James O’Keefe joins Alex Jones to exclusively reveal the latest Epstein / Clinton Bombshell to drop.
Jeffrey Epstein was known to have enticed, entrapped, filmed and blackmailed famous, rich and powerful people, including scientists. (See https://themindunleashed.com/2019/07/real-story-jeffrey-epstein.html.)
Thanks to the following article from Salon, it occurred to me that Epstein might have enrolled his famous scientist friends to support the bankers’ worldwide carbon tax plan – which surely would have been a very profitable venture – and to rally behind “climate change” because they had unquestionable credentials and “star power”. Or might they have been promised “star status” (or other “goodies”) if they would just jump on the “climate change” bandwagon? Bribery, seduction, blackmail, threats… all are tools of the “elite” as they like to call themselves. And Epstein was apparently serving the “elite” in various ways, especially with adolescent girls, whom he also entrapped with cold cash.
Now the “elite” are trying to use their invention of “climate change” to rationalize depopulation – one of their long held ideals. (See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/scientists-call-for-population-control-in-mass-climate-alarm.)
They have plans for a 90% reduction in the Earth’s population. And just in case you think “depopulation” means “those other people”, no, m’dear, it means you too. Think hard before you embrace their use of the Hegalian Dialectic: Problem – Reaction – Solution. To learn more about how they have been playing us, see http://www.discerningthemystery.com/2017/03/problem-reaction-solution-examining.html
The list of confidants and friends who were fêted by the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein included a number of prominent scientists. Among the eye-popping names that appeared on the list: the late cosmologist Stephen Hawking, Nobel-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann, evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, physicist Frank Wilczek, neurologist Oliver Sacks, and geneticist George M. Church…
That Epstein was interested in cavorting with scientists does not bode well for the sciences at large — mainly, what it says about the culture of scientists is dangerous and antithetical to the process of science…
New Zealand’s gun grab, instituted in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, isn’t going so great. In fact, with less than two months to go before the government-imposed deadline, fewer than 20% of the estimated number of banned firearms have been handed over.
New Zealand Police Minister Stuart Nash announced this week that more than 32,000 prohibited weapons have been returned to the government since collections began in mid-July. Some estimates put the number of newly-banned military-style semi-automatic rifles in the country at up to 175,000.
This would suggest a compliance rate, so far, as low as 18 percent, 16 weeks into the buyback program. With seven weeks left to go until the amnesty period ends, if the current rate of return holds, the New Zealand government is on track to collect around 50,000 prohibited weapons pursuant to the buyback. That would impute a final compliance rate of around 29 percent, at the lower end, which would represent a modest but tangible success for policymakers.
A “modest but tangible success”? I think it’s more like a complete failure. Let’s say when the deadline passes less than one third of the banned firearms have been turned in. What exactly has been accomplished, other than the compensated confiscation of a few thousand firearms and the criminalization of tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens?
New Zealand’s estimated measure of success compares unfavorably to a similar program enacted in nearby Australia in 1996 and 1997. A well-cited review of that program reported a final compliance rate of anywhere from 40 percent to 80 percent.
However, New Zealand’s collection thus far still represents meaningful gains, especially when compared to how the U.S. has fared when trying to regulate assault weapons.
When analogous programs have been proposed in U.S. states, results have often been far less encouraging. New York passed the landmark SAFE Act in 2013, which required gun owners to register assault weapons as part of the state’s newly-expanded definition for those types of military-style rifles. One estimate put the registration rate at around 4 percent.
Yes, the compliance rate of the SAFE Act has been far lower than the New Zealand gun confiscation. That doesn’t mean that a compliance rate of less than 33% is a “success” by any means. And don’t forget, in New Zealand, gun owners don’t have the protection of the Second Amendment, as their prime minister has repeatedly stated.
“Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right,” New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said in September as the country’s parliament considered new gun control laws. “We absolutely recognize there is a legitimate need in our communities to be able to access guns, particularly our rural community, but what these changes do is recognize that actually there’s a real responsibility that comes with gun ownership.”
There’s a real responsibility that comes with making laws as well, and so far it looks like Ardern’s gun ban is going to create more armed criminals than disarm them, since she’s turning law-abiding gun owners into felons for simply maintaining possession of their legally acquired firearms. I’d say that’s pretty irresponsible, no matter how well-intended the gun grab may have been. There’s no such thing as banning your way to safety, but you can definitely ban your way to massive non-compliance. Six weeks away from its deadline, it looks like that’s exactly where New Zealand is headed.
2019-03-18 Christchurch Massacre – Don’t Fall For The Puppet Masters
2019-03-21 Christchurch Terror Attack: Mass Censorship, Mystery Shooters, And The Globetrotting Lone Gunman
2019-03-23 SGT: Christchurch Uncovered
2019-03-23 Christchurch Shooting: Sibel Edmonds on Richie Allen Show
2019-03-23 SGT: Christchurch: VANISHING BRASS
2019-04-02 The “Forbidden” Christchurch Video – 22 Discrepancies
2019-04-12 Max Igan Banned From Youtube For Exposing Christchurch Massacre
New Zealand: News Reports Suggested 2 Shooters; IEDs Found Strapped To
2019-03-19 New Zealand Event Under Increasing Doubt
infrastructure providers, forced to delete all New Zealand shooting
2019-04-02 Newsbud: The New Zealand Psyop
2019-06-10 New Zealand Just Says No to Gun Ban
Over 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations pivoted on a longstanding “global cooling” thesis that was going to blanket the earth in ice, and instead adopted what was then called the “CO2-climate problem” which would lead to theories on global warming, rising tides and economic catastrophe.
“Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm,” according to Bloomberg.
— Bloomberg Economics (@economics) November 5, 2019
Over 11,000 experts from around the world have banded together to call for solutions to the the ‘climate emergency,’ including population control – which “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.”
“We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” warned the scientists in the Tuesday edition of BioScience, in a report that includes lots of scary charts we’re guessing Tony Heller could have some fun with.
The solution? Fewer people!
When absorbed in sequence, the charts lay out a devastating trend for planetary health. From meat consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and ice loss to sea-level rise and extreme weather events, they lay out a grim portrait of 40 years of squandered opportunities.
The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write. –Bloomberg
“We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern,” reads the letter. “Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations. Schoolchildren are striking. Ecocide lawsuits are proceeding in the courts. Grassroots citizen movements are demanding change, and many countries, states and provinces, cities, and businesses are responding.
Perhaps world leaders will consult with China, which has reportedly been sterilizing Muslim women in their infamous reeducation camps.
A 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the government’s procedures and criteria for issuing “no-fly” orders against a complaint that the criteria (which are essentially “pre-crime” criteria based on predictions of future bad actions) are too vague to provide fair notice of what actions might lead to a “no-fly” order, and that the procedures do not provide the degree of procedural due process (notice of the accusations, an opportunity to see the evidence and cross-examine witnesses, etc.) required by the Constitution.
While the 9th Circuit panel left open the possibility of a challenge to the substantive grounds for a specific no-fly order, it upheld the government’s effort, in mid-litigation, to change the procedures for no-fly orders to keep challenges to no-fly orders out of U.S. District Courts and preclude any trial or adversarial or judicial fact-finding in such cases.
The 9th Circuit panel found that no-fly orders issued by the TSA under the current revised procedures are excluded from the jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts. TSA no-fly orders can be “reviewed” by a Circuit Court of Appeals only on the basis of a self-serving “administrative record” created by the TSA, and on the basis of a deferential standard that presumes the validity of the TSA’s fact-finding. The 9th Circuit panel did not address the Constitutionality of the applicable jurisdiction-stripping law, 49 U.S.C. § 46110, which is currently being challenged in the 1st Circuit in Sai v. Pekoske (originally Sai v. Neffenger).
The deadline of yet another, and perhaps the most insidious, element of the post-9/11 initiatives (a partial list of which includes the establishment of the Transportation Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and a never-ending international war against a nebulously-defined, noncorporeal enemy, “terror”) is less than one year from coming to fruition. Beginning no later than October 1, 2020, citizens of all US states and territories will be required to have a Real ID compliant card or US passport to board a commercial plane or enter a Federal government facility. Pundits citing the inevitability of what amounts to a national ID card have, regrettably, been vindicated.
Looking back, Social Security Numbers and the cards bearing them broke ground for the path to a national identification system — thank you, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. For decades there have been pointed reminders that the cards were intended to be account numbers and not integrated into a government registry of American citizens.
Repeated efforts, starting in the 1970s, to forge identifiers from the Social Security system have been rebuffed: in 1971, 1973, and 1976. The Reagan Administration indicated its “explicit oppos[tion]” to a national identification system. Both the Clinton healthcare reform plan (1993) and a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requiring Social Security Numbers on driver’s licenses were rejected (the latter in 1999) to some extent upon the basis of tacitly constituting national identifiers for Americans.
There are any number of reasons why the alleged tradeoff between liberty and security that a national ID card represents are being misrepresented. Any system designed, maintained, and run by human beings is ultimately flawed, and in any case corruptible. The existing documents from which the information fed into the Real ID program are eminently vulnerable to forgery. To provide just one example: tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Americans don’t have verifiable, “official” birth certificates.
And people can become radicalized after being issued their Real ID card.
The Real ID also represents the “last mile” in the ability of the state to track individuals in real time. With various electronic, social media, and cellphone tracking measures, there is always a delay; and one can choose not to use social media, not to own a cellphone, and opt into other methods of extricating oneself from the prying eyes of the NSA or other government agencies. But the Real ID — in particular, coupled with biometrics — fulfills Orwellian conceptions of the total surveillance state….
In this report I present rarely mentioned facts on the invasion of Afghanistan made possible by the September 11 Terror attacks. I talk about the Real Lords of the Poppy-Fields and the booming Afghan heroin trade. I also discuss the recent revelations on the latest CIA operations in Afghanistan, and what objectives these operations are geared to serve.
The media is complicit in SO much corruption and abuse. But exactly who in the media is responsible for killing the Jeffrey Epstein story three years ago?
The few times in our history when Congress has either voted to impeach a president or considered returning articles of impeachment, the process was handled very publicly.
Hearings were not held in secret. Testimony was not taken behind closed doors. Witnesses and evidence were presented out in the open so the American people, through various media of the day, were well aware of what was happening.
The reasons for the openness should be obvious, but alas, they are not for far too many Americans.
First of all, allowing someone accused of criminal activity to face his or her accuser is a fundamental legal principle of our founding.
Secondly, secret trials were banned hundreds of years ago because they are the legal instruments of tyrants: Kings and dictators holding secret proceedings can present phony “evidence” in order to achieve convictions.
Third, the accused are permitted legal representation of their own so they can challenge the prosecution’s witnesses and alleged “evidence.”
None of these founding principles are being applied to the current “impeachment inquiry” involving President Donald Trump.
Democrats, led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California, are holding the inquiry behind closed doors. They are bringing in ‘witnesses’ whose testimony is being sequestered — even as Schiff has been accused of leaking the contents of some witness testimony completely out of context.
Also, no one on the president’s legal team has been able to question any of the witnesses Democrats have called in to testify. So he doesn’t know what’s being said — other than what Schiff is leaking to the “mainstream media,” which is dutifully reporting what they’ve been provided, sans corroboration….
For the pivotal role he played in spreading mass climate hysteria, Professor Michael E. Mann of Penn State University belongs in prison.
This is the opinion of Pat Boone, the legendary rock star descendant of pioneer Daniel Boone, who’s uncovered some pretty serious scientific fraud as it pertains to the official climate change narrative – a narrative that wouldn’t have been possible to construct were it not for Mann’s creation of the infamously fraudulent “hockey stick” data graph.
As we’ve been reporting, Mann now finds himself in some pretty hot water since it’s been revealed that his hockey stick is more of a hokey stick, as it holds absolutely no scientific weight.
The recent verdict in the case of Mann v. Ball proves that Mann pretty much contrived his hockey stick out of thin air. Though every mainstream media and mainstream science outlet on the planet accepted it as if it was gospel truth, the reality is that it’s patently false – and those paying attention are now fully aware of how Mann pulled a fast one on the world.
Hilariously, Mann tried to sue actual climate scientist Dr. Tim Ball for libel after Ball called Mann out for this scam. But Mann’s case was ultimately dismissed after more than eight years of him refusing to present his datasets to the court, which we can only guess don’t actually exist since he refuses to comply.
Even so, Mann’s conclusion that man-made climate change is still somehow real has continued to persist, resulting in billions, if not trillions, of dollars being stolen from the hard-working people of this country who’ve been hoodwinked into supporting climate policies that were crafted around Mann’s lies.
Michael Mann’s climate lies have cost taxpayers trillions – will he ever see justice?
Thankfully, the whole thing is now being blown wide open, as it should be. But one wonders whether or not Mann will ever be held fully accountable for his crimes in the same way that Bernie Madoff was following the last major financial collapse.
Boone sure hopes so, which is why he’s been writing a multi-part series about Mann’s pseudoscientific nonsense, which was swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the climate-deranged masses without so much as a single question about its validity.
“Even in response to a congressional inquiry, Mann refused to provide the test numbers,” Boone writes in the third of his multi-part series probing Mann’s longstanding claims about global warming.
“He did provide code, and that code revealed for certain that Mann calculated a verification r2 statistic check during the summer of 2005 … Likewise the National Academy of Sciences similarly asked Mann questions on whether he performed the verification r2 regression tests to verify whether his graph’s hockey stick shape was correct.”
It was at this precise moment, explains Boone, that Mann caught himself in a lie from which he couldn’t escape.