The Expanding Global Footprint of U.S. Special Operations

With the possible U.S. military withdrawal from Syria in the news on a daily basis, the mainstream media has been quick to parrot the DOD’s claim that 2,000 troops, mostly special operations forces, are to be withdrawn from the country. Although the total number of U.S. special operators deployed to Syria may have approached as many as 5,000, the current headlines have not mentioned that the United States has special operations units deployed not just in Syria, but in a majority of the nations of the world. Over the past seventeen years, the forces at the disposal of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) have grown exponentially, more than doubling in size in numbers, with a budget that has also expanded four fold in that same period of time.

If U.S. SOF troops do pull out of Syria, they will still have a physical presence in over 70 nations on any given day. Although the public has an often vague and incomplete, unofficial explanation of the reasons behind these deployments, the Pentagon seems totally unwilling to explain the national defense rational or legality of these missions to anyone, including the U.S. Congress or the White House. Not only has SOCOM expanded in numbers, funding and weaponry since 2001 and the advent of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), but has acquired no small amount of political influence as well.

The U.S. special operations forces have become the darling of the military, praised by Congress, the White House, and the Media. They have willingly adopted a mythos that has been formulated and propagated by Hollywood on many levels. The U.S. public seems to worship this new class of soldier, while having little to no understanding of exactly what they do, nor any concept of how their actions might aid or hinder national security. An act has even been proposed by one state Representative to afford special income tax breaks to all SOF members.

Amidst all the praise about their prowess and successes on the battlefield, the media purposefully steers clear of reporting on their many failures. Although the U.S. has built the largest force of special operations in the world, this very fact has arguably proven to have only weakened the U.S. military as a whole. The White House, State Department and Pentagon have increasingly relied on special operations forces to bear the brunt of any and all military operations or covert actions in both acknowledged and secret areas of conflict across the globe. This over-emphasis on special operations as a military solution to all challenges has only weakened traditional, conventional forces.

While most of the public assumes that these new Spartans act to protect U.S. interests and “freedom and democracy” whenever and wherever it is deemed necessary, they have little to no understanding of how the SOF have changed since 2001, nor the increasing military and political influence that they now hold. Even fewer Americans have stopped to ponder the illegality of much of what this expanding military force is doing on a global scale, not to mention the constitutional implications of a new Praetorian class in its midst that is growing in power and influence. If history teaches us anything, it is that shadowy and unaccountable paramilitary forces do not strengthen societies that embrace democratic or constitutional governments….

OSCE Outlines Framework for Global Travel Control

A white paper on the use of PNR and API data (airline reservations), published by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in January 2019, lays out more starkly than ever before the goal of governments around the world: a permission-based system of government control and prior restraint in which a common carrier must receive “Authority to Carry” (authority to transport) with respect to each passenger, before allowing them to  board any flight.

We’ve talked about this sort of permission-based travel control before, including in this 2013 overview of the system of US government surveillance and control of travel. (See our slides from that presentation).  But we’ve rarely seen governments spell out so explicitly their intent to convert travel from a right to a privilege which can be exercise only by permission of the police:

An iAPI system allows for a two-way communication in near real-time. The airlines transmit the API message on a per-person basis to the requesting authorities at the time of check-in, while law enforcement agencies have the opportunity to decide whether a certain person is allowed or not to board a plane by issuing a board/no-board message.

The OSCE document, brought to our attention by Statewatch and NoPNR, is the latest revision of a white paper on “the use of Advance Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR)” data, revised following an OSCE seminar on “Passenger Data Exchange” with governments held in November 2018.

The diagram and description of the iAPI permission system and the mention of “Authority to Carry” — transforming the use of API and PNR from passive surveillance to active government control and prior restraint — have been added since the previous version of the white paper posted by OSCE in March 2018, less than a year ago.

Why the new openness about this government agenda? As the white paper and other recent international initiatives for surveillance and control of travel make clear,  governments have been emboldened by their largely successful (to date) policy laundering efforts to get travel surveillance and control mandated by the UN Security Council in the name  of the War On Terror and/or “aviation security” mandate.

This purported authority is of questionable validity, given that it contravenes rights to freedom of movement recognized by international treaties and the  US Constitution. And the actual basis, if any, for declining to give “Authority to Carry” a particular disfavored individual often has nothing to do with terrorism, aviation security, or any crime.

But the willingness of governments such as the members of OSCE to talk openly about their travel control agenda reflects their belief that they have obtained all the legal authority they need, and no longer have to worry about public outrage at the idea that they think freedom of movement is a special privilege, not a right.

The OSCE white paper also includes this chilling map of the countries where governments already obtain copies of commercial information about air travelers, before their flights:

These travel surveillance and control systems rely on systems for identification of travelers, which are being developed and mandated in parallel. Those efforts will be the focus of the next  annual symposium and exhibition on ICAO’s Traveller Identification Programme (TRIP) at ICAO headquarters in Montreal from June 25-28, 2019.

Only public expressions of outrage, and public acts of resistance, will get governments that want to control our movements to back down before this sort of permission-based control  of our movements becomes, as they intend, the global norm.

There’s only one network with the power to pull this off on a global scale.  It’s the same one which had the sole power to run the 9/11 false flag and make the myth stick in the MSM for 18 years, for use in just this way.     The central banksters and their minions in the financial aristocracy.

When does 9/11 denial become a crime against humanity?

Government vaccine expert witness turns whistleblower, tells truth about vaccines causing autism… total media cover-up

(Natural News) A government vaccine expert is now blowing the whistle on the link between vaccines and autism, and not surprisingly, the mainstream media has chosen to completely ignore this shocking development.

A recent broadcast of journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s Full Measure show was devoted to the story of Dr. Andrew Zimmerman. The pediatric neurologist was once a government expert witness in vaccine court proceedings, testifying that vaccines do not cause autism.

The federal vaccine court was set up in 1988 to allow those who have been injured by vaccines to receive compensation. Most people don’t even know it exists; admitting that enough people are injured by vaccines to warrant such a court would understandably cause more people to hesitate before blindly vaccinating themselves and their children.

The makers of vaccines don’t defend them in the court; instead, the federal government takes care of that. The money that is paid out to victims comes from surcharges that patients pay as part of vaccine costs rather than Big Pharma profits. In this court many claims lose, and lots did so on the testimony of Dr. Zimmerman.

Now, however, he is setting the record straight. He has claimed that during the hearings in which he testified, he told government lawyers privately that he believed that vaccines could and did cause some children to develop autism, but they covered it up.

Environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. convinced Dr. Zimmerman to document what happened. In a sworn affidavit, he says that he told Department of Justice lawyers back in 2007 that he had discovered cases where vaccines could cause autism. For example, in a certain subset of children, he said that fever and immune stimulation induced by vaccines was responsible for causing regressive brain disease in children with autism spectrum disorder features.

After raising his concern, he says he was promptly fired in an attempt to silence him. He alleges that they continued to misrepresent his opinion after that. In fact, one Department of Justice attorney said in a vaccine court hearing a few days later: “We know [Dr. Zimmerman’s] views on the issue… There is no scientific basis for a connection between vaccines and autism.” Zimmerman called that statement “highly misleading.”

Situation unlikely to improve

Kennedy has filed a fraud complaint over the incident and has passed the affidavit on to Capitol Hill leaders. However, with so many lawmakers getting money from Big Pharma, he doesn’t hold out much hope for anything being done.

Indeed, Attkisson said she spoke to 11 current and former congressmen and staff who said they were subjected to bullying, threats and pressure when questioning vaccine safety. Former Representative Dan Burton, who once headed the House Oversight Committee, said he has no doubt that Big Pharma has great influence over the CDC and the FDA.

Another former Representative who is also a physician, Dr. Dave Weldon, said that if he wanted to hold hearings on the topic of autism and vaccines, it would be “dead in the water” as fellow politicians would be unwilling to even consider discussing it. Even though Weldon is generally pro-vaccine, he said that the opinion in Dr. Zimmerman’s affidavit was consistent with his own experiences as a doctor, stating that some children do get an autism spectrum disorder from a vaccine.

Not surprisingly, the CDC has never disclosed Dr. Zimmerman’s current stance, and they continue to deny the connection between vaccines and autism. If the vaccine court continues to manipulate expert witness statements, countless victims will never be able to see justice served.

Sources for this article include:

2004: US Biolab Safety Standards in Collapse

The sunshine project was shut down because of repeated exposés like this, which is strongly suggestive that things are even worse now.   Dr. Strangelove is in charge of the henhouse.

From: The Sunshine Project <t…>
Subject: [Sunshine] US IBC Survey: Serious Problems Evident
Message-ID: <c5vqmt$2t7o$>
Date: 19 Apr 2004 01:13:49 -0500

The Sunshine Project
News Release – 14 April 2004

US Transparency Survey: Serious Problems Evident

(Austin, TX) – The Sunshine Project has made additional information available on its website concerning its Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) Transparency Survey. The Project is making this early release of information because it is deeply concerned by the fact that the survey results demonstrate, prima facie, widespread noncompliance with federal biotechnology research rules. The rampant violations call into question the effectiveness of the United States’ guidelines-based laboratory biosafety system. Survey results to date strongly suggest that increased biodefense spending is triggering a collapse in the public accountability of biological research across the US.

While dozens of nearly 400 surveyed institutions have replied adequately, revealing that many work diligently to comply with federal research rules, it is equally clear that many others do not. According to the Sunshine Project’s Edward Hammond “Internationally, the US promotes its rules as a model for the rest of the world to follow; but this research indicates the opposite. The replies to date suggest that the US system is actually a house of cards.”

The 389 federally-registered biotechnology research institutions queried by the Sunshine Project have an unequivocal obligation to release the meeting minutes it requested, yet:

– Only two out of five (42.9%) IBCs have provided meeting minutes; – Almost half (44.5%) have failed to reply to the survey at all. – The remaining 12.6% have replied but have not provided minutes.

Institutions who have not replied include two of the nation’s maximum containment biosafety level four laboratories (a Centers for Disease Control lab and a San Antonio, TX facility), an operator of Department of Energy biodefense labs, a major genome sequencing institution, and some of the largest recipients of federal biotechnology and biodefense research funds in the country.

Among those IBCs that have replied (with or without minutes), serious problems are evident. These include:

– major research centers, including institutions handling potential biological weapons agents and that conduct federally-funded biotechnology research, who do not maintain records of their IBC meetings and/or approve risky experiments without committee review;

– numerous IBCs punching holes in the national system by asserting the primacy of state law over the federal laboratory safety rules;

– widespread and arbitrary removal of information from public records;

– adoption of policies and procedures deliberately designed to evade public accountability.

In addition, analysis of US National Institutes of Health IBC data reveals that a significant number of biotechnology labs, particularly private sector labs and private non-profit labs, are not even registered under the federal laboratory safety system.

The survey, which began in late January, is assessing the quality of public disclosure by Institutional Biosafety Committees across the United States. IBCs are established under the US National Institutes of Health Guidelines on Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (“the NIH Guidelines”), which exist to safeguard against the health and environmental dangers of biotechnology research.

The final report of the survey will make recommendations for how to raise the public accountability of biodefense research.

A summary of responses to the survey is available in the biodefense section of the Sunshine Project website, or by clicking on the link below:!original/

Truthstream: The Officially Ignored Link Between Lyme Disease and Plum Island

Lyme: Medical Insurers Cultivating Antibiotic Resistance in Govt-developed Bioweapon

Edward Hammond on Bioweapons research

Fearmongering by Gates Raises Question of Staged Bioattack in USA

The Role of the Umbilical Cord at Birth

If the cord is cut before placental delivery then the exact timing becomes needlessly critical. Too early and the baby isn’t getting enough blood or oxygen. Too late and the baby might have TOO MUCH blood because of pressure on the placenta in the contracting womb.  This could result in jaundice.  The problem is compounded by a cerebral blood pressure spike that occurs at the moment of clamping if it happens before the heart’s transition to normal lung-respiratory blood flow.

The obvious solution is to wait AT LEAST until after placental delivery to allow natural (i.e. non-traumatic) separation from the uterine wall and correct blood volume transfer to the baby.     The placenta might also release hormones and stem cells into the baby during placental delivery which could be important to long term health.   And the mother’s body might get hormonal signals conducive to the postpartum process from the baby if the cord is left intact until natural mother-baby separation.  We just don’t know, and we don’t need to know.   Nature has this figured out already.

Don’t Cut Baby’s Cord – We Can Be Much Kinder from The Other Side of the Glass on Vimeo.

Intraventricular haemorrhage is a well recognised complication of preterm birth. Immediate cord clamping increases the risk of this haemorrhage (1,2) and has been implicated in other forms of brain damage.(3)

How can immediate cord clamping cause brain damage?
We have developed a computer model of fetal and adult pattern circulation. (4) The model shows what might happen when the functional umbilical circulation is suddenly occluded with early cord clamping. In fetal circulation the two sides of the heart work in parallel. 40% of the combined cardiac output (CCO) flows through the umbilical cord, while the pulmonary circulation is only about 18%. After birth, the neonate changes to an adult pattern circulation in which the two sides of the heart work in series. The output from each side is equal and is therefore 50% of the CCO of the fetus just before birth. All the output from the right ventricle passes through the pulmonary circulation.

The model clarifies what must happen when the cord is clamped before the pulmonary circulation is fully functional. When the cord is clamped 40% of the CCO must be proportionately redirected to the residual circulation. The systemic pressure almost doubles as does the cerebral circulation. The model shows that blood flow in the aortic isthmus must reverse as most of the flow through the ductus arteriosus is directed back up the aorta to the carotid arteries. Once the pulmonary circulation increases the abnormal cerebral and aortal flow returns to normal. However early cord clamping results in a loss of 40% of the cardiac return from the placenta and so shortly after the return to normal, the systemic blood pressure falls further as the cardiac output falls. If ventilation has started by this stage the pulmonary circulation greatly increases and flow through the ductus arteriosus virtually ceases, further reducing the systemic blood pressure. The filled capacity of the fully functional pulmonary circulation also reduces the circulating volume for the rest of the body….

Medical Research Rediscovers Harm of Immediate Cord Clamping

Crazy Obstetricians Pulling Uteruses Out of Women

The Umbilical Cord and Premature Deliveries

New Study Finds 41% Increase In Cancer Risk From Roundup’s Glyphosate

A comprehensive analysis of glyphosate – the most widely used weed-killing chemical in the world – reveals that those with the highest exposures to the popular herbicide have a 41% increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cancer.

The meta-analysis of six studies containing nearly 65,000 participants also looked at links between glyphosate-based herbicides and immunosuppression, endocrine disruption and genetic alterations.

The study authors said their new meta-analysis evaluated all published human studies, including a 2018 updated government-funded study known as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Monsanto has cited the updated AHS study as proving that there is no tie between glyphosate and NHL. In conducting the new meta-analysis, the researchers said they focused on the highest exposed group in each study because those individuals would be most likely to have an elevated risk if in fact glyphosate herbicides cause NHL. –The Guardian

“Together, all of the meta-analyses conducted to date, including our own, consistently report the same key finding: exposure to GBHs are associated with an increased risk of NHL,” concludes the report.

The study, which looks at both human and animal studies also suggests that glyphosate “alters the gut microbiome,” which could “impact the immune system, promote chronic inflammation, and contribute to the susceptibility of invading pathogens.

Furthermore, glyphosate “may act as an endocrine disrupting chemical because it has been found recently to alter sex hormone production” in both male and female rats.

Lastly, the study looks at genetic alterations caused by glyphosates, noting that several studies show glyphosates inducing “single- and double-strand DNA breaks,” oxidation, and other “genotoxicity” factors – though the researchers caution that this remains a controversial subject….

How to Immunize Yourself Against Vaccine Propaganda

A New York Times editorial attacks “anti-vaxxers” as “the enemy”, but it’s the Times editors who are dangerously irrational and ignorant of the science.

Free Vaccine Report!

Sign up for my newsletter and download my report “5 Horrifying Facts about the FDA Vaccine Approval Process”.


On January 19, 2019, the New York Times published an editorial mischaracterizing anyone who dares to criticize or dissent from public vaccine policy as dangerously irrational and ignorant.[1] In doing so, the Times avoided having to seriously address any of the countless legitimate concerns that parents have today about vaccinating their children according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. Consequently, the Times fulfills the mainstream media’s typical function of manufacturing consent for government policy by manipulating public opinion through deception.[2] In this case, the consent being manufactured in service of the state is for public vaccine policy, which constitutes a serious threat to both our health and our liberty.

What the Times editorial represents is not journalism, but public policy advocacy. And to persuade its readers to strictly comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule, the Times blatantly lies to its readers both about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about vaccine safety and effectiveness.

The first clue that the Times editorial aims to avoid any serious discussion of the issue is the title: “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers”. The term “anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the derogatory label that the media apply to anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. It is reflective of the mainstream media’s routine use of ad hominem argumentation in lieu of reasoned discourse. Rather than substantively addressing their arguments, the media simply dismiss the views of and personally attack critics and dissenters—and this Times editorial is certainly no exception.

The second clue is in the editorial’s subtitle: “The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.” To equate public vaccine policy with “public health”, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. It presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that vaccinating the US childhood population according to the CDC’s schedule is the best way to achieve a healthy population. Many parents, researchers, doctors, and scientists strongly and reasonably disagree.

The Times would have us believe that the science on vaccines is settled. The reality is that there is a great deal of debate and controversy in the scientific literature about the safety and effectiveness of CDC-recommended vaccines. The demonstrable truth of the matter, as the Times editorial so amply illustrates, is that what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things.

Indeed, the underlying assumption that the CDC is somehow infallible in its vaccine recommendations is indicative of how vaccination has become a religion, with those who dare to question official dogma being treated as heretics.


Spingola Show on Dangers of Ultrasound with Jeanice Barcelo

February 16: 5-6pm (CT): Jeanice Barcello; Blog talks about The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation

Listen Live:
Whooli’s Blog:
RBN Archives:

New Book: The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation