TETHERED – Government Trafficking Targets Homeschoolers

Why is the government targeting certain families and abducting their children?

In this blog I will discuss Home Schooling as just one of the targets:

In Germany and Sweden it is illegal to homeschool children – and as a result some of these families have fled to the US and Canada. Worldwide, homeschooling is illegal in 31 countries, mostly socialist, communist and Islamic. But even as homeschool refugees seek asylum and safety in the US, they are shocked to find a hostile reception. Why?

Target: Many of the children targeted by the Department of Social Services for abductions are homeschooled. Why?

The movement to homeschool is growing. For some families it is in response to the idea that our education system in the US dummies down our children. In addition, it is believed our system provides a biased view of the world and undermines values that these families embrace.

Contrary to popular opinion, homeschoolers tend to fair better than students in public schools. Homeschooled students have been shown to score 15-30 percentile points higher than public schooled children on standardized achievement tests. They score higher on ACT and SAT tests. And their scores are not reflective of the education of the parents. Those that argue against homeschool claim that they miss out on social interaction and extracurricular activities provided in the public system. But this is the same public system that continues to cut art, PE, and music from their curriculum. The same system that charges extra fees for books, scholar magazines, toilet paper, tissue paper, lab fees, field trip fees, teacher fees, registration fees, etc… Extra fees can easily add up to $1000-$1200 per year per child. While the federal government spends about 2% of it’s budget on education, the states ante in 13-35%. As of 2011, the average cost per student in public schools was $12,608 (not including the fees parents pay).

When did the Department of Education become so aggressive? When did they gain power?

In their infancy, the DOeD had little to no role in implementing education criteria or policies. Jimmy Carter thought otherwise and in 1979 created the DOE Act which effectively gave the federal government more control over individual state mandates. Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission that was established by David Rockefeller in 1973, was an advocate for greater government control. One area of concern to this policy of globalization was our youth. Our youth were an obstacle that needed to be harnessed. Our youth were susceptible, open, and vulnerable. To parley that vulnerability, Carter felt that the place to mold perception was in the school system.

When Reagan was elected he cut the budget for the DOE, but their role was planted.  In 1979, the budget was $12 billion, today that number has burgeoned to $70+ billion. For 2015, the federal government estimates it will spend $149 billion for education. Add in state and local dollars and the figure blows up to $922.6 billion! And it’s still a broken system.

So how’s that workin for ya?

The primary role of DoeD is to provide and administer financial assistance to education and collect data on schools. But that role has been breeched. When the DoeD paid for and guided the design of the Common Core Initiatives, they breeched their boundaries of non-interference. While states could choose not to be a part, they would lose money as a result. Money was the incentive, not the system.

As it has unfolded, Common Core has shown to embrace values that are not consistent with many families and thus acts to encourage a separation. Parents and students are more stressed by the changing curriculum.  States continue to back out.  And teaching has become secondary to test taking.

So, how does The Common Core stand up to SAT scores? Well, we won’t really know because as of 2016, the SAT exam will be completely revised. One of the key changes, “Scoring does NOT deduct points for incorrect answers. Students are encouraged to select the best answer to every question.”

So why does the government target home schooled children?

Because they undermine the mass globalization of education to a level that they determine is appropriate. Because they represent a threat to freedom of thought. Because they cannot be controlled. Because their very belief system, their values and their core would not necessarily align with what the government wants them to believe is Truth.

THE NETHERLANDS – A Sheep without a Shepherd

I remember when my father took me to Holland. I remember multi colored sails on boats floating sweetly on the waters. I remember white stone verandas and steps that led to pristine gardens, lush and green. I remember rolling hillsides that gently gave way to the fields of tulips, fruits and vegetables. It was somehow so perfect, so idyllic, and this remained in my mind’s eye.

But that time has past. The moons have risen and receded. And now this perfect picture has changed.

Holland is considered the most liberal country in the world with legalized prostitution, soft drugs and euthanasia, and a skew in the new religious preference to atheism and agnosticism. But they also have the 12th highest cancer rates in the world (Denmark has the highest). They have some of the highest rates of GMO agriculture, antibiotic use in animals, hormone use in animals and a birth rate that is declining. Since 1969 their birth rate has dropped from over 247,900 to 170,300 – 31%.

Could the shift to a world without morals and values also influence the desire to procreate? What happens when we no longer have right and wrong? What happens when we have no purpose?

With the opening up of euthanasia to include ‘individual choice’, one in eight deaths in The Netherlands can now be attributed to euthanasia and terminal sedation. People don’t want to live. In addition, a startling truth is unfolding. It is estimated that more than 650 babies are euthanized every year because the parents don’t want to raise a child that has some handicap. Where is the line?

Holland also embraces pornography. In addition, virtual child porn is legal. The result – The Netherlands has the highest rate of child porn of all the European nations.

GMO’S: Agriculture makes up the dominate export factoring in at about $81billion in 2014. Dairy farms make up 2/3 of all agriculture and if you have ever been downwind of those, well, it ain’t pretty. They also seriously pollute underground water and the soil. The picturesque windmills have been replaced with the metal ones like we have in the US. Bird flu is a serious issue given most farms are factory farms where they cram as many pigs, cows or chickens into the smallest space possible, because space is a limited factor. Disease is rampant. Antibiotic use became the norm, injected daily. Money was the objective and so creating the most, the fastest, was the object. Hormones were the all answer, widely used to promote greater ‘productivity’.

And it all worked in one manner. The Netherlands became the second largest agriculture exporter in the world next to the United States despite being just 2times the size of New Jersey.

But things started to collapse.

Antibiotic use in animals is being called to the mat as the number one reason that people around the world are becoming more and more resistant to the effects of antibiotics. Some countries consider this to be a global crisis. WHO has stated that if the use of hormones and antibiotics in animals is not stopped, even the most simple ailments like strep will no longer respond to any known antibiotic treatment.

Every year, 2 million people in the United States get infections that are resistant to antibiotics, and at least 23,000 people die as a result. Dozens of new, virulent bacteria have emerged over the years, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, which causes more than 11,000 deaths in the United States each year. Consumer Reports found that 97% of the 316 chicken breasts it tested were tainted with potentially harmful bacteria, and about half harbored at least one multidrug-resistant bacteria.

“Animal welfare groups say conditions go beyond being morally objectionable and that the farming practice has become an incubator for disease. You have an industry focused on keeping the costs as low as possible, giving as little feed as possible. We don’t see animals as animals any longer, but as products.”

For years The Netherlands widely accepted the use of GMO’s, second to Spain. Of course this necessitated the ritual dumping of pesticides, glyphosates (roundup) to mitigate against pests. The nutrient value of a product is relative to the nutrient value of the soil. If the soil is contaminated, this will pass on to the crop. So, not only were crops absorbing the harmful effects of glyphosate, the soil values also broke down as certain types of soil bind with the glyphosate.

They have recently passed a law which will ban all use of glyphosate as of the beginning of 2016. In fact the majority of Europe has either partially banned GMO’s and Roundup, or fully. But is it too little, too late? Have they already destroyed the land?

It would appear that The Netherlands believes they have. They are one of the top land grabbers in Africa and Asia.

It’s not just the landscape and farming in The Netherlands that has changed. It is just a picture of what once was so, when I was child – and what is – now. It is a place where values seem to have been replaced with open rule. Where the lines of right and wrong have blurred. And where purpose is a lost sheep without a shepherd.

The Raping of Africa

While our media persist in retelling the horrific stories of Boko Haram and Al Qaeda in Africa, a truly insidious story has been lurking in the shadows. Over the last 15 years, the systematic binge buying of Africa’s most fertile land and water is raping the continent. Large swathes of Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Ghana, Madagascar, and Sudan have been bought or leased from those country’s governments.

Who are these buyers?

The most active buyers have been the US, UK, China, Germany, and The Netherlands. But they aren’t alone, the Middle East and Canada are in on the bounty as well. One report states that there were over 1000 separate purchases between 2000 and 2010 and the frenzy is only growing.

Why?

Because Africa still has some very fertile agricultural land with underground aquifers, and regional bountiful rainfalls that can be tapped. Most of the buyers engage in farming, quickly grazing the land in preparation for laying their fields. Others exploit the land for mining. Still others grow palm oil used to make biofuel. And while the grabs may appear friendly on the face, the truth is not so pretty. The land is typically bought for next to nothing, pennies per acre, the villagers that have lived on the land are uprooted and told they must vacate immediately taking what meager possessions they have, their homes are bulldozed, and their own farming livelihood evaporates completely. They are given nothing.

To date, it is estimated that the land grabs have divested Africa of 5% of its total land, or 70 million hectares which translates to over 173 million acres. There have been a spattering of incidences in which local farmers were beaten or killed for trying to resist giving up the land. Human Rights Watch has reported on incidences in which up to tens of thousands of locals were forcibly relocated as a result of a ‘land grab’. In Africa, most of the land is owned by the government which adds to the lacking oversight, corruption, and feeble resistance to make the agreements fair.

Unlike the photogenic pictures of smiling African farmers, the truth is more akin to the colonization of large swathes of land for high tech agricultural companies who need slave labor. Their pockets lined, the crops are exported to other countries around the world.

Refugee camps are swelling with displaced people, some fleeing skirmishes and war, others fleeing drought, and still others displaced by land grabs. Most refugee camps are on arid dry land, unusable for anything. Water is scarce and opportunity is dead.

Many of the land grabs are legal, the land technically owned by the government despite the fact that the farmers have been working the land and living on the land for twenty or thirty years. It then becomes an ethical question. Given that many of the Foundations that claim extensive ‘charitable’ work in Africa, the truth is much more cloudy. Are Africans benefiting? Are they really taught sustainable ways to care for themselves? Or are they becoming slave labor, cotton pickers, and tools for the wealthy to become – more wealthy?

Agriculture land and water are the new gold. As countries across the world grapple with future food shortages, they look to Africa and Asia’s carcass to support their economy and growing populations. The Netherlands faces climate change and rising ocean levels. But they also see opportunity that equates to $$$. The grabs have little to nothing to do with helping the impoverished and hungry in Africa and Asia, and everything to do with self preservation. In addition because there are no restrictions in place, these buyers can virtually do whatever they want. Including the use of heavy pesticides.

For example:

A Norwegian investor bought a 99-year lease for 179,000 hectares in South Sudan at an annual cost of just $0.07 a hectare ( one hectare = about 2.47 acres).

In 2013 the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement with the Tanzanian government whereby they promised to provide new ‘seeds’ to the farmers that will increase the use of fertilizers and pesticides and decrease the need for “God’s” rain.

The New Alliance For Food Security and Nutrition, an organization funded by the EU and the US states on its website that it brings together investors who want to buy or lease African land with their respective government. Of course, the website portrays a picture of progress and happy faces, but in reality it is a simply a conduit for making deals and making money.

According to the International Institute for Environment and Development: land disputes can become violent. The crops are exported with little benefit to Africa’s poor. Displaced refugees add to Africa’s plight. Without proper regulations in place, the large Agra companies have little incentive to consider the future of these people, water supplies, or food for the hungry.

It is a sad commentary of greed and fear, of little to no compassion, and of selfish desires.

CLINTON – A Foundation of Grease

Foundation; an establishment created to assist, finance and complete projects on behalf of non-profit entities. They are organized under the IRS as a charitable entity 501(c)(3), exempt from tax, and are restricted from engaging in any political activity. In addition, the IRS stipulates:

  1. restrictions on self-dealing between private foundations and their substantial contributors and other disqualified persons;

  2. requirements that the foundation annually distribute income for charitable purposes;

  3. limits on their holdings in private businesses;

  4. provisions that investments must not jeopardize the carrying out of exempt purposes; and

  5. provisions to assure that expenditures further exempt purposes.

A private foundation is required to make a minimum annual distribution of 5% of it’s assets based on the previous year’s asset base.

In 2013, according to the financial statements released by the Clinton Foundation, they had expenses totaling $222,396,102. Of that amount $78,983,670 was for salaries and benefits – which represents 35.5%. Travel was $19,198,501 – representing 8.6%. Consultants were paid $16,698,196 – representing 7.5%. Conferences were $11,195,554 – or 5%. Meetings cost $7,470,295 – or 3.4%. Occupancy and Office expenses were $11,632,612 – 5.2%. Direct Program Expenditures was listed as $29,435,281. These expenses are loosely defined as staff salaries, travel and consultants. That would be 13.2%. There was actually one category that showed the foundation actually participated in a charitable cause; UNITAID Commodities Expense – $28,647,779. That would be 12.9% of total expenses went to a charitable cause.

Revenues for 2013 amounted to $294,741,158. Expenditures actually benefiting a charity would thus be 9.7%. Not very overwhelming.

Another way of saying this would be; if you donated $1000 to this foundation, $97 would benefit some charity. Hmmm, what could be the real reason? Gee willikers.

Her donor list includes:

Over $25million – Gates, UNITAID, and a couple of Guistra foundations (who surprisingly sits on the board), and the Netherlands Lottery.

In the $10-$25million range we have – Government of Norway, Saudi Arabia, an Australian government organization, Dominican Republic, as well as some very prominent billionaires in Scotland, UK and US.

For the $5-$10million range – Qatar, government of the Netherlands, Kuwait, the Swedish lottery, and a Saudi/Ethiopian businessman, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi.

Supposedly we are to believe that these are all in the name of philanthropy and charity. Supposedly, we are to believe that there is no ulterior motive. But then, according to Ms. Hillary, the majority of the American people are pretty naïve and well…stupid.

In reality, no one gives to a foundation charity that openly donates a meager 9.7% of its funding toward any actual cause. The obvious political motivations are so transparent as to be nauseous.

Not a lot of truth found here.

ISRAEL – God is the Pilot

When looking at the borders of Israel, sometimes we research a few years or decades into history and there the research ends. A conclusion is made. An editorial is created. Opinion is terse. And, the media moves on.

First, who are the Palestinians?

They are Arabs who claim to have descended from 6th century conquerors and from indigenous peoples who have lived there since ‘time immemorial’. Most historians agree that the identity of Palestinians was created in the late 20th century in response to the identity of Zionists.

The word Palestine is derived from a 5th century BC word to define a strip of coastal land that stretched from Phoenicia to Egypt. It was used to collectively define all people that lived in this region. Who lived there?

The Canaanites were a pagan tribe of diverse people who were known as the sea people for their great trading and wares. Current Arab thought is that to claim the Palestinians are direct descendants of the Canaanites pre-dates the Israeli’s claim and thus gives Arabs dominate rights to Palestine. But this is simply a theory with no basis in fact. The supposition was first made in 1961 by Yasser Arafat. Some claim the Canaanites are ancestors of Jews, Christians, Greek, Roman and Arab peoples. What we do know is that we – don’t know and most of our knowledge of Canaan comes from the Hebrew Bible.

When did the borders of Israel become such a hotbed?

Prior to the land being gifted to the Jews, Israel was the property of the British and the boundaries also included what is now Jordan. Prior to the British rule the land was controlled by the Ottoman Turks. The Ottoman Empire was one of the largest in history. It embraced three religious millets; Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Each millet was segregated. And although the Ottoman’s proclaimed tolerance, preferences were obvious; only a Muslim could be in the government, children of non-muslims were forced out of homes and raised Ottoman Muslims, and an ‘extra’ tax was imposed on non-muslims..

Prior to that, Israel was occupied as a portion of the Eastern Roman Empire under Constantinople, a Christian. Prior to that it was ruled by a Jewish tribe, the Maccabees, prior to that the Greeks – then the Persians – then the Babylonians – then Assyrians and prior to that it was ruled by King David of the Jewish Kingdoms which takes us to about 1000 BC.

It has a history of endless conquering. So, to say that it somehow belongs to the Arab Palestinians – is simply – wrong. The semantics of who was living on the land has always been overruled by who was ruling and who was conquering.

How and why was Israel defined in modern day?

During the late 1800’s anti-semitism was prevalent and Jews were being pushed out of Europe and Russia and settling in Palestine. Their population was considerably less than the Arab population, but they outrightly purchased land and founded towns. WWI was the result of the British and the French uniting to conquer the Ottoman Empire. Dividing the spoils, today’s Syria and Lebanon were given to the French, and today’s Jordan, Iraq and Israel were given to the British. Arab nationalism was rising and they became enraged at having to share the land. The Arabs rioted and the British got nervous. In 1922 the British Mandate for Palestine divided Israel from Jordan and cited Israel as a Jewish state ruled by the British and Jordan as an Arab state ruled by the Hashemite family. Over the next 13 years, Jewish immigration to Israel rose significantly, although still they were outnumbered by Arabs.

In 1935, the rise of anti-Semitism across Italy, Germany, Austria and throughout the Arab world created renewed immigration to Israel to escape persecution. But the Arab population in Israel was hostile and riots rose once again. In 1937, the British sought to fix the problem they created and partitioned Israel into two states with a strip of land from Jerusalem to the port city of Jaffa being called an ‘international zone’. Arabs on the Jewish side were told to move and Jews on the Arab side were told to move. The Arabs rejected the plan and riots and revolts continued.

By 1939, WWII was in full blown chaos and the Jews were now targets in a much larger revolt and extermination. The Arabs of Palestine were pro Nazi. The Jews fought alongside the Brits and the schism extended. By the end of the war Israel was still a hotbed of ethnic hostility. The British decided to wipe their hands of the mess and give the problem to the UN. The UN went back to the solution previously raised in 1935 and decided partitioning the country was the best idea. The Jews reluctantly agreed, but the Arabs did not. Britain pulled out all its troops, and with the angst of a civil war looming, nearly 200,000 Arabs fled to neighboring countries.

In 1948 the Jews declared war on the Arabs. The ethnic cleansing that ensued was promulgated by both Jews and Arabs. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs continued to flee while refugee camps held scores of displaced Arabs from Palestine. By the spring of 1949 a cease fire was stipulated.

In contrast to the exodus of Arabs, this time frame saw more and more Jews arriving in Israel as they were being systematically targeted in their home countries of Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Iran. It is estimated that the total Jewish population of these Arab countries was about 1 million. Northern Iraq had a Jewish population that had lived there peaceably for 2000 years. But after WWII, Arab hostilities toward that population increased dramatically, persecution, arrests, floggings, and murder became their life. The British government ordered the Jews to vacate their homes throughout the Middle East, leave their possessions, their businesses and take one suitcase for their exodus to Israel. They had nowhere else to go.

Rife with border skirmishes, in 1956 Egypt, Jordan, and Syria blocked passage through the Suez Canal and Red Sea. This move prompted the British and French to intervene and deploy troops to support Israel by way of their own interests in the Suez.

The next decades saw the UN Resolution 242, the Six Day War, The War of Attrition, the rise of the PLO, the Yom Kippur War, a short lived peace agreement, the Lebanon War, the Intifada, the Gulf War, The Madrid Conference, and ultimately the Oslo Agreement I and II.

The Jewish people have never been compensated for the land and possessions they lost as refugees from the Middle East. There is no mandate in place to give them back their lost land in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc… The Jews were ‘given’ a very small spot of land that they could call their own and name Israel.

Perspective: the Middle East is roughly the size of the United States. Israel is roughly 2 ½ times the size of Rhode Island. Giving away half of that to the Arabs seems a bit preposterous when taken into a pure context. It would seem more plausible for the remaining Palestinians to be absorbed into the neighboring countries of Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq – just as the land the Jewish people owned was taken from them by the Arabs.

Today, Israel is 75% Jewish and 20% Arab. The number of Jews in Iraq? Zero. Number of Jews in their ancestral Lebanon? Zero. The number of Jews in Jordan? Zero. Egypt? Less than 10.

Just a thought.

 

For My Big Brother, Bobby

While we read MSN and FOX and CNBC and CNN and all the media outlets that scribe to truth, there are a host of alternative blogs and news commentaries that also claim truth. Unfortunately, I have yet to actually hear anything that culls the slant and truly writes from a perspective that appeals to no side.

The side we all desperately wish to hear.

So, what to do?

As I pondered this, I heard the doorbell and went to answer knowing that in Arizona, at our vacation house, I had never heard that chime unless it was pre-arranged – ever. So, with naïve gullibility, I answered thinking – “oh, maybe it’s a neighbor here to say hello”, ummm…did I mention, naive?  No such luck. I was greeted by a solicitor and my face fell. Oh, dang, caught.

I listened to the appeal, the magazine subscription that I would never see, the cost that was four times the online cost, the pathetic need, and despite my better judgement, I acquiesced and bought a ridiculous subscription for $72 that ordinarily would have cost $20.

After he left, I immediately went online to see if I had been hood-winked. As I read the review of this company, it was pretty bad.  But I read more and discovered something terribly awful;   the company was actually a kind of front and they used these people to make lots of money for themselves while only offering food and a bed to their salesmen.  I remembered the man asked for a bottle of water.  He asked if it was okay if he sat down for a bit, he was so tired. And the more I read, the more I realized this man was the victim, not the perpetrator. So, instead of cancelling the subscription, I quickly put together a bag of food stuffs and charged off in my Hyundai to find him. After a few passes on neighborhood streets, I spotted the neon pink shirt he wore. But, he was with another guy, taller, bigger, more authoritative.  I thought maybe this wasn’t the safest thing to do…

I had to make a choice to totally ignore this or – not. A quick u-turn, I pulled up to the neon pink shirt and opened the window to hand him the bag of groceries. I handed him the bag and nothing. His face was a map of confusion. He didn’t understand the gesture.  But then he thanked me and I drove off.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I was right. I don’t know, but the review I saw online that made my gut wrench was the fact that these people are called ‘human traffickers’. This man was trapped. He had nothing. And his existence was dangled in front of him like a carrot of performance.

It reminded me of something Joe and I had shared recently in which a man who is a part of his Bible study offered that the reception of Christianity and Jesus in countries like Pakistan, India, Egypt, Syria, and Turkey was so much more pervasive than in the United States. Jokingly, I said, “Maybe they’ll start sending missionaries to the US from those countries to teach us morality and Jesus.”

The point – we need to start by not condemning, judging and being so fearful.  Maybe I was wrong – but then what if I was right and the food and the gesture changed him in some way?

FYI – I have been very vocal about the fact that in order to go on a mission – the mindset is that Africa is the place of choice. Therefore, because it is Africa, you are performing a ‘mission’.  I always thought, well, you could go just ten miles into the downtown area of Denver, or Arlington, or Jacksonville, or Little Rock and find conditions, not much better, if not worse. In fact, maybe a mission will ring your front doorbell.   

As we isolate ourselves from the finer values and ethics of right and wrong, who are we to judge? Isn’t that basically Hillary’s defense? Everyone does it? And although it is a sad reality, the sooner we face its truth, the sooner we can fix its demise.

It exists in our homes, our communities, our cities and in our government. It has permeated every aspect of our existence from our schools to our universities. It is a cancer. And only a complete eradication will expel the cancer, treating the symptoms – does nothing. So, what is the cancer?

It is complacency. It is a thought process. It is the acceptance of that which we know in our hearts to be WRONG. It is looking the other way. It is saying, I don’t want to get involved. It is turning the other cheek. It is allowing behaviors and attitudes that are just not – right. And we know it. It is being a coward. Being lazy. Being that person who points and says, they should take care of this. It is the song, ‘He did find a solution – He created me!’ Waiting for God to fix everything, we forget that we are the actioners. We are supposed to freaking fight for our freedom and values and ethics and beliefs and faiths and garbage to all the finger pointing at the guy next to us – ummm, him?

Each of us You’s.

In that light, I would like to offer, proffer, Kudo’s on my big brother and his wife for doing/acting/being what other people talk about doing/acting/being! Yeah to you!

Manno-e-manno, I salute you.!

And, in that tribute, I say, thank you for being so patient with me! God Bless Bobby and Dawn!

CUBA – The End Game of Sanctions

Sanctions – imposing a trade embargo in order to blockade an enemy and compel/force a change in behavior. Used as a tool, generally by a larger country on a smaller country, to force a regime change as an alternative to going to war. They are most frequently used to achieve domestic political gain.

Have they ever achieved their goal?

According to some analysts, they are rarely effective but are used anyway because a government simply doesn’t know what else to do. During Clinton’s presidential term, he imposed new sanctions on 35 different countries. Sanctions set the stage for making the US the world penal system, and arbitrarily yielding forty lashings for crimes that may or may not be proven. The true goal most times is to force slavery upon a nation as a new and improved regime is deposited with a goal of sucking dry the resources.

Sometimes we are successful in gaining the regime change that was the intent, but more often we are not. Because, it is no guarantee that the people want a regime change, it is simply understood that it is what we want. Regime change determines who will be an ally. An ally determines whether big corporations can sweep in and ravage what they want of the available resources. Those resources are sucked dry, the corporation leaves, and no one cares anymore about the regime. But the people. The country reverts to the way it was before only now they are in dire poverty as their resources/commodities have been completely depleted.

There is one time in recent history where sanctions have been stated to be a success; South Africa’s apartheid. Analysts have determined that this case worked for one reason, the sanctions were unilateral, everyone anted. Unless everyone agrees, some countries stand to benefit as they can freely trade, while the sanctioning country loses that market. This is repeatedly the case with the US.

Cuba was under sanction rule for more than fifty years. It ‘changed’ nothing. It simply left the country to fend for itself elsewhere. Estimates have it that the Cuba embargo translated into $1.2 billion of lost revenue for the US annually. That translates to 50 years x $1.2billion. What did we gain? What grand purpose did we serve? Castro is still President. The country is still a marxist/communist regime.

The average monthly wage is $19. Most Cubans work for the state. Every household is rationed a monthly supply of food and other staples at a ‘nominal cost’. Tourists are charged a completely different rate for goods than are Cubans. Despite the US sanctions, Cuba has continued to do business with Canada, Venezuela, The Netherlands, Spain, China and more recently, the EU. Cuba’s tourism is considered to be the third highest in the Caribbean.

So, have we really made them suffer, or have we lost valuable trade due to pride?

What changed?

In 2008 it was stipulated that offshore oil reserves were estimated to be in the 20billion barrel range, putting Cuba’s reserves in the top 20 around the world. But they came up dry. Poof. In addition, the economy of Venezuela, Cuba’s main squeeze for oil, was teetering on collapse. Cuba had reaped some neat profits re-selling oil it received via subsidies from Venezuela. That stood to dry up and Cuba needed the income. Tourism had been great, but it could double simply by adding back the US. Backing up a bit, let’s take a closer look at Venezuela.

The precipitous drop in oil prices hit Venezuela hard given it was propping up their economy. Add to that the fact that Russia and Venezuela are trade partners and that the US has been trying and failing at a inciting a coup in Venezuela, and complications begin to sprout. Could there be a larger backdoor implication in suddenly opening ties with Cuba that would then isolate Venezuela and make them more susceptible to a ‘regime change’?

In 2010 with the nationalization of all oil, Exxon, Chevron, Conoco and Total were all pushed out of the mix. Not happy campers, they sought to lobby Congress to resolve this issue. But nothing was accomplished. After Chavez died in 2013, the US hoped to institute a president who was more ‘friendly’ toward the west, someone who would open up the drilling to western companies. Oil was the goal. Never enough, they wanted more! But that didn’t happen. Madura became president and instead chose to increase exports to China, Brazil, Equador, the Carribean and Cuba.

The oil reserves in Venezuela are considered the largest in the world. Exports of oil account for 95% of export earnings and 25% of GDP. With the chopping block coming down on oil to the tune of $50-$60, or about 55%, Venezuela is hurting. Enter US.

Cuba needs cheap oil. US wants Venezuela.

Re-opening the door to Cuba gives the US lost revenue and gives Cuba tourism. Pressuring Cuba to pressure Venezuela could be the agenda. It would appear that agenda could lose as Cuba is quite staunch in its loyalty – and why shouldn’t it be? While the White House has given a variety of reasons for imposing sanctions on Venezuela; human rights violations, democracy abuses, and my all time favorite – corruption, they certainly lack any real meat. I imagine those reasons could apply to every country in this world.

But then there is always room. You see, Castro is 88 years old! His successor, Diaz-Canel has been meeting with US representatives. Lest we forget, Ukraine’s Poroschenko was just a chocolate king before the US made him a deal…

THE CANCER BANK IS FULL

Over the last 40 years the National Cancer Institute has spent over $90 billion on cancer research and treatment. Their annual budget is now about $5 billion per year. What has that bought us?

  • The number of new cancers each year is approximately 1.677 million.

  • The number of cancer deaths is about 35%.

  • The states with the highest rates per capita are Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware.

  • Lung cancer came in first for all these states.

  • Nationally, prostate and breast came in second and third.

  • The highest death rates were in the south; Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi – etc…

  • While the death rate from breast cancer is down, the rates for contracting breast cancer are up.

  • Black males have the highest rates of cancer

  • White females have a higher incidence rate than black females

So what does this all mean?

It means that progress has not measured up to the dollars spent. It means that early detection is the main reason for the decrease in death, but that research has done little to nothing to actually mitigate – cancer.

How are the research dollars spent?

At the National Cancer Institute, 4% of funding is designated for prevention.

The American Cancer Society has stated that its funding will be prioritized as follows:

  • tobacco control

  • nutrition and physical activity

  • colorectal cancer

  • breast cancer

  • survivorship and quality of life

  • access to care

I’m not exactly sure what ‘tobacco control’ entails. But the concept is that given black males have the highest incidence of cancer and lung cancer has the highest rates, controlling tobacco could lower the overall stats. How does one – control tobacco?

Since 1965, tobacco use in the US has declined from 42% to 20%. This does not reflect any cures, it simply presents the fact that as a result of less people smoking, lung cancer incidences are lower. Research did not contribute to this result. Awareness did. If we completely eliminated smoking, the incidence rate of lung cancer would parallel.

New studies on breast cancer are stumped on why this disease is affecting more and more young women. And now the reports indicate three potential causes; birth control pills, hormone additives to our food supply, and nutritional deficiencies. We have long known that estrogen therapy increases breast cancer risk. Now we know that messing with hormones at all – increases risk in the young and old. Growth hormones can be found in milk, chicken, eggs, dairy. These hormones alter the natural balance and are linked to cancer. Period.

Parabens are chemicals with estrogen like properties. Parabens are found in shampoo, lotion and makeup. These chemicals have been found in breast cancer tissue up to one million times what is normal. Chemicals accumulate in our body. Our body has no idea what to do with them and so it stores them – forever.

And while a product may contain a low amount of paraben and claim to have no effect, the issue is that MOST products contain paraben and the cumulation effect IS the problem. In addition, the rise of Breast Cancer IS the problem. The relationship between paraben and hormones and breast cancer IS the problem. So why risk it?

Prevention is the only course of action – CURE has done nothing.

Over 34% of the budget for American Cancer Society is spent on ‘fundraising’. Their CEO raked in nearly $800,000 in compensation. In 2010, compensation, travel and conferences accounted for 62% of the program and supporting services budget.

I fail to see how the actual expenditures here have much of anything to do with their ‘stated priorities’.

Susan B Komen. A little better; 15% of their budget goes to fundraising. 26% is directed for marketing. Salaries and compensation amount to 23.5%. 8.6% is spent on donor benefits. The CEO pay package was $684,000.

But the question remains – what is spent on ‘the cure’? It would seem that cancer research is simply a cheerleading squad. What has been cured? The race participation has dropped in some states by as much as 50%. What are we racing for? To pay higher salaries?

We talk about the banking crisis, the greed and such – but isn’t the banking industry simply the largest in an ever larger pool of what we have become?

This is not to say that all charities or all banks are not fulfilling their obligations. It is to say that research is necessary in order to evaluate who is truly an advocate. In the cancer industry the last two largest and most amazing innovations came from an engineer whose wife had contracted cancer, and an eighteen year old girl in High School. Their budget? Maybe a few hundred dollars. Their motivation? One thousand percent. The time it took them? Months.

A GAME OF KINGS

Analysts are busily writing theories regarding the cause and effects of the current oil crisis. Most often they are using historical models from previous oil gluts to draw parallels and predictions.

But what if they are looking in all the wrong places? What if the parallel has nothing to do with historical oil gluts and everything to do with another interesting model? What if, the game is Tactics II and the entire end result has already been drawn?

An interesting discovery; I found a few articles dated March 27, 2014 in which three analysts discussed the possibility of the US collaborating with the Saudi’s to flood the oil market and thus cause Russia’s economy to collapse. The articles talked about this from the perspective of oil at $90 a barrel and they came on the heels of George Soros making the recommendation. They all concluded that neither the Saudi’s or the US would follow through on such a plan because it could create a global economic tailspin.

In September, it was announced that the US and Arab allies would launch airstrikes on Syria and Iraq specifically targeting oil refineries. Oil supplies in Iraq are considered the fifth largest in the world. The Saudi King was fuming when Russia intervened and stopped the US from bombing Syria. The Saudi’s want control of Syria. The US wanted to destroy the Russian economy. A deal was struck.

But there was even more at stake.

History Lesson: the banking fiasco of the 1980’s was basically fueled by greed and competition. As of 1985, there were over 18,000 independently owned banking institutions. Today that number is around 6800. Deposits in banks swelled from $2 trillion to $9.6 trillion. As of 2011, the top five bank’s assets were equal to 56% of the total US economy and 44% of the assets held by all US banks.

That’s what they wanted, and mergers and acquisitions made that possible. A simple way to eliminate competition.

In the same way, today the oil glut is destined to root out the small guys as we watch them fold, fail or get eaten by the bigger companies. In Colorado alone there are over 100 oil companies. In Texas I counted one hundred and only got through the “e’s”. Competition is making for weaker profits from the big oil companies. Today the biggest in the US include: Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, Occidental, and Apache.

If it worked in the banking industry, why not the oil industry?

So while we point the finger at the Saudi’s and claim they are to blame for not lowering production during this freefall so as to stabilize output and pricing, no one else has lowered production either – including the US. And the US ranks third in the world for oil production. Of course, no one wants to take the gamble and be the first to lower output because the risk would be that the other countries won’t follow suit. No one really trusts anyone. If the Saudi’s cut output, they risk losing their ranking as second largest producer and the US would take over that spot. On the other hand if in these failings, the Saudi’s can take control of Iraqs oil and Syria’s oil, it pushes to first place.

Not only have companies become ripe for takeovers, countries share that risk as a grand few try to wage war for control of the countries resources (Ukraine has the third largest reserves of shale in all of Europe). Both Shell and Chevron face human rights violations that don’t seem to make the news much; Chevron is accused of recruiting and supplying Nigerian military forces involved in massacres of environmental protesters in the oil-rich Niger Delta, and Shell has faced charges of complicity in torture and other human rights abuses against the Ogoni people of southern Nigeria.

The disinformation that the media would have us believe might have some truth to it, but if the fundamental truth is corrupted, the end truth is corrupted. In the midst of this oil war there will be other casualties; alternative energy will collapse in an already feeble market as competition pushes them down the proverbial drain. Loans will default and banks will bear the brunt. Unemployment will go up. Maybe that’s why the fall happened so quickly – to quell the lingering disruption so that the reshuffling could happen faster.

Word is out that there is trouble but no one can do a thing about it. The media tries to cover the true damage with reports that consumers are really feeling the lighter load of prices, but the reality is that the average savings amounts to about $127 – per year. Not exactly fodder for a party. Whoopee…

When all is done, the bigger will control the majority of the world’s oil. Big banks – big oil – big pharma.

The winners in an world oil purge would include; Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Gazprom, National Iranian, Exxon (which is trying merge with Russia’s Rosneft), PetroChina, UK’s BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Mexico’s Pemex, Chevron and Kuwait Petroleum. Of course the Saudi’s want Iran and the US wants Russia, so those are on the table in the game of War.

And as Hillary so aptly noted, (paraphrased): Casualties? Who cares, that’s part of the game.

In reality think of it as similar to science – or even gossip – if your beginning truth is corrupted or simply a theory, no matter how many facts you pile on, the end truth will always be corrupted.

Child Trafficking – A Government Subsidy

 

NO, I am not talking about the classic definition of child trafficking, I am talking about a network in which Social Services takes children from homes, deposits them in foster care and then offers them up for adoption. It is big business. It is legal.

And it is pervasive.

Arizona has the dubious honor of being the worst offender in the nation. It is estimated that as of 2012, Arizona nets about $1.14 billion per year from this practice. Net. Apparently the federal government subsidizes foster care children to the tune of $6000-$7000 per month per child. The state then leases the child to a foster home for about $600 per month and the balance is pure profit. In addition, as a ward of the state, the child is subject to hospital ‘trials’, medications, surgeries, drugs, that are not yet approved. These children, as wards of the state, are guinea pigs without a voice. After the hospital is done, the child is put up for adoption. And given that the birth rate in the US has been dropping precipitously each year for the last five plus, there is a shortage of adoptees. Supply and demand – and the value of the child/ward goes up to $25,000 plus, and that too is all gravy for the state.

Children are thus a commodity traded and sold.

Fifty states, a billion profit each, that doesn’t give the government much incentive to challenge the business model.

The initial call is generally made by a doctor at a hospital who sends a red flag to the Social Services Department. In none of the cases, are the parents made aware of what is about to happen. In none of the cases, are the parents made to understand what was wrong. Sometimes, it is alleged that the hospital calls in DSS because they are concerned they will be charged malpractice. Sometimes, it is because the parents simply want a second opinion. At any rate, once Social Services are called, there is no backing out, they immediately abduct the child/children. The child immediately becomes a ward of the state and all medical decisions are made by the state. They child/children are sent to foster care homes and in some instances the children claim they have been sexually abused or physically abused.

When the hospital completes its trials and/or surgeries, typically, these children are adopted out to new parents. Sometimes parents are allowed ‘supervised’ visitation, most often they are denied.

In South Dakota, 53% of the entire state budget is allocated to Social Services. Their target, the Lakota native American Indians. Seven hundred native American children are removed from their households every year and put up for adoption. The parents are disallowed from ANY visitation for the first sixty days. After that, the children are instructed that during supervised visits, if they show any emotion toward their parents, all further visits will be discontinued. The children are all placed in either white homes or institutions.

This is not a story with isolated cases, in fact they occur in Norway and Canada as well. Allegations are similar. Apparently, a large number of these cases revolve around an initial hospital visit in which the child is misdiagnosed and suffers severe to life threatening side effects as a result of improper care. In a case that made headlines in Canada, the child was misdiagnosed and had severe side effects from the wrong treatment. Even though the child will soon turn 18, Canada’s Social Services has decided that Marc is a Person with Developmental Disabilities and therefore have remanded him to state care – for life.

Marc and his parents are German citizens. They moved to Canada because Germany does not allow home-schooling. Marc was home schooled. He will be placed under the care of a ‘Guardian’. His parents are not eligible to apply as Guardians because they are not Canadian citizens. But then neither is Marc. He writes this from his bed away from his twin brother, his dog, his mom and dad:

You can not see us, hear about us, you can not even hear our cries

We are not allowed to talk about our pains

We are not allowed to talk to our parents freely

We are not allowed to inform the police even

And if so they do not listen to us because our Guardian is the States

They can do whatever they want with us

Once we die, you may hear about us but even then you may not know why we died or how we died

We are the children whom the government legally apprehended and detained in places where we are alone without love, compassion, empathy, freedom and justice

Please help us by standing up for truth and justice

Please show us a family court where there is justice for children and families Please show us a family court where judges listen to us

Our Best interest should not be assumed by adults who do not even know the truth or do not want to know the truth

We may be weaker than adults but are we not here to be guided by a hand which shows us that this world is a beautiful place?

Since we are taken away from our families, all we see is that “Money, Power, Injustice and Lies rule the world” –