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All 400 million or so people in the US have lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it’s spring, and the trees are flowering.

Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone to his broker. He’s flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are in position, just in case a threat develops.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post The Illuminati Goal Of Abolishing Private Property: Reborn In Globalism appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All?

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-vs-minarchy | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Anarchy vs. minarchy: which is better? Can we be free with a limited government? Can we be safe in a stateless society? Is voluntaryism the answer?

Anarchy vs minarchy is the contrast between the idea of a society with no government (anarchy) or a small, limited government (minarchy). For many awake and aware people, the current state of the world is so dysfunctional that they have gone beyond the point of trying to justify our current governmental structures. For this growing number of people of all nations and cultures, it’s no longer about left vs right, Democrat vs Republican, socialism vs conservatism or all the other false dichotomies that abound on the political spectrum. For many of us, there’s simply no point in investing time and energy into an illusion – the political illusion – while pretending it actually makes a difference. Why argue who is going to be the better slavemaster or the lesser of 2 evils? We are really only left with 2 choices: between having a small government or having no government. So which would be better for humanity, minarchy or anarchy?

Definitions of Anarchy, Minarchy and Voluntaryism

First of all, the words anarchy and minarchy come from the Greek words “an-” (meaning without), “arkhos” (meaning rule, chief or ruler) and the Latin prefix “min-” (meaning small). Thus, anarchy is a society or nation with no rules (i.e. government-sanctioned law), rulers or a ruling class, whereas minarchy is one with a minimal amount of rules, rulers and a ruling class. Care must be taken not to confuse minarchy with monarchy! Also, instead of the term anarchy, it may be more apt to use the word voluntaryism, which describes a stateless society where all human interactions are voluntary and where no central authority exists to make or enforce laws.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-voluntaryism-479x240 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Can we set up a society where every interaction is voluntary? That is the goal of anarchy or voluntaryism.

Anarchy ≠ Chaos

Before we begin, it’s important to address a common misconception, that anarchy = chaos. Anarchy does not equal chaos! You can still have organization, cooperation, harmony and trust in a society where there is no central authority. It is up to the individual members to act in such a way to create that society. You can even have hierarchy in a voluntary society, where members voluntarily choose to structure an organization like that (e.g. for purposes of speed, coherence and efficiency). However, such hierarchy would never be forced on anyone, because the organizations containing it would be voluntary associations.

Likewise, it’s important to stress that anarchy does not mean utopia either. It’s naive to think that everyone will just magically get along and there will be no criminals or evil if we just remove government. However, as I will get to later, the point is about humanity evolving in terms of responsibility so that we can face these problems in a different way.

The Pros of Minarchism: Arguments For a Small, Limited Government

Many people who become anarchists or voluntaryists first become minarchists, because the idea of imagining the abolition of all government in a single step is very daunting for most. Minarchists believe that we can’t do away with government altogether, because it’s necessary and fulfills too many vital, essential roles that would be difficult or impossible to otherwise fulfill. These are the top reasons and justifications usually proposed for minarchy:

– Need for a central register in society (e.g. to be the one “official” list of titles to property, which plays a key part in dispute resolution);

– Need for central planning and centralized authority for good organization;

– Need to have some mechanism to control and offset other power gangs in society, such as the Mafia and the Corporatocracy;

– Criminal justice (i.e. catching criminals, providing the arena and the judge for trials of suspects); and

– Health safety protection (e.g. forcing quarantine in case of an outbreak).

Some people also advance the claim that government (and governmentally-approved corporate structures) are the reason that Western nations evolved faster than other nations. In this entertaining debate at Anarchapulco, Mark Skousen makes the points that we need minarchy to force a criminal suspect to actually come to the courtroom and stand trial, to ensure quarantine in emergency situations, and to enforce eminent domain (the right government takes upon itself to be able to force buy anyone’s property for national and municipal organizational purposes).

The Cons of Minarchy: Arguments Against a Small, Limited Government

His opponent, Larken Rose, vehemently denies that minarchy is a good idea. He points out the following reasons why:

– Minarchists advocate the “arch” or the existence of a ruling class. All monarchists are statists. They still believe in external authority. They still advocate some kind of government; they just think or want that such a government only do what they want it to do;

– Who decides what the “minimum” amount of power is that a government is allowed to wield? It will always be arbitrary;

– The constitutional limits written down to supposedly restrain minarchy governments don’t work. No one pays attention to the limits, and it’s ultimately not possible to enforce them;

– A constitution almost always provides for its own amendment, so anyone can “legally” and “constitutionally” change the entire constitution piece by piece. Look at how the Weimar Republic “legally” gave Hitler massive power and became the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany;

– Practically speaking, has minarchism ever done what it was promised to do? Like communism, it may be good in theory, but has a government EVER existed that only protected individual rights and never grew larger or out-of-control? Look at the US experiment: it was based on the theory of limited government, but has now grown to become the biggest empire in the history of the world (far more tyrannical than King George ever was), engaging in routine tyranny such as mass surveillance, theft via mandatory and excessive taxation, torture, assassination, foreign intervention and continuous imperialistic war around the world;

– Morally speaking, it’s fundamentally wrong (and impossible) to delegate rights you don’t have. How can a government claim any moral right to do what people cannot morally do? Where did government get its supposed right to steal, punish, imprison and kill, when it’s only made up of people, and no single person has that right himself or herself? Why does “government” suddenly have magical and extraordinary moral rights?

But We “Need” Government … Don’t We?

The usual knee-jerk response from people is that we “need” government and we can’t possibly do away with it completely. But does this stand up to closer scrutiny? Do we really need government to perform all the functions it currently does, or could we open a market for various businesses to compete? For example, could we have a free market for garbage collection? Utilities? Road-building? Dispute resolution? In all cases, there’s no logical reason why we couldn’t allow private businesses to perform these functions and services. Sure, it some cases it’s easier to have competing business (utilities) than others where central planning makes it more efficient (road-building), but couldn’t people find a fair way to get together and pay for these voluntarily in groups, neighborhoods and associations? Anarchists such as Stefan Molyneux have developed the idea of a free market of DROs (Dispute Resolution Organizations) who function as private defense agencies and arbitrators, and whom people employ when they go into contract with each other as a trusted 3rd party. Indeed, big corporations such as PayPal, eBay and Visa already have such private arbitrators anyway, preferring to use them than governmental courts.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | tyrant-appears-as-protector-plato-479x225 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Without Government, Who Would Protect Us From Evil?

As stated above, anarchy does not mean an automatic utopia. From a voluntaryist point of view, removing government is a great step towards freedom, but many will be scared of the idea. “Who will protect us from evil?” they ask. The answer is, quite simply, that we all have to face it regardless of the existence of government or not. There will still be people and groups trying to trick, steal from and control others. Anarchy can’t protect against all evil. Nothing can. We have government right now, and such conniving people and groups still exist! The big problem is that all too often government becomes the vehicle for such evil rather than a protector against it. As Plato said, when the authoritarian comes on the scene, he appeals to people’s fears and base needs for safety and security. At first, he’s a savior and a protector; later, he’s a tyrant.

When you create a center of power, you create an incentive and invitation for dark forces to seize control of that center of power – then they can magnify and “force multiply” (to use a military term) their dark agenda. Has there ever been a governmental situation where this did not happen? As I discussed in the article The Top 3 Reasons Why the System Keeps Perpetuating Itself, you can use the analogy of the ring of power from the Lord of the Rings. Creating a ring of power (a metaphor for a ruling class, a government and a belief in authority) is dangerous in and of itself, because you are creating an artificial construct which you can never guarantee will be always used for good. We all know the famous phrase that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There’s no way around it!

We all know that politicians are puppets of a darker force. Put simply, the dark force behind government uses government to carry out its plans. What we see in practice, time and time again, is that government ends up enabling the very thing it was supposedly created to stop or protect against! So many insiders have told us this is exactly how the game works. For example, remember the story of Smedley Butler, who exposed how corporations try to win over the centralized coercive power of government to sanction their crimes, and wrote how he regretted becoming a “high class muscle man” for the corporatocracy.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | who-will-guard-the-guards-juvenal-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

Who will guard the guards or guardians? It’s a problem as old as time itself. A quote from the ancient Roman author Juvenal.

Government has shown itself to be a vehicle for an astonishing amount of evil. Government is an idea – nothing more – yet the practical implementation of this idea has caused untold death and destruction. The term democide was (according to Wikipedia“revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932–2014) as ‘the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder’”. In other words, democide means death by government. Democide was the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century, responsible for around 262 million victims according to Rummel, including genocides like Stalin’s Great Purges, Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the deaths from the colonial policy in the Congo Free State. Yes, communist and fascist governments may be a worse flavor of evil, but so-called liberal democracies like the UK and US have been drenched in blood for centuries now.

Can the Free Market “Guard the Guardians” Better?

Of course, there is no guarantee that anarchy will stop all evil, but perhaps the free market can do a better job than a minarchist system. First off, people so inclined would be happy to take charge of their own defense (by owning and using guns, by taking self-defense courses, etc.). But the defense of your person, your property and your family could also be outsourced to a private group or organization that you trusted. One idea is that, in a free market, DROs could just be like private defense agencies who are vying for your business. The first thing they would have to do would be to convince you that they aren’t a threat themselves and that they are not going to try to seize power over everyone. They would have to have grand guarantees and promises (e.g. Molyneux suggests something like they have to give all their money to charity and close down business if they are caught lying). They would be subject to the scrutiny of the market. If they were found to have deceived people, their business would suffer. People would have the choice to use or not use them.

It has been pointed out that the weakness of libertarianism as a philosophy is that is strong on big bullies (centralized government) but weak on small bullies (local gangs, abusive parents/spouses, etc.). For instance, how would a voluntary society deal with domestic abuse within a family? One answer is that DROs could be called just as cops are now, and while they wouldn’t have the “legal authority” to attack or imprison the abuser (because there would be no such thing as legal authority in an anarchist society), they could certainly use force in self-defense just as any other person would, regardless of if they have a badge and uniform or not. People would have to participate more in forming local groups to resolve conflict and achieve justice for victims. While this may sound scary to some, remember this: as much as government may help some victims of abuse, government also shields and covers up the perpetrators of massive abuse (a great example is how government members participate in pedophilia at the highest levels all across the world).

Again we are left with the awkward realization: government commits and encourages more evil than it stops, or to put it more accurately, the concept and creation of government allow evil and evildoers to amplify their influence and control people more than if government simply did not exist.

Government Creates and Protects Mafia and Corporate Monopolies

Even if you ignore the egregious evils of governmental democide, which some may try to explain away by saying it’s government gone bad, the fact remains that government itself often protects the “bad guys” rather than the “good guys”. By having the power to make law for an entire area, government can create monopolies (e.g. money issuance) and black markets (e.g. prohibition on alcohol). The international banking cartel led by the Rothschilds has prospered mostly because the government has given away its own power to create currency, and has made it legal and mandatory for everyone to accept fiat currency or paper money. Without that governmental decree, the banksters would face more serious competition in the forms of alternative currencies, and people would have more options against them. This is a classic case where government serves and encourages evil rather than protects us from it.

Government itself is a monopoly. It can be defined as the organization within a given geographical area that claims the sole right to rule and the sole right to initiate violence against others who do not obey its decrees. It sets itself up as the sole authority. Once you have a monopoly, you remove the power of the free market and competition. The end user or consumer no longer has options. New World Order conspirator John D. Rockefeller once said, “Competition is a sin”. As a monopoly, government removes itself from the normal pressures that companies face in an economic environment where companies have to perform well or else risk going out of business – and therefore has no real incentive to do its job properly.

Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? | anarchy-government-is-not-reason-eloquence-force-washington-quote | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Control Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Sleuth Journal Society Special Interests

When an organization gains a monopoly, it shields itself from ostracism – a great tool of anarchy. Ostracism is the technique by which citizens in a free and voluntary society can make their preferences known, and a kind of way that they “vote” by who they associate with, what products they buy and with whom they do business. Collectively, it forms a network of economic checks and balances which are far better than anything the Constitution could ever protect against (and after all, the US Constitution is just “a goddamn piece of paper”

 in the eyes of tyrants).

Government is not a servant; that’s the lie fed to us. Government is a violent master. Government is first and foremost violence, and secondarily an organizational tool. The above quote is attributed to first US president George Washington.

Removing the Belief in Authority and Taking Responsibility

True anarchy or true voluntaryism takes place first inside your mind, not in the outside world. It all comes down to the belief in authority, to the notion that we have to have a ruling class, or that any ruler can be legitimate in a world where we are all born equal. A careful analysis shows that government cannot justify its political authority, no matter whether you use the arguments of social contract, implicit consent, explicit consent or consequentialism. All of these arguments can be overturned with logic to show that government is simply force masquerading in a variety of disguises such as consent, duty or so-called benevolent dictatorship (an oxymoron). Believing out of fear that we have to have government (no matter what) is a symptom of mind control.

True anarchy is not chaos or disorder, but rather removing the belief in authority, and keeping the rest. It’s overturning the idea that politicians and government get an exemption from morality. There is no need to do away with organization and cooperation; there is a need to do away with the initiation of violence.

Underneath it all, there is a general tendency in some people to be lazy and scared. We want a final arbiter or decider because we don’t want to have to work out things ourselves. Yes, it can be tricky, complicated and difficult to resolve disputes and conflicts, especially when they go into grey ares. It takes responsibility, effort and skill in dispute resolution. But can we justify outsourcing this just because we don’t feel like being more responsible? Or putting out too much effort? Or because we imagine we don’t have the skills and we don’t want to push ourselves to develop them? Can we really justify creating this fictitious seat of power, this morality-free zone, just because we feel too uncomfortable trying to work these things out ourselves? My answer is that we cannot justify it, nor can we even possibly outsource it, for every government necessarily has within it the seed of power, corruption and violence; otherwise, without the power to coerce, it would not be government.

Conclusion: Trust Our Cooperative Tendencies

In closely comparing anarchy and minarchy, it is difficult to justify the minarchist position. When you put them under the microscope, government and political authority are not legitimate; they are force. The terms limited government and government by consent are oxymorons, because there are no good examples in the real world of a government that stays limited forever, and a government never really has the consent of all its citizens, most of whom are simply born into an existing system of coercion by coincidence of birth (and taught through indoctrination to never question it).

The stateless society trusts the inherent tendency among humans (and Nature) to cooperate. Yes, there is competition in life, but the greater part is cooperation, symbiosis, trust and harmony. It is possible to find win/win solutions that don’t require the need for an outside authority, and to take that model and apply it to a whole society. To continue to believe in authority is to create a game where you may win or you may lose; it’s creating a throne or seat of power which “bad guys” can overtake. It’s well nigh time for humanity to grapple with the question of anarchy vs minarchy, to move beyond the fears which are holding us back from creating a more free society.

Sources:

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUjwmC7byCM

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/system-perpetuation-top-3-reasons/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/political-authority-no-real-basis/

*http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/satanic-pedophilia-network-exposed-australia/


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Anarchy vs. Minarchy: Do You Want a Little Government or None at All? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Government Mandatory Health Care Is Still Tyranny

Government Mandatory Health Care Is Still Tyranny | Health-insurance-CEO-compensation | Civil Rights Government Government Control Medical & Health Special Interests Tyranny & Police State

The failure of the GOP to repeal Obamacare proves once again that the establishment power structure maintains their grip on political policy. The incompetence of Paul Ryan is more closely described as a propensity to be a faithful stooge for the corporatist agenda. It is because of this assessment, which reflects the current state of conduct where nothing ever changes or actually improves society that keeps the malevolent system in place. Regretfully, Big Government is now the GOP Platform.

“Collectivism is alive and well within the party apparatus of the Republican jellyfish tax cutters. This loathsome game of surrender is the hallmark of phony conservatives. The article, Why the GOP are cowards, needs to be read again, since its application has proven once again that big government is in actuality, the default position of the party of double talk.”

The disastrous American Health Care Act had all the fingerprints of being written by the insurance lobbyists. Just like the one originally drafted to guarantee Insurance Companies Profit from Obamacare.

“No one can reasonably deny that the major Insurance Companies were the driving force behind the writing of the Affordable Care Act legislation. “The health care industry spent nearly $500 million lobbying for health care issues in 2012, and $243 million so far in 2013.” Obamacare or Corporate-care: The Writing of the Affordable Care Act, sums up the process.”

The pattern of holding health care hostage to corporate revenue is at the heart of the problem with structuring a viable delivery system of medicine. Obamacare Imperiousness provides the needed background.

“Insurance does not have to be a service for profit. Administrative expenses and actuarial factors could be the pass through costs that determine rates. Under the current protected system, the Obamacare formula guarantees the mega insurance titans returns, while assuring that the quality of medical treatment declines or becomes not existent.”

In order to design a cost effective method to provide health care, the first element is to remove private for profit insurance underwriting from medical coverage. Since economic reality is based upon “there is no free lunch”, individuals need to take responsibility to pay for their healing treatment. The arguments against a government single payment system usually reject the intrinsic right of citizens to pay directly for medical services rendered. Obamacare’s mandate that requires individuals to obtain insurance coverage or to pay an ever increasing fine is pure despotism.

The alternative is to adopt the Medicare administrative processing organization to render payment to doctors and medical facilities. In addition a competitive fee based standard for procedures and treatments needs to be established and continually updated that reflects the evolving capacities and costs for the practice of medicine.

The government would distribute payments for medical services from individual accounts of each person who joins the indemnity coverage scheme. Persons who are presently receiving medical coverage through their employers will receive the benefit of eliminating the profit markup of insurance companies. Employers will immediately receive relief from the Obamacare requirements and will be in a position to increase wages and hire more workers.

Individual taxpayers, who want to be part of this delivery system, will be incentivized to buy life insurance policies ($500,000 minimum) from underwriting actuary companies and assign the beneficial claim rights to the federal program. If at the end of life, the value of the coverage maintains a positive worth after all medical costs are satisfied, the proceeds become part of the person’s estate.

Life insurance companies will be able to invest the premiums from these policies and make capital available for growth and expansion.

Medicare taxes remain on wages and income as a method to maintain the cash flow of the distribution payment system.

For those who chose not the become part of this format, their coverage limits will be reduced by the diminished amount for not maintaining the life insurance component.

Medicaid coverage for the indigent, low income or unwilling to contribute to their own medical care costs, will limit the most expensive procedures that currently are being pitched as entitlements. Charity hospitals and skilled gratis care can once again become part of the culture and be seen as a duty of the medical profession.

The other side of the coin requires a fundamental reform of the medical delivery care. Since an updating fee schedule would be set, federal research funding and incentives need to be designed that will encourage more competition to keep fees down. With reduced paper reporting and regulations, general administrative costs will be lowered.

Dramatic limitations on legal tort actions, restraining excessive judgments and strict consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits is a necessary component of keeping costs in line.

Pharmaceutical drugs need a fast track to release generic, advertisements should be banned from media promotions and aggressive government negotiated and dramatic cost reductions for drug purchases.

Encouragement and expansion of concierge medicine.

The addition of alternative eastern medicine to the coverage standard.

The patient needs to know the cost for each and every treatment and procedure. They need to have a direct relationship for all expenditures to their own pocket book outlays.  The unavoidable rise in medical levies under Obamacare or the Ryan Plan stems from a lack of reducing the actual costs in medical services that are disguised through a byzantine layer of undisclosed charges that are seldom itemized or even known at the time of making a business decision.

Coverage across state lines is being prevented because insurance companies hate competition. The most infamous proponent of stamping out competition was John D. Rockefeller. The History of the Pharma-Cartel is the chronicle of Western medicine that serves special interests at the expense and health of Americans. How Rockefeller Founded Modern Medicine And Killed Natural Cures concludes:

“100 years later, churning out doctors who know nothing about the benefits of nutrition or herbs or any holistic practices. We have an entire society that is enslaved to corporations for its well-being.

America spends 15% of its GDP on healthcare, which should be really called “sick care.” It is focused not on cure, but only on symptoms, thus creating repeat customers. There is no cure for cancer, diabetes, autism, asthma, or even flu.”

What is amazing that so few of these “sick care” patients understand just how deceptive the political warfare over enforcing the no cure therapy that comes from Obamacare or the Ryan lite travesties have taken on the public.

The legacy of the governmental malady that imposed Obamacare is a Public Requiem by Supreme Decree is more dangerous than any virus pathogen.

“Do you have an absolute right to refuse medical treatment? Well, if you recognize the immutable authority of natural rights, you must defend the birthright of individuals to reject the quackery of government-imposed medicine. Common law clearly discerns that there are limits on the power of governments to force human beings into becoming pinned up sheep, against their will. Already far too many cowardly citizens are eager to comply with the next dictate of a tyrannical regime. Subsequently, when the death panels summon you into their diagnostic pool of drugs, why would you want to accept the pharmaceutical prescription for a controlled and managed demise?”

The wasted political capital and falsified misdirection that consume public discourse avoids the real remedy for curing the national epidemic. Watching the blame game when Obamacare ruptures into an appendicitis of unaffordability will explode into a partisan frenzy of disgust.

The forces of despotism want to coerce a socialized governmental controlled system of medical maltreatment. Market alternative elements would be relegated to the scrap heap of terminal afflictions. Much like the payment with cash, the establishment elites and governance bureaucrats want to ban any unconventional treatment as improper or even unlawful.

Since no solution has been agreed to by the political class, the only way to awaking the public mind is to prove the linkage between real world tax tariffs and the overpriced costs of coverage and treatments. When an oppressive deductable is so high that the underlying insurance is not able to be used, what is the point of having coverage?

People must accept that Obamacare was imposed on the public by the entitlement proponents, AKA, the Democratic Party. Since most inflective observers acknowledge that Obamacare will spiral out of control this year, it is unconscionable that both parties are so unwilling to arrive at even a temporary quick fix.

As long as an insurance mandate is a core requirement, the public resentment will grow. As long as the excessive cost of services is not addressed and reduced, having insurance is an endless escalation into bankruptcy. And as long as medical practice is defined as drug based treatment, and avoids the causes of disease and illness, the end result will just keep the laboratory specimens running on a treadmill.

When USA Today publishes, Dying younger: U.S. life expectancy ‘a real problem’, one needs to inquire if the decline in the quality of medicine might be a result of the failed Obamacare sham. Entitlements for those who are unwilling to pay for their own health care is an inevitable prescription to lower the care level for everyone.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Government Mandatory Health Care Is Still Tyranny appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO)

New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) | medical-doctor | Civil Rights General Health Government Government Control Government Corruption Losing Rights Medical & Health Multimedia Parental Rights Sleuth Journal Special Interests Vaccines

A new law quietly passed last December contains a waiver of informed consent that eliminates the requirement of pharmaceutical companies to let you know if a medication or vaccine given to you or your child is experimental.

Wow. One last Christmas surprise from President Obama.

This is according to Section 3024, “Informed Consent Waiver for Clinical Investigations” of H.R. 32, the “21st Century Cures Act.” Here’s the wording of the text:

Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

“Clinical testing” is not clearly defined. Furthermore, who the heck gets to decide what “minimal risk” is? The pharmaceutical companies? The FDA? Medical professionals? How incredibly patronizing.

I don’t know about you, but before taking medication or allowing my children to, I want to know all of the details. What are the risks? What are the potential side effects? What is the worst thing that could happen if we don’t take it?

I want to be fully informed and make my own decision, and anything less than that is a type of condescension that makes my blood boil. My children and I are not Big Pharma’s lab rats.

I hadn’t heard a thing about this until my friend Melissa from Truthstream Media send me the horrifying video below and I knew that I had to let you folks know right away.  Sign up here to stay up to date with the latest news and information that relates to your freedom and well-being.

This video is a must-watch and explains it in far more detail.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post New Law Means You Could be the Subject of a Vaccine or Medication Experiment Without Your Informed Consent (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Lost Privacy Rights in America

Lost Privacy Rights in America | surveillance | Civil Rights Government Control Losing Rights Surveillance US News

America is a total surveillance society. Big Brother is no longer fiction. Sophisticated technologies make total monitoring possible, everyone vulnerable, including presidents.

All our moves, transactions and communications can be recorded, compiled and stored for easy access. Anything we say or do can be used against us.

Bill of Rights protections no longer apply. Collecting meta-data communications on Americans is unrelated to national security.

Judicial oversight is absent. Congressional members are told little about what goes on. The CIA, NSA, FBI and other US spy agencies operate ad libitum, doing whatever they wish unaccountably.

Cable and phone companies want online privacy made illegal. They require permission to use personal information about their subscribers.

They want congressional legislation removing this protection. Senator Jeff Flake (R. AZ) and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R. TN) support the campaign by cable and phone companies to abolish online privacy.

They intend using Congressional Review Act (1996) authority. It lets Congress review, by expedited legislative procedures, federal regulations issued by government agencies.

They can be rescinded by a joint House and Senate resolution. Once repealed, CRA prohibits reissuing the rule in substantially similar form or issuing a new regulation, substantially the same  – “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.”

Phone and cable companies want online privacy restrictions removed so they can sell consumer information secretly for profit, without requiring permission to do it.

Privacy rights in America are fast disappearing. If phone and cable companies get their way, they’ll be dealt another severe body blow – congressional members serving them at the expense of consumer and constitutional rights.


Subscribe to The Sleuth Journal Newsletter for Daily Articles!


The post Lost Privacy Rights in America appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.


Source: Alternative news journal

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS