11/3 Predictive Programming? What Do You See?

The “ill-dark-and-naughty” ones require our permission to pull off their dastardly deeds, so to interrupt their plans, we need to withdraw our consent. Simple statements are sufficient, especially when many people join together. This is what I say/pray :

“NO ONE has MY permission to harm me or anyone else” or “I do NOT consent to trickery, lies, theft, murder or destruction.” or other variations on that theme.

Whenever you feel less than happy about anything you hear about or see happening, – or even think – say something like the above to contradict it. These statements can also be used for issues like sleep or pain – physical, mental or emotional – for some naughty ones work on a personal level to torment individuals. Don’t let them “bug” you!

The very naughty people who put on events like 9-11 assume you consent if you don’t reject their hints of coming mischief. TELL THEM CLEARLY THAT YOU DO NOT CONSENT.

I think we might be wise to also withdraw our consent for weather extremes, for some say the harsh hurricanes, earthquakes, flash floods, fake clouds, insanely intense fires, etc may not be natural at all, but may be man-made. Some naughties high up in the government have a goal to “own” the weather by 2020, but hey! – NO ONE has MY permission to manipulate the weather

Chelsea Manning: Letter from Prison

During the contempt hearing on May 16, 2019, this Honorable Court directed me to take the opportunity during my confinement to reflect on my principles with respect to the institution of grand juries in the United States. This letter responds to that directive.

The 5th Amendment provides many of our most cherished procedural safeguards, concepts foundational to our criminal legal system, including ‘due process,’ a prohibition on double jeopardy, and the right against compelled self-incrimination. The grand jury is also enshrined in the fifth amendment, however, prior to the recent publicity surrounding the Mueller investigation, most Americans only knew two things about the grand jury.

First, people hear that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Early grand juries acted independently, as investigations by citizens. Now, the grand jury process means the prosecutor decides what the grand jurors see – and what they don’t see. The grand jury imagined by the drafters of the fifth amendment – which did not involve a prosecutor – bears no resemblance to what we see today, where more than 99.9% of indictments sought are granted.

Second, we learn another, more sinister thing about grand juries: they don’t indict law enforcement. For example, in Dallas over a stretch of several years, more than 80 police shootings came before grand juries. Only one returned an indictment. (2) Grand juries have protected police officers since the slave patrols. They were used to indict abolitionists, but not people capturing and re-enslaving people seeking freedom from bondage. They were used to indict reconstructionists, while actively protecting lynch mobs. Both the ‘ham sandwich’ statement and selective indictment happen because of grand jury secrecy.

Also, a prosecutor’s presentation of a case is shaped by their own ideas and goals. There does not need to be any misconduct or bad intent on the part of a prosecutor to influence the grand jurors in a way that destroys their independence. If you look at legal scholarship about the history of the grand jury, you can see how today’s grand juries are unrecognizable from English and early American ones. The original grand jury was more than an investigator; they were supposed to protect citizens not just from unjust indictments but from unjust laws. In England, grand jurors who even allowed a prosecutor to come into the grand jury room were seen as having violated their oath. (3)

I am positive that the founders never intended the grand jury to function like those we see today. If grand juries were actually independent bodies that nullified unjust laws or their unjust application, to determine whether it was really in the public interest to decide who should be made “infamous” under the law, I would feel differently. Reading the history of grand juries, I have read of how during the American Revolutionary war, grand jurors refused to indict tax resisters against the crown, because while it was technically illegal, the grand jurors recognized that what made it a criminal act was a law imposed by an authority that most of them by that time did not recognize (4).  Nonetheless, the grand jury once provided a modicum of due process, at least to the class of people to whom due process was made available.

In 2019, the federal grand jury exists as a mockery of the institution that once stood against the whims of monarchs. It undermines the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantees of due process. Today’s grand juries do not safeguard such fundamental rights, and they are easily subject to abuse….

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52402.htm

The Legal Lynching of a Truth-Seeker: Jim Fetzer’s Stalinist-Style Show Trial

Stalinist show trials were conducted in front of rousing images. Jim Fetzer’s trial featured a tear-jerking backdrop image of Noah Pozner

Tuesday was the final day of Jim Fetzer’ defense against Lenny Pozner’s libel lawsuit. I attended and wrote up a “just the facts” report that evening. At almost the same moment I published my report, the jury came back with a verdict awarding close to half a million dollars to Lenny “Jim Fetzer gave me PTSD” Pozner.

Now it’s time for an opinion piece. And as much as I sympathize with Mr. Pozner, assuming his account is accurate, my opinion is that Jim Fetzer got a raw deal…and that the reverberations of this case will be disastrous unless it is overturned.

The whole courtroom drama was carefully scripted and controlled to ensure that the jury, as well as onlookers and reporters, got to hear only one side of the story. Fetzer was never allowed to present his defense.

Jim Fetzer’s defense is simple: Truth is an absolute defense against libel, and Fetzer published statements alleged by Posner to be libelous because he believed them to be true. What’s more, he still believes them to be true. Whether he is right I do not know. But I do know he is sincere in his beliefs.

I watched Jim Fetzer take the stand, swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”—and then watched him silenced and admonished, and the jury hurriedly chased out of the room, when he tried to speak the truth as he saw it.  Jim merely said he still believed his “libelous” statements were true. Asserting the contrary would be a lie. Not saying anything would be a lie by omission. So he was admonished and threatened by the court for the sin of not lying on the witness stand!

As I understand it, at no point during the two phases of the trial was Jim Fetzer ever allowed to present to a jury the evidence that led him to believe that Sandy Hook was an Operation Gladio style psy-op (which those who have read Daniel Ganser’s NATO’s Secret Armies know is entirely plausible) and that there was no actual school shooting (which does seem farfetched, but stranger things have happened). How could he present a truth defense without showing the evidence that led him to believe his allegedly libelous statements were in fact truthful?

According to the 7th Amendment of the Constitution:

IN SUITS AT COMMON LAW, WHERE THE VALUE IN CONTROVERSY SHALL EXCEED TWENTY DOLLARS, THE RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY SHALL BE PRESERVED…

Yet as I understand it—and perhaps someone can correct me in the comments if I am wrong—Jim Fetzer was never given the right of trial by jury to determine whether he had or had not committed libel. Instead, an obviously biased judge presided over that crucial first phase of the case, denying Jim’s Constitutionally-guaranteed right to a trial by jury. The same judge prevented Jim from presenting his truth defense, which would have entailed giving Jim full scope to present the evidence that led him to believe his statements were truthful and therefore not libelous.

It was only in the second, penalty phase of the trial that a jury was convened. And during that phase, not only was Jim prevented from presenting his truth defense to the jury, he was prohibited from even mentioning it, or from telling the truth about his beliefs.

Meanwhile the Pozner team was allowed to engage in shameless emotional manipulation of the jury. They even projected a huge adorable picture of Noah Pozner on the screen as the backdrop to the crucial back-to-back testimony of Lenny Pozner and Jim Fetzer! (Jim Fetzer, of course, was not allowed to use the big screen to project images that raise questions about the official story of Sandy Hook—images that can be found in Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, but which were, along with all other evidence supporting Fetzer’s truth defense, in essence banned from the courtroom.)

Chilling Effect?

One of the most dangerous repercussions of Pozner-vs.-Fetzer is its potential chilling effect on free speech. The decision awarded more than half a million dollars in “damages” based on the premise that a book presenting an alternative interpretation of a historical event hurt someone’s feelings. There was no tangible connection between the “libelous” statements in the book and any actual damages—loss of income, medical bills, etc. It was all about emotions: “This tearjerking Hollywood-style courtroom spectacle has whipped us into tearful sympathy with Pozner and two minutes of hate for Fetzer. Let’s express our emotions with a damage award.”

Following the court’s logic, if a German-American’s feelings are hurt by a book portraying Germans as villains in World War II, why not sue the author for libel and ban the book? Why not drag the author into court—and refuse to allow him to present the reasons he thinks his anti-German interpretation of World War II is truthful? Of course that would never happen, since popular prejudices are in sync with hatred of Germany’s mythic villainy; the court would find ways to rig the process to support the popular prejudice.

So how about these more plausible examples: African-American plaintiffs sue publishers for hurting their feelings by publishing 19th-century texts that include libelous portrayals of blacks; the grandson of Lyndon Johnson sues authors who have hurt his feelings by arguing that LBJ participated in the JFK assassination coup; a father who lost a son in Iraq sues an antiwar author for hurting his feelings by asserting that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal war based on lies and that his dead son was a war criminal.

One can imagine an almost infinite number of possible “libel” cases along these lines. And while only a few are likely to actually happen, that is a few too many—because the chilling effect of such lawsuits will terrorize authors and publishers into avoiding controversial or unpopular historiography. This is precisely what the Bill of Rights, whose purpose is to protect controversial and disturbing speech about matters of public import, is supposed to prevent.

I have had my differences with Jim Fetzer on many issues, including Sandy Hook. Specifically, I think we should be very careful about asserting or insinuating “nobody died” theories about suspected false flag events, for reasons that should by now be obvious.

But this is bigger than Jim Fetzer and Sandy Hook. This is about saving the Bill of Rights, which is under attack today as never before. Regardless of whether Jim is right or wrong about Sandy Hook, regardless of how mistaken some of his approaches may have been, the outcome of Pozner v. Fetzer presents a clear and present danger to freedom of expression in the United States.

The process of Pozner v. Fetzer appears to have been rigged precisely for the purpose of engineering this controlled demolition of our Constitutional rights. It must be appealed and overturned.

CONTRIBUTE TO JIM FETZER’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

SOURCE: JAMES FETZER

https://governmentslaves.news/2019/10/17/kevin-barrett-the-legal-lynching-of-a-truth-seeker-jim-fetzers-stalinist-style-show-trial/

FEMA Sandy Hook Crisis Drill Manual Online

Staged Massacres: Eyewitness Accounts Being Scrubbed from Internet

Red Pill: PDF: Nobody Died at Sandy Hook

The Syrian Debacle Is Actually Well Planned Chaos

For many years now I have focused a considerable amount of analysis on the subject of Syria, with an emphasis on the country’s importance to the global elites as a kind of geopolitical detonator; the first domino in a chain of dominoes that could lead to a war involving international powers. I believe this war will develop on multiple fronts, most importantly on the economic front, but it could very well turn into a shooting war involving numerous actors.

Syria is so important, in fact, that the establishment has been careful to smother all discussion about what is really going on there in a fog of propaganda. And make no mistake, BOTH Republicans and Democrats as well as eastern and western governments are participating in the lies and misdirection.  Obviously, the first and most important lie is a multi-sided one, and we can’t continue forward until it’s dissected – I am speaking of the lie of US involvement in the region.

Lie #1: The US Has Legitimacy In The Original Syrian Conflict

First, most people reading this should know by now that US covert intelligence agencies (among others) were the force behind the “revolution” in Syria against the Bashar al-Assad. The majority of the fighters coming into the region were trained and equipped in Jordan in camps run by western agencies. The program was called “Operation Timber Sycamore” and was launched in different stages from 2011-2013.

It’s clear according to the evidence that the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria were products of global establishment meddling in the area. Weapons were funneled from the Libyan crisis into the hands of “rebels” that infiltrated Syria, and equipment directly provided by the US found its way into the hands of groups that would eventually become what we now know as ISIS. The Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Bolton and many others were intimately involved in Timber Sycamore. The war in Syria was entirely engineered from behind the scenes.

The bottom line:  The US has no legitimacy there.

In the Liberty Movement we talk about this conspiracy fact often, but I don’t think many people consider the wider implications. Was the purpose merely to overthrow Assad? Was it about installing a government that was hostile to Russia? Was it to lure Iran into a vulnerable position? Was it all about oil? The answer is no to most of these questions. These are surface explanations that do not satisfy the facts on hand. There is far more to Syria than meets the eye….

What Is Really Going On In Syria?

If you’re not buying the mainstream narrative, you might be wondering why Donald Trump would suddenly abandon the Syrian border allowing Turkey to invade? You also might be wondering why he would then immediately threaten to “crush” Turkey with economic sanctions and place “thousands of US troops” on the ground if his goal was to end US involvement in Syria? The answer is in the macro-picture. That is to say, we have to ask the most important of all questions – Who benefits?

As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, geopolitical events are being exploited by the globalist establishment as distraction and cover for their controlled demolition of the economy. They need scapegoats for the implosion of the Everything Bubble, an implosion they started in 2018 with liquidity tightening policies that has now accelerated into a full-blown financial crisis.  The Turkish invasion of Syria may be the pinnacle distraction event.

With engineered chaos in Syria, Trump’s globalist handlers can achieve a historic level of chaos while avoiding direct culpability.  What do we get when we combine all the elements listed above along with lies on both sides of the political paradigm? Well, we get a rationale for war.  We also get yet another event which makes Trump look like a bumbling villain and conservatives look like fools or soulless robots.

By extension, any tensions with Turkey suggest the beginning of the end for NATO. As I predicted in January of 2019, it appears that Turkey, a key component of the western alliance, is about to exit. This furthers the globalist goal of the deterioration of the west; the decline of the old world order making way for their “new world order” in which Eastern powers will play a larger role in conjunction with certain European elements. This is a dynamic globalists like George Soros have publicly and proudly discussed in the past….

http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/3965-the-syrian-debacle-is-actually-well-planned-chaos

 

The Democrats support the “Forever War”

US President Donald Trump’s order to pull back US troops from northeastern Syria in the name of calling a halt to Washington’s “endless wars” has touched off a political firestorm. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has joined with Trump’s staunchest Republican defender, Senator Lindsey Graham, in opposition to the troop withdrawal. Pelosi tweeted of her meeting with Graham: “Our first order of business was to agree that we must have a bipartisan, bicameral joint resolution to overturn the president’s dangerous decision in Syria immediately.”

Democratic presidential candidates have roundly denounced the threat of a US pullout from Syria, many of them invoking the plight of the Syrian Kurdish YPG militia, which served as Washington’s proxy ground force in the Pentagon’s five-year-old direct military intervention in the country.

Putative Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden declared, “It’s shameful what he’s done.” The same Biden has expressed no shame for his vote in support of the criminal US war of aggression based upon lies that claimed the lives of over a million Iraqis, or for his role in the orchestration of the CIA wars for regime change in Libya and Syria that killed hundreds of thousands more.

Not missing an opportunity to demonstrate his reliability in matters relating to “national security,” Bernie Sanders proclaimed: “You don’t turn your back on allies who have fought and died alongside American troops. You just don’t do that.” Sanders has conveniently forgotten that back in the 1960s and 1970s, the main argument made by Johnson and Nixon against withdrawing from Vietnam was that America could not “cut and run” and desert its South Vietnamese political and military allies.

For her part, Elizabeth Warren, talking out of both sides of her mouth, found the best platitude for the occasion: “We should bring our troops home, but we need to do so in a way that respects our security.” In other words, the US should continue to wage war in Syria.

Trump, who has secured a $750 billion budget for the US war machine, while just last week ordering another 3,000 US troops deployed to Saudi Arabia in preparation for a confrontation with Iran, is no pacifist. He is also no fool. Even as he prepares for bigger wars, particularly against China, he knows that his public appeals for an end to Washington’s wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East strike a chord with an American population sick of these interventions.

This is particularly the case for the countless families who have borne the brunt of back-to-back deployments for their loved-ones, and the tragic cost paid by those who have returned with grievous physical and mental wounds. Significantly, the cover story of the current issue of Time focuses on “America’s Forever War.” It includes a harrowing account of the impact of one soldier’s death in Afghanistan on his wife and children.

In an essay that precedes the story of the bereaved family, novelist and Marine veteran Elliot Ackerman writes: “The burden of nearly two decades of war—nearly 7,000 [American] dead and more than 50,000 wounded—has been largely sustained by 1 percent of our population.”…

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52403.htm