~~~*Cracking the Eggs of All Known / Unknown Transformations Throughout All Creation*~~~
####Finding and Discussing Breaking Headlines, Theories, Philosophies, & Discoveries#### ^As Well As Expositing Lost or Obscure Paradigms of Ancient Timelines. Namaste Starseeds^
""The Oscar-winning documentary film-maker Laura Poitras is suing the US government demanding to know why she has repeatedly been subjected to “Kafkaesque harassment” at airports across the world.
Poitras, 51, said she had been held at borders more than 50 times between 2006 and 2012, often for hours at a time. At various times she alleges being told by officials that she was on a “no fly” list, having her electronic equipment confiscated and not returned for 41 days, and being threatened with handcuffs for taking notes. The latter incident took place when she was working on a film about the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
Poitras said she was launching the legal action, which demands the release of all documentation held on her tracking, targeting and questioning by agencies over the six year period, following the failure of a 2013 freedom of information request.
“I’m filing this lawsuit because the government uses the US border to bypass the rule of law,” said the film-maker in a statement, The Intercept reported. “This simply should not be tolerated in a democracy. I am also filing this suit in support of the countless other less high-profile people who have also been subjected to years of Kafkaesque harassment at the borders. We have a right to know how this system works and why we are targeted.”
Poitras’s reporting on the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, along with work by Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Barton Gellman contributed to the Pulitzer prize for public service won jointly by the Washington Post and the Guardian in 2014. Her film on Snowden, Citizenfour, won the 2015 Oscar for best documentary.""
""According to a shocking statistic from the Department of Veterans Affairs from 2013, 22 U.S. military veterans were committing suicide every day. And while the figure may have tempered somewhat since then, it still remains high.
There have been a number of "mainstream" reasons given for the high suicide rate among military members. Deployment to one or both of the recent "war on terror" combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan has been blamed, though that was debunked somewhat in findingsearlier this year. According to that study, there were some "patterns" that were identified:
— Members who left the military early had a 63 percent higher suicide rate than those who had not yet left the service;
— Those with the fewest years of military service were more at risk;
— Those who served a short stint – less than four years – were at higher risk than those who left after serving four or more years, whether they had been deployed or not.
While the study did not examine potential reasons for these identified trends, the authors did speculate that difficulty finding employment, losing their identity with the military and the need to find new social support may have all played a role.
Conspiracy revealed
But a recently released documentary featuring Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, offered another view, based on evidence examined: psychiatry and, more specifically, its conspiracy against the U.S. military.
The documentary, The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry's Covert Agenda, produced by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, details psychiatry's rise in the military, from World Wars I and II to its prominence today, laying bare a sinister conspiracy to use men and women in uniform as nothing more than guinea pigs.
When the "war to end all wars" broke out, psychiatry was first introduced into the military. In Germany, soldiers who were unwilling to return to the hellish trench warfare at the front were subjected to what was called the "Kaufmann Cure." However, in reality, it was anything but a cure. Rather, it was a procedure that involved shooting painful electrical currents through the soldier's body while a practitioner intoned hypnotic suggestions. Victims of this "treatment" rightly deemed it a form of torture, but the Kaufmann Cure was widely seen as successful by psychiatrists because it did indeed induce terrified soldiers to return to the front lines, and in a rush.
Mainstreaming psychiatry and psychotropic drugs
When World War II began, psychiatrists had made inroads into the militaries of many nations. And it was through the military that psychiatrists finally achieved newfound status as "medical doctors." But influence over the psychology of the military was just a small fraction of what psychiatrists had planned.
On June 18, 1940, Brig. Gen. J. R. Rees, a psychiatrist, stood before the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Mental Hygiene to outline psychiatry's ambitions for the future:
We must aim to make it [psychiatry] permeate every educational activity in our national life... Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our sphere of influence.
And by any measure, that effort has been successful.
As noted in the film, the dramatic rise in military suicides today can be directly linked to a similar dramatic rise in military personnel being prescribed mind-altering psychotropic drugs for "mental health conditions" that have never been scientifically validated.
But why? What makes today's fighters so much less capable than those of earlier periods?
More than just the soldier is at risk
Is it "combat stress"? That's the reason being given by the military psychiatric community. But the very visible effects of combat stress have been chronicled by warriors, writers and other observers going back to ancient times; the lethality and brutality of combat has been much worse in the past than today.
In the documentary, a number of former military members recall how they were routinely prescribed a witch's brew of antidepressants and other mood-altering drugs for their "conditions," many of which were prescribed without proper testing or evaluation. Physicians and psychiatrists who were interviewed lamented the heavy use of psychotropic and other mood-altering drugs as well in the military.
The documentary also makes note of a number of high-profile murders by current and former military members who were also taking psychotropics at the time of their crimes.""
""A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans.
The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest.
“This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive.
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.”
“Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states.
“In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions.
The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.”
“Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states.
Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest.
A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters.
Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down.
The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft.
“Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says.
Defense analysts say there has been a buildup of military units within non-security-related federal agencies, notably the creation of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams. The buildup has raised questions about whether the Obama administration is undermining civil liberties under the guise of counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts.
Other agencies with SWAT teams reportedly include the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.
The militarization of federal agencies, under little-known statues that permit deputization of security officials, comes as the White House has launched verbal attacks on private citizens’ ownership of firearms despite the fact that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.
A White House National Security Council spokeswoman declined to comment.
President Obama stated at the National Defense University a year ago: “I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen — with a drone or with a shotgun — without due process, nor should any president deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.”
A Pentagon official who defended the directive said it was signed in December 2010 after four years of thorough consultations within the Pentagon and with other federal agencies The 2010 directive replaced several previously published directives in 1980, 1991, and 1993. The last time military forces were used to quell civil unrest was 1906 following the San Francisco earthquake to protect the federal mint and restore order in the city.
The official said: “I suppose that in a very extreme case, one can imagine a combination of natural and man-made disasters that result in the cascading failure of communication infrastructure, or some electro-magnetic pulse that shuts down all electronic communication.”
“In the event that it should happen in today’s day and age, we would want our senior military leaders in the field to do all they can to assist their fellow Americans to prevent significant loss of life or malicious destruction of property and to protect federal property or federal governmental functions,” the official said.
HOUSE HITS ONA DOWNGRADE
The House defense authorization bill passed last week calls for adding $10 million to the Pentagon’s future warfare think tank and for codifying the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) as a semi-independent unit.
The provision is being called the Andrew Marshall amendment after the ONA’s longtime director and reflects congressional support for the 92-year-old manager and his staying power through numerous administrations, Republican and Democratic.
Mr. Marshall’s opponents within the Pentagon and the Obama administration persuaded Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel this year to downgrade the ONA by cutting its budget and placing it under the control of the undersecretary of defense for policy. The ONA currently is a separate entity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Members of the House Committee on Armed Services objected and added the $10 million to the administration’s $8.9 million request, along with a legal provision that would codify ONA’s current status as separate from the policy undersecretary shop.
The committee was concerned Mr. Hagel’s downgrade would “limit the ability and flexibility of ONA to conduct long-range comparative assessments,” the report on the authorization bill states.
“The office has a long history of providing alternative analyses and strategies that challenge the ‘group think’ that can often pervade the Department of Defense,” the report says, noting an increasing demand for unconventional thinking about space warfare capabilities by China and Russia.""
""Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a "gag order on firearm-related speech," the National Rifle Association is warning.
In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.
According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.
"Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities," said the NRA in a blog posting.
"This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second," warned the NRA's lobbying shop. "Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published," it added.
At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.
The NRA said that the rules predate the internet, and now the federal government wants to regulate technical arms discussions on on the internationally available web.
State's proposal is highly technical. It took 14 pages in the Federal Register to explain. But the NRA boiled it down for gun owners with this warning:
"In their current form, the ITAR do not (as a rule) regulate technical data that are in what the regulations call the 'public domain.' Essentially, this means data 'which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public' through a variety of specified means. These include 'at libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents.' Many have read this provision to include material that is posted on publicly available websites, since most public libraries these days make Internet access available to their patrons.
"The ITAR, however, were originally promulgated in the days before the Internet. Some State Department officials now insist that anything published online in a generally-accessible location has essentially been 'exported,' as it would be accessible to foreign nationals both in the U.S. and overseas.
"With the new proposal published on June 3, the State Department claims to be 'clarifying' the rules concerning 'technical data' posted online or otherwise 'released' into the 'public domain.' To the contrary, however, the proposal would institute a massive new prior restraint on free speech. This is because all such releases would require the 'authorization' of the government before they occurred. The cumbersome and time-consuming process of obtaining such authorizations, moreover, would make online communication about certain technical aspects of firearms and ammunition essentially impossible.""
""The Pentagon says that live anthrax was inadvertently shipped across state lines from a military lab in Utah to nine other states and a military base in South Korea. However, a Department of Defense spokesperson says the public is not at risk.
One unnamed US official also told Reuters that anthrax samples were being shipped out from two military facilities for over a year, from March 2014 to April 2015. These samples were mistakenly marked inactive, the official said.
While the anthrax samples were first moved out of Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, they were later shipped from Edgewood Chemical Biological Center in Maryland to federal, private and academic facilities.
Authorities have suggested that four people inside the US take preventative medicine in the wake of the news, Reuters reported. It’s unclear if they were exposed to any live anthrax samples.
The one sample accidentally sent to South Korea arrived at the Osan Air Base, the Pentagon stated. The sample was destroyed and, so far, no one is believed to be at risk.
Warren confirmed to Fox News on Wednesday that the anthrax had been shipped out of state, but assured “there are no risks to the public.”
“We are investigating the inadvertent transfer of live anthrax from a DoD lab from Dugway Proving Ground,” Col. Warren said. Dugway Proving Ground is a USArmy facility in Utah.
According to the Pentagon, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is assisting the military with investigating the matter.""
""Speaking to the Canada Free Press, he said “According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama”.
The insider is retiring along with many others inside DHS who don’t like what the agency is, in his words “DHS and other organizations have become the private army of the Oval Office.”
Under the cover and amid the distraction of the Christmas bustle, I had my last “official” contact with a source inside the Department of Homeland Security known as “Rosebud” in my writings. My source is leaving his position, retiring along with numerous others choosing to leave this bureaucratic monstrosity.
For this contact, my source took unprecedented measures to be certain that our contact was far off the radar of prying government eyes and ears. I was stunned at the lengths he employed, and even found myself somewhat annoyed by the inconvenience that his cloak-and-dagger approach caused. It was necessary, according to my source, because all department heads under FEMA and DHS are under orders to identify anyone disclosing any information for termination and potential criminal prosecution.
“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” he said, referring to the search for leaks and leakers. And the warden is obsessed. Ask anyone in DHS. No one trusts anyone else and whatever sources might be left are shutting up. The threats that have been made far exceed anything I’ve ever seen. Good people are afraid for their lives and the lives of their families. We’ve all been threatened. They see the writing on the wall and are leaving. It’s not a joke and not hype.”
The following is a narrative from my source, prefaced with the instructions to “take it or leave it,” and “disregard it at your own peril.” He added that it’s now up to each American to act on the information themselves or suffer the consequences. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that most [Americans] will never be convinced of the reality that is taking place right in front of them.”
THE PLAN EXPLAINED
“According to every internal document I’ve seen and read, and from the few people I’ve spoken with who understand what’s going on, preparations have been finalized to respond to a crisis of unprecedented magnitude within the United States. The response will include the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens under the instructions of Barack Obama.” But why?
“‘It’s the economy, stupid,’” he began, paraphrasing a campaign slogan coined by James Carville for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. “Just as I disclosed in our first meeting, the crisis will be rooted in an economic collapse. I told you last year, at a time when gold and silver were setting record highs, one specific indicator that time is very short. It is the final ‘smack down’ of the metals, gold and silver, that will presage the orchestrated economic collapse that is being planned by the bankers of Wall Street. Everybody needs to understand that this is a deliberate collapse of the U.S. economy with the oversight of the White House and the full knowledge of the Justice Department. Everyone seems to be waiting for some big, history making event that will signal the start of the collapse. The fact is that the collapse has already started. It’s incremental, like a snowball rolling down a hill. It gets bigger and rolls faster. Well, this snowball is well on its way down the hill.”
“I don’t mean to sound repetitive, but I can’t stress this enough. Contrary to what you hear, we’re already in an economic collapse, except that most people haven’t a clue. The ‘big bang’ comes at the end, when people wake up one morning and can’t log in to their bank accounts, can’t use their ATM cards, and find out that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated,” he stated.
“I’ve seen documentation of multiple scenarios created outside of DHS. Different plans and back-up plans. Also, please understand that I deliberately used the word ‘created,’ as this is a completely manufactured event. In the end it won’t be presented that way, which is extremely important for everyone to understand. What is coming will be blamed on some unforeseen event out of everyone’s control, that few saw coming or thought would actually happen. Then, another event will take place concurrent with this event, or immediately after it, to confuse and compound an already explosive situation.” I asked for specifics.
“As I said, there are several scenarios and I don’t know them all. I know one calls for a cyber-attack by an external threat, which will then be compounded by something far removed from everyone’s own radar. But it’s all a ruse, or a pretext. The threat is from within,” he stated. “Before people can regain their footing, a second event will be triggered.” Again, I asked for specifics.
“I’ve seen one operational plan that refers to the federal government’s response to a significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Information at these levels is compartmentalized. I don’t have specifics, just plans for the response. The response will be controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our lives, especially gun ownership and speech that incites people against the government. I guess some people would call it Martial Law, and they would not be incorrect. But understand that this will be a process deployed in stages. How quickly of a process remains to be seen.”
THE MECHANICS EXPLAINED
As I said, people continue to look for something big to happen first, followed by a militaristic response by the federal government against U.S. citizens. Based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe it will happen this way, although there is one unthinkable exception. That exception would involve a ‘decapitation’ of our leadership, but I’ve seen nothing even remotely suggestive of that. But I’ve heard and even read articles where that is mentioned. Frankly, though, that’s always been a threat. I suppose that if the leadership is deemed useless, or becomes a liability to the larger agenda in some manner, it could happen. The precedent exists. Let’s pray that it’s not the case now.”
“I don’t think anyone except the initiated few know the precise series of events or the exact timing, just a general overview and an equally general time period. I think we’re in that period now, as DHS has their planned responses finalized. Also, the metals are important because it’s real money, not Ponzi fiat currency. The U.S. has no inventory of gold, so the prices are manipulated down to cause a sell-off of the physical assets. China is on a buying spree of gold, and other countries want their inventory back. The very people causing the prices to drop are the ones who are also buying the metals at fire sale prices. They will emerge extremely wealthy when the prices rise after the U.S. currency becomes wallpaper. A little research will identify who these people and organizations are.""
""The decision on whether to surrender the authority of the US Congress to amend and potentially improve trade agreements goes to the very heart of whether the United Statesrespects democracy. If members of the House and Senate cannot check and balance executive branch choices that will define the economic future of the country, then the ability of the American people to petition for the redress of economic and social grievances and to have those grievances addressed by their elected representatives is severely undermined. That is what is at stake with debates about whether to eliminate basic congressional oversight of trade deals, via the “fast track” Trade Promotion Authority that President Obama seeks.
The vote Thursday by the Senate to shut down debate on a measure to provide Obama with this authority was the first step in the deconstruction of the democratic processes by which citizens can influence not just trade but economic policy. If the Senate now approves fast track, and if the House goes along with the plan, then the ability to alter or improve sweeping new trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be lost. All that will remain is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on final approval of a deal negotiated behind closed doors and without adequate scrutiny by the American people or their elected representatives.
It came when 13 Democrats joined 49 Republicans in supporting a cloture motion Thursday. Thirty-one Democrats, two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and five Republicans opposed the move to shut down debate about amendments and to effectively restrict meaningful discourse on what the measure’s sponsor, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, described as “quite possibly the most important debate that we’ll have all year in Congress.”
Among the senators who are current or potential presidential prospects, Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, voted “no,” as did Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts. So, too, did Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky. But Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Marco Rubio of Florida sided with the Obama White House and the corporate interests that have advocated aggressively for fast track and the TPP.
The Senate’s 62-38 decision to end debate on the president’s proposal to fast-track what could be the largest trade deals in American history was a travesty.""
""In President Obama's ongoing quest to "fundamentally transform" the country, the U.S. military has not been spared as now it is policy to recruit as many illegal aliens as possible -- young men and women who have no emotional ties to America and no fundamental understanding of how our constitutional republic is supposed to function.
The U.S. Army, in particular, has been busy working on recruitment efforts aimed at illegal alien young adults as part of Obama's various executive initiatives to fast-track them into citizenship -- even as Congress continues to debate whether to permit the Pentagon to move ahead.
As reported by The Hill, which covers Congress and the White House, the Defense Department has enlisted 81 illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and thus qualify under Obama's Executive-imposed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, figures provided by the Army indicate. Between January and April 8, the paper said, 43 had been enlisted.
What - are there no American kids to fill the ranks?
Yet, Congress -- which is constitutionally required to play a role in governing the nation -- is still debating whether to permit the Defense Department to enlist illegal alien children, though some members do favor it.
One of them is Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who is a Marine veteran and son of Hispanic immigrants. He has inserted language in the 2016 Defense policy bill that encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider permitting qualified illegal immigrants as "vital to the national interest." There is little discussion of what "qualified" means, other than, perhaps, "qualified" under the president's constitutionally questionable executive action.
The House is scheduled to take up debate on the issue soon, but some member of the House GOP, led by Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama, are looking to strip out the Gallego provision because they say it will endanger the passage of the Defense bill.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he will propose an amendment during consideration of the bill to remove the provision if it has not already happened by then, The Hill reported, adding: In the meantime, more DACA participants could be recruited through a Pentagon program known as the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest program, or MAVNI.
That program was created for legal immigrants with medical training or critical language skills deemed vital to the national security, according to its creator, retired Lt. Col. Margaret Stock.
MAVNI stalled in 2014 after the Defense Department made DACA participants eligible in September; the MAVNI program was not set up to accept anyone who did not have legal residency documentation.
But clearly the trajectory is to enlist more illegal immigrant children. Besides the fact that there are congressional efforts to do so and the president clearly wants it, the Pentagon is widening its programs that enlist illegal alien children. In 2015, the DoD doubled the number of MAVNI slots from 1,500 to 3,000; in October, that figure is slated to rise to 5,000.
Wayne Hall, a spokesman for the Army, said that the 81 MAVNI enlistees have all signed enlistment papers but are not yet officially in the U.S. Army. He notes that they will have to undergo a "very thorough" background check and will not begin basic training until that process is complete.
He also said the expansion of the MAVNI program was needed to fill the Army's ranks with "highly qualified soldiers who fill critical shortages," though he did not explain why those shortages could not be filled instead with young American recruits.
The debate begins
Meanwhile, the destruction of the military under Obama continues in other ways, as noted by Michael Becker, writing at the Joe the Plumber blog:""
